Do we take the Wikipedia seriously? 1

[GwydionM]

As requested, I've started a new thread about this interesting new development.

The Wikipedia began in 2001, as an offshoot from a project that aimed to produce a free online encyclopedia by experts chosen by the project. As a side-line, they created a 'wiki', a project that anyone could contribute to without qualification, initially without even registering.

The Internet has had many such projects, most of which stayed small. The Wikipedia grew and grew and in 2005, it started getting noticed. It absorbed the original project and generated increasing interest.

Speaking personally, I noticed it in 2005, when I kept finding its articles on Google searches, and also found that it was often the best-informed source I could get to on-line.

It was also in 2005 that it started getting a lot of mentions in mainstream media. By this time it had hundreds of thousands of pages and hundreds of thousands of regstered members. As of now there are 990,180 articles and 981,133 registered users. Both figures are on course to reach the million mark in March.

Rules were tightened in 2005 - they began by allowing anyone to add or change anything. Now you have to be a registered user to add an article. Still, I've found the quality of articles to be good. Clearly they can be wrong, but so can regular encyclopedias.


------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[CajunCenturion]

What do you think about this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_history

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[MasterRacker]

The biggest flaw in the Wiki is the collectivist idea that every single opinion is equally valid. There is no recognition or weight given to expertise.

Supposedly, if someone posts something that is incorrect, someone else will come along and fix the error. In practice however, there have been numerous cases where the error was reintroduced by the original poster. The registration in place now is an attempt to reduce these occurances. I think this will have limited success without some precedence given to recognized expertise.

In my own observations, Wiki can be generally good on technical subjects, but on political or cultural subjects, quality is questionable.

The underlying philosphy is "Whatever the majority believes, must be the Truth". I personally do not believe that is a valid philosophy. It certainly does not agree with scientific method.



_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[EBGreen]

I mostly agree with you Jeff, however on the subject of it agreeing with the scientific method, two things. One, you say (and I agree) that the wiki tends to be better on technical topics than on political and cultural topics. Why would the scientific method apply to such "fuzzy" subjects. They are by definition a matter of personal opinion not natural law. Second, the wiki is constantly being subjected to peer review. That is one of it's strongest features. This does follow at least in part the concepts embodied in the scientific method.

[red]"... isn't sanity really just a one trick pony anyway?! I mean, all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you are good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit!" - The Tick[/red]

 

[dkediger]

But yet the review is limited to post-publish, and not the additional pre-publish as is customary in the academic/scientific/medical journal world.

In the non-scientific realm, you also have the recent favorable editing of US Congressional bios by staff members:
Questionable Bio Edits.

You could argue that yes, they were detected and are being addressed, but at the same time, nothing published to the internet really ever "dies" either.

 

[MasterRacker]

My comment about scientific method was meant to only apply to technical articles. However, once again, to have a valid peer review, you are implying some kind of recognition of expertise in order to determine who is a valid "peer".

On a pure cultural level, I would agree about mob rule. If 75% of a society decides one day that self-cannibalism is a good thing, then by definition, eating yourself is the "right" way to behave in that society.

The thing that worries me about mob rule is that it's creeping into science. A few months ago, when the large body was discoverd beyond Pluto, a new debate came up about what exactly is a "planet". An actual degreed astronomer made the comment that "since everyone has called Pluto a planet for the last 75 years we should just continuie to do so." I was shocked. To me, you scientificly define what is a planet and if Pluto doesn't fit that definition, it's no longer called a "planet".

I worry about fuzzy thinking getting into scientific and technical articles, in Wiki and elsewhere. As I said, from what I've seen, Wiki technical info has been generally good, but I don't think anyone should blindly accept it. We should all do what journalists are supposed to do and get at least one other independent source to validate against. (This is not necessarily easy on the Internet. It's amazing sometime how many articles you find that look independent but end up all having spawned from the same original source.)

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[dennisbbb]

I too take Wikipedia technical articles with a grain of salt. Generally speaking Wikipedia is a quick source for some quick info such as biography of a hollywood star, how stuff works, and on general definition on a certain disease.

 

[kHz]

I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference for a thesis or dissertation.

 

[jsteph]

Well, who says Encyclopedia Brittanica, World Book, or any of the other 'real' encylopedias are correct either?

I read an article that showed that there were an equal or greater occurrance of errors in those references.

My point being: who says the contributors to the printed encylopedias are 'better' than those who contribute to wikipedia?
--Jim

 

[EBGreen]

Here is a study conducted by the Journal Nature. Wikipedia appears to be slightly less accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica, but only marginally so.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

[red]"... isn't sanity really just a one trick pony anyway?! I mean, all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you are good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit!" - The Tick[/red]

 

[MasterRacker]

Here's an article I agree with:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html

Tom, I read an article about that study a while ago that pointed out flaws in the methodology. Unfortunatley I've been unable to find it again (darned Internet is too big...). Once criticism I remember specifically is the study made no distinction as to the severity of the innacuracies. It simply counted them. (Kind of like Wiki's own lack of recognition for expertise.)

