(via /.)
"Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology."
Read More...
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Friday, May 29, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
I wiki, you wiki, we all wiki on the wiki-goodness!
Get on the internets and you'll see some genius post a link to wikipedia.org. Not long after, Genius #2 will disagree with something int he wikipedia article and call all of wikipedia into question.
Let's use a real world example:
Genius: "A wikipedia article on expertise says it takes 10 years or 10,000 hours to become an expert."
Genius #2: "Yeah right. You know anyone can edit wikipedia, right? It's all crap."
Often that last sentence is implied, rather than stated.
But does Genius #2 have a point?
The quick answer is "Almost; but not really; but it depends on the article." ("Quick" not "simple", the simple answer is: "not really".)
The definitive study for the reliability of wikipedia is... three guesses, and the first two don't count... that's right: wi ki pedia.
And if you read all those articles, you can go home now; I won't say anything you can't find there. Except: The argument that "anyone can edit wikipedia" is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on a webpage. It's spurious, bullshit, not-logical, some might say "stupid". I'd say "stupid"; but I'm an asshole.
Wikipedia has its faults. Jello Biafra's page and the Dead Kennedys page are prime examples of this. Look at the history and discussion tabs for each of those. At one point, Jello fans and Jello haters were waging wiki war. Edits were made on both pages- and others- with each side trying to slant the articles toward their viewpoint. Jello's fans were saying "Jello is awesome", Jello's detractors were saying "Jello is a fuckhead." At one point Jello's page became locked, due to the- essentially- vandalism being wrought on it. This had many sources/causes; but came down to stances on Dead Kennedys material and who said/did what to who about what. Each side sought to interpret the facts in a way that made their side seem the only logical side. It got bad.
However, note a couple of things: When this happened, the community responded by locking out edits to keep the bullshit out of the article. Note also that we can go look and see when/where/what was changed and sometimes even why it was changed. To put it another way, for every asshole who wants to vandalize wikipedia, there is an asshole who wants wikipedia to be prestine and accurate and full of TRUTH.
Lastly, James Randi, during the Amazing Show with James Randi and at other times, has said that, on occasion, someone will intentionally put blatantly false information into his wikipedia article. He then tells about how swiftly such information is discovered, removed (or removed to the talk page), and generally dealt with. Anecdotal, sure; but this isn't supposed to be definitive, it's supposed to be further evidence of how wikipedia can- and does- regulate itself.
In the end, wikipedia has its problems, but so does Britannica. If you're looking for information about people- especially little known or controversial figures- be careful. If you're looking up long established scientific principles, you're probably okay. Wikipedia is full of citations, use them to check facts. In the end, wikipedia may not be the most accurate encyclopedia in the world; but it's better than citing this livejournal post a friend of a friend once read.
And if you encounter Genius #2, feel free to give them the link to wikipedia's article on wikipedia's reliability, criticism, or simply itself. They deserve it for being a jelly-brained half-wit. ;-)
Read More...
Let's use a real world example:
Genius: "A wikipedia article on expertise says it takes 10 years or 10,000 hours to become an expert."
Genius #2: "Yeah right. You know anyone can edit wikipedia, right? It's all crap."
Often that last sentence is implied, rather than stated.
But does Genius #2 have a point?
The quick answer is "Almost; but not really; but it depends on the article." ("Quick" not "simple", the simple answer is: "not really".)
The definitive study for the reliability of wikipedia is... three guesses, and the first two don't count... that's right: wi ki pedia.
And if you read all those articles, you can go home now; I won't say anything you can't find there. Except: The argument that "anyone can edit wikipedia" is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on a webpage. It's spurious, bullshit, not-logical, some might say "stupid". I'd say "stupid"; but I'm an asshole.
Wikipedia has its faults. Jello Biafra's page and the Dead Kennedys page are prime examples of this. Look at the history and discussion tabs for each of those. At one point, Jello fans and Jello haters were waging wiki war. Edits were made on both pages- and others- with each side trying to slant the articles toward their viewpoint. Jello's fans were saying "Jello is awesome", Jello's detractors were saying "Jello is a fuckhead." At one point Jello's page became locked, due to the- essentially- vandalism being wrought on it. This had many sources/causes; but came down to stances on Dead Kennedys material and who said/did what to who about what. Each side sought to interpret the facts in a way that made their side seem the only logical side. It got bad.
However, note a couple of things: When this happened, the community responded by locking out edits to keep the bullshit out of the article. Note also that we can go look and see when/where/what was changed and sometimes even why it was changed. To put it another way, for every asshole who wants to vandalize wikipedia, there is an asshole who wants wikipedia to be prestine and accurate and full of TRUTH.
Lastly, James Randi, during the Amazing Show with James Randi and at other times, has said that, on occasion, someone will intentionally put blatantly false information into his wikipedia article. He then tells about how swiftly such information is discovered, removed (or removed to the talk page), and generally dealt with. Anecdotal, sure; but this isn't supposed to be definitive, it's supposed to be further evidence of how wikipedia can- and does- regulate itself.
In the end, wikipedia has its problems, but so does Britannica. If you're looking for information about people- especially little known or controversial figures- be careful. If you're looking up long established scientific principles, you're probably okay. Wikipedia is full of citations, use them to check facts. In the end, wikipedia may not be the most accurate encyclopedia in the world; but it's better than citing this livejournal post a friend of a friend once read.
And if you encounter Genius #2, feel free to give them the link to wikipedia's article on wikipedia's reliability, criticism, or simply itself. They deserve it for being a jelly-brained half-wit. ;-)
Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
