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

 

[lionelhill]

This is a question beyond Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is just a collection of articles written by whoever cares to contribute, with a search mechanism. What's different to the internet+google? You can use google to find all sorts of articles written by all sorts of people, and, again, some are excellent, some unreliable.

We just have to learn to judge our sources.

 

[pmonett]

lionelhill :

I would agree with you, but for one thing : no one is preaching that the Internet, by sole virtue of its existence, is the most reliable, best alternative reference ever made and refusing to even consider that other works (such as, books) may be of relevance.

For the rest, what you say is entirely true. Sources must be evaluated as to their trustworthyness. Unfortunately, some people see the word Wiki and shut off their critical-thinking units.

Of course, there are other people who do that with the Bible , and yet others who have long forgotten the very definition of the word "think". Nonetheless, I am sure that, in the long run, intelligence will prevail.

If we don't wipe ourselves from the planet first.

Pascal.

 

[CajunCenturion]

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.

Therein lies two big problems - the problem of perception, and the requirement of foreknowledge. If you don't have much foreknowledge of the subject matter, then you have no way of judging if the article author has an obvious or firm grasp of the subject. That necessitates that you put faith in the authors and editors of the material. In the case Britannica, I have confidence that the material has been properly researched and meets a certain degree of accuracy, otherwise it wouldn't have been published. As pmonett has corrected stated, Britannica is publically held accountable, and if they fall short, they'd go out of business. People do not continue to buy an inferior product, and folks, Britannica isn't cheap. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not subject to that kind of scrutinty, nor risk of failure. Because people do not pay for it, people do not hold it to the same level of accountability; they will simply look elsewhere.

Put another way, Britannica literally, puts its money where its mouth is. Wikipedia doesn't suffer the finanicial repurcussions of being wrong.

The second issue is one of perception, and it's one that I suspect we're all guilty of, at least to some degree. If the article is well written, using formal language with proper syntax and grammar, we tend to assume the material is accurate, and of course, the reverse. However, that's not necessarily true. The interesting part is when you come across material that is poorly written, improper grammar, bad spelling, and otherwise totally unprofessional, do you automatically assume that it's in-accurate? It's a matter of perception, and of impression, but it's very real.

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.

There is a big difference between accuracy and completeness.

For what it's worth, I did look up Quintin Hogg in the Britannica, and in addition to an article on Quintin Hogg, English philanthropist, social reformer, and founder of the Polytechnic, I found the following:

Quintin McGarel Hogg, Baron

British politician (b. Oct. 9, 1907, London, Eng.—d. Oct. 12, 2001, London), between 1938 and 1987 served six Conservative governments in a variety of posts, most notably 12 years (1970–74, 1979–87) as lord high chancellor (head of the British judiciary), a position his father, Viscount Hailsham, had held in the 1920s. Hogg was educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, called to the bar in 1932, and took silk in 1953. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1938 but was forced to move to the House of Lords on his father's death (1950). A passionate and often eccentric politician, he was finally allowed in 1963 to relinquish the title 2nd Viscount Hailsham, which he had never wanted. He lost in his bid for Conservative Party leader that year but was reelected to the Commons. In 1970 he was granted his own peerage and returned to the Lords. When he retired in 1987, he was the longest-serving lord chancellor of the 20th century.

I grant you that the article in Wikipedia is more detailled -- and that it one of the benefits of Wikipedia -- but that's a far cry from accusing Britannica of being unreliable for leaving him out altogether.

--------------
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]

Interesting...if you go to Wikipedia and look up "Wikipedia" you will see a note that the page is locked from editing "until disputes are resolved." How ironic.

_____
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]

 

[lionelhill]

.. but that's quite normal. Try writing something really rude about tek-tips on this site and see how long your posting survives. Only natural, really. I'd do the same.

 

[langleymass]

By the way, this particular forum used to have a poll where people could rate software. There would be a smile, frown, and something in between. This has been taken off, for some reason. I remember, for example, that the awful Arcserve software had over 60% frown rating.

 

[chiph]

Try writing something really rude about tek-tips on this site and see how long your posting survives.

That's usually because people with a gripe often don't keep it professional. Being un-professional will get your posts red-flagged here pretty quickly.

It's all in how you say it.

But if you really do have a problem with the site, you can contact the management via the "Contact Us" link at the very top of the page. The owners like to receive constructive feedback.

Chip H.

____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[dkediger]

By the way, this particular forum used to have a poll where people could rate software. There would be a smile, frown, and something in between. This has been taken off, for some reason. I remember, for example, that the awful Arcserve software had over 60% frown rating.

Over the last several years, commercial software vendors have gotten very litigous toward any form of 3rd party software "reviews" or "ratings" that were not "sanctioned" by that company or where the company cannot respond.

 

[gbaughma]

Over the last several years, commercial software vendors have gotten very litigous toward any form of 3rd party software "reviews" or "ratings" that were not "sanctioned" by that company or where the company cannot respond.

What happened to the days where people would take reviews as constructive criticism? While I agree that software companies should be able to respond to something (such as "we've addressed that issue with service pack xyz"), litigation because their sucky software got a bad review is just in poor taste. Spend the money you spent for the lawyer to instead fix the software and keep your customers happy, and the world would be a better place.


Just my 2¢

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Spend the money you spent for the lawyer to instead fix the software and keep your customers happy

That assumes the the critical review came from a customer, and not a competitor, whose sole purpose behind the bad review is to damage your credibility.

Getting back to Wikipedia, that is directly consistent with one of the issues at stake. Wikipedia doesn't vet its sources prior to publication.

--------------
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

 

[langleymass]

I know what you mean about "reviews" by the competition. I definitely think the bio of Ross Jeffries on Wikipedia is a hatchet job. It mentions that he is teaching and studying things that he isn't studying. I e-mailed Ross about it, and he just thought it was best to ignore it.

 

[gbaughma]

no one is preaching that the Internet, by sole virtue of its existence, is the most reliable

... and yet, schools give assignments to students where they are required to research on the Internet.

I've heard some really ignorant statements about the 'net over the past few years.

..."Everything is on the Internet."
..."I don't need an encyclopedia, I have the Net."

... and the best one from an angry mother after little johnny was caught looking at pr0n...

..."I'm going to sue the Internet."



Just my 2¢

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

 

[dkediger]

And from our local school district's promo for a 1:1 high school notebook initiative:

Access to the world's largest library without worry of closing times and unavailable materials.

I suppose they could be meaning the Library of Congress online or some other similar location, but the context or the rest of the promo was clearly the internet "in general."

Fine, there are tremendous resources available on the 'net; Wikipedia capable of being one under appropriate circumstances. Primary among those circumstances is having taught how to vet sources for veracity.

 

[lionelhill]

... which is not a new problem. I hope no one believes everything they read in the lower end of the newspaper spectrum (or even in the quality end; every newspaper has its slant).

One of the best outcomes of learning history is learning how to evaluate sources.

 

[MasterRacker]

Here's a pretty cynical take:

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70670-0.html

_____
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]