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[langleymass]

I generally do take it seriously. Everything has an agenda, certainly the World Book does. Some of its agendas are terrible.

Interestingly enough, I knew Jimmy Wales years ago back in 1995 or so. He is now the founder of Wikipedia.

 

[langleymass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg

My opinion of Wikipedia has just soared. Go to this link, and you can see all the "offensive" Muslim cartoons.

I know Jimmy Wales well enough that he wouldn't let something like this intimidate him.

 

[gbaughma]

I dunno... I guess I've always thought of the WIkipedia as the "Open Source" encyclopedia.

I like the idea... yes, I mean, people who are mis-informed, un-educated, or even downright "mean" can post misleading things there, but eventually it will be corrected by someone more in the know.

As far as the original poster being incorrect, that can certainly happen; but then again, that happens in everything. That's why we have Beta versions of code.

My advice? Use Wikipedia as a "thought-provoking launch pad", and go verify the information yourself once you have a better handle on what you're researching.


Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[jsteph]

...and go verify the information yourself...

Where? I guess the gist of my point was that there is no real 'gospel' of reference. I'm sure in the past most people just assumed that if it were published in Encyclopedia Brittanica or another such reference, it was the undisputable truth. Now that wikipedia is under scrutiny, so are those other 'bricks & mortar' references.

And neither are completely without fault nor agenda.
--Jim

 

[GwydionM]

Wikipedia now has a million regular pages and a million registered members. Growing fast, as well.

As for reliability, try looking up Quintin Hogg on the Britannica. It has the 19th century educationalist, but not his grandson, who nearly became British Prime Minister in 1963. And who continued as a major Tory politician into the Thatcher era.

------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[gbaughma]

Now that wikipedia is under scrutiny, so are those other 'bricks & mortar' references.

Well, I guess the truth of the matter is....

The only true knowledge is in knowing that we know nothing.
--Socrates

Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[Sympology]

The Britannica has hit back at Natures article saying it was at best flawed and at worse fabricated:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[GwydionM]

Between a non-partisan magazine and a commercial outfit that sees itself being undercut by a free service, which do you believe?

------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[pmonett]

the wiki is constantly being subjected to peer review

Unfortunately, this is not true, as a "peer" is supposed to be someone who knows, whereas a Wiki can be edited by any moron with a keyboard. I know that you're going to say "but someone else can correct it !", and that is true ; the issue for me is in the word "can". It should be "someone WILL correct it with valid data", and that, Wikipedia cannot (and will not) ensure. Especially when people who do have the knowledge have been brushed off by the overseers as irrelevant.
It's one thing to boast about enabling collective knowledge, it is another thing entirely to give the shove to the people who actually know what they're talking about.

Between a non-partisan magazine and a commercial outfit that sees itself being undercut by a free service, which do you believe?

Unfortunately, the non-partisan magazine has been proven to be quite partisan in this matter, and that is the other problem with Wikipedia. Its pseudo-egalitarian mindset infects some people with undue zeal, to the point of making editors forget to do the math properly and present biaised results.
Britannica may be a commercial outfit, but if you point out an error Britannica WILL correct it - after verification - and that will be the end of the issue. It's reliability and credibility is at stake, and with them, the earnings of the shareholders. I'm no capitalist admirer, but in this case it does work. Britannica has publicly stated that its goal is to be a reference about everything, and the public can therefor hold them accountable to it, with the force of law if need be.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, guarantees nothing, and makes no promise of correcting any error. Instead, Wiki and their zealots will simply say something along the line of "anyone can correct it, why don't YOU". Sorry, but I cannot give a shred of credibility to a site that holds that kind of language.

Which does not mean that I don't use Wikipedia. I do consult it whenever I might find information of use, but every time I read a Wiki I evaluate the data and critically assess it for credibility. If the wiki is badly written, badly structured or has glaring mistakes, then I discard it and search elsewhere. If it is properly written in a correct, formal language showing structure, forethought and an obvious grasp of the subject, then I tend to take it at face value unless I am personally knowledgeable on the subject.

So, to be clear, I am not rabidly against Wikipedia, nor do I tend to blindly adore it. I use it as any other resource : I take what I can use and discard the rest.
The only thing I object to is the tendancy people have to state that Wiki is the best reference, simply because it is open.
Open software is good, because more good programmers can contribute and make something better. Unfortunately this does not translate when it comes to knowledge, because few actually hold the knowledge, whereas any numbskull can sound intelligent and wrongly convince people who do not have a basic grasp of the subject.
In a time where phishing attacks and social engineering are so effective, I am rather surprised of the intensity of the defence that is raised around the fundamentally flawed concept of Wikipedia. Of course, the issue at stake is how to ensure 100% reliability when the contributors have no need to prove that they know what they're talking about.

It is good to have the possibility of centralizing knowledge in a freely-available resource, it would be better if there were a guarantee that the resource was at least as reliable as other resources can be.
Structurally, Wikipedia is not yet there. It can still be useful, though.

Pascal.