Wikpedia... (grrrr....)

[fantasticsound]

How many of you are aware of the storm brewing around Wikpedia?

 

Nashville Tennessean editor emeritus, John Seigenthaler Sr. was recently defamed and libeled by a Wikpedia contributor who claimed, among other things, that he was a former communist who lived in the Soviet Union for 12 years and that he was connected with the Kennedy assasinations. (In reality, he worked with Robert Kennedy.)

 

In response, Wikpedia will now require registration of its' contributors. Previously anyone could write into Wikpedia anything they chose to write. If it wasn't obviously erroneous, Wikpedia's volunteer army of checkers would leave it. It took over 100 days to rectify the "bio" of Seigenthaler.

 

Read more here

 

This hit home on Tedster's "new courier" thread, as several posters mixed up old Ford and GM product names and the japanese partners who actually built the cars. Those were tiny errors that were quickly picked up by other forumites, but what if nobody on the thread realized the mistakes? Now those comments would exist, seemingly as factual statements with incorrect information.

 

Now apply that to Wikpedia, which heralds itself as a source of accurate information from everyone, for everyone. Kinda scary.

 

So, do you use Wikpedia as a source of facts? Do you trust it?

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

That's interesting, didn't knew that all that stuff is written by amateurs, and delivered via uploading.

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Magpel]

 

Originally posted by fantasticsound So, do you use Wikpedia as a source of facts? Do you trust it?

 

 

The "comments" feature--by which the community critiques, confirms, and challenges Wiki entries--is supposed to perform the function of content "levelling,"and verification, but of course this is a dynamic and imperfect process.

 

So my final answer is, no, I don't trust it, but I also don't reflexively distrust it. It's a really promising, dynamic model. I dig it, and, of course, user beware.

 

In some ways, however, the Seigenthaler affair is kind of screwy evidence that the Wiki model works--that the truth will out via the cooperation of the information community.

 

So there are obvious reasons to prefer standard peer-reviewed resources. For example, most college professors would laugh at a Wikipedia citation in serious research even before the Seigenthaler issue came to light. but peer-review has its limitations--namely scope and reach--and is of course also vulnerable to tampering and political sway.

[fantasticsound]

Ok, Magpel, but you're missing the point when you say the Siegenthaler incident proves the system works.

 

It was 4 or 5 months that the malicious bio was allowed to stand before he became aware of it. 4 or 5 months that he was libeled, yet he can't hold anyone responsible without filing 5 - 6 figure lawsuits, just to obtain the name of the person who posted the material. That is not proof the system works. It's evidence of a system that is broken.

 

As CNN's interviewer (Phillips) said in the interview with Siegenthaler and the founder of Wikpedia, Jimmy Wales;

 

 

Jimmy, what's interesting, too -- but what's interesting too, is you know, John's a big name. He can write an article and create a discussion, like we're having right now, because of who he is and his reputation. I mean there are so many people that don't have the opportunity to do that. And so their names and reputation can be on the line there

 

 

If that's a model of an information system that works our country is in big trouble.

[Magpel]

Well, I'm not sure I'm missing the point, just making a different one than you. You asked if I trusted Wikipedia, and my answer remains not implicitly. User beware.

 

Any "open" system is vulnerable to this kind of abuse, and if such abuse prompts regulation, then it is no longer "open," though I suppose there are some feasible hyrbids.

 

Wikis work best, I think, among expert communities with a finer focus--say, IT resources or literary criticism or audio engineers.

 

As for the libel, I'm sorry for the guy. But Wikipedia didn't invent fallacious reporting. That was Judith Miller.

 

 

[Kiwiburger]

Information on the internet is no less or no more suspect than information in books or magazines/newspapers.

 

If you believe everything in print, you are a mug.

 

Very few "facts" in life are solid axiomatic truths. Quantum physics, history, religion, politics - lies, lies, lies for the most part.

 

Facts are just widely believed ideas - if you can't verify for yourself, you could be propagating a lie yourself.

[BillRoberts]

It's turned into a {censored}ing flame fest over there. I can't begin to tell you how much time has been wasted removing crap that was misinformation.

 

Let the rats out of the cage and live the ratty life..I suppose.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally posted by Kiwiburger if you can't verify for yourself, you could be propagating a lie yourself.

 

cogito, ergo sum, or new: i propagate myself, therefor...

 

[phaeton]

Wikipedia, like most 'open source' or 'open license/cast of thousands' things is subject to human agenda.

 

As long as wikipedia remains fairly unknown, it will remain mostly factual and good. It was only a matter of time before someone would intentionally or unintentionally write in a diatribe of false info.

 

It's too bad, but it's unfortunately the breaks...

[Ani]

I have not read the attached article, nor have I read through this entire thread; just enough to get the vibe and make comment. Upon the second visit to Wikpedia I noticed that the information was controversial to information that I had researched. It was at that time that I discovered that the information was user contributed and openly edited by all users. I have never returned to the site for the simple fact that the information is subject to falsification and misinformation from multiple contributors that are not required to establish their credentials or even reveal their identity.

[object.session]

i don't think i'll really be pained by believing something false. not the stuff i look up on wikipedia, anyway. of course, i'm not going to cite any wikipedia documents in any technical papers any time soon. (and not just because i don't write technical papers anymore.)

 

anyway, yes, i usually trust what i read on wikipedia. i think it's somewhat remarkable. i don't know any statistics on the percentage it's correct, but it seems pretty high for what it is. the system there is definitely effective than the (lack of) system that most of the internet has.

[blue2blue]

Yah... thank God all there are no inaccurate "facts" bandied about by the commercial media.

 

:D

 

 

Seriously, the concept behind Wikipedia may be strange to a lot of folks -- but in my experience it appears to work quite well.

 

 

Of course, I don't accept everything at face value from Wikipedia -- you'd be a fool to take anything at face value from ANY information source.

 

 

Yes... you can step into the stream in between the time someone has posted erroneous or slanted information and someone else has corrected or annotated it -- but from my experience -- and I often have SOME expertise on the stuff I look at, there -- things are corrected quickly and are USUALLY quite ballanced.

 

Frankly, I'm a bit concerned that they're requiring registration. As I understand it, they had previously been able to police themselves fairly well by sparingly banning the wiki version of trolls.

 

 

Bottom line: you should approach ALL media with skepticism.

 

But wiki's with a critical momentum (as Wikipedia certainly has) can be self-correcting in a timely and accurate fashion that private information sources almost never are.

[blue2blue]

 

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide That's interesting, didn't knew that all that stuff is written by amateurs, and delivered via uploading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigenthaler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Putnam

 

 

 

On the contrary, many or most of the people whose contributions have staying power are professionals, often academics or others with specific expertise.

 

 

I'd be interested to see how much legitimately incorrect information one can find uncorrected or uncontested on Wikipedia.

 

When you find it -- post it.

[blue2blue]

 

Originally posted by phaeton Wikipedia, like most 'open source' or 'open license/cast of thousands' things is subject to human agenda. As long as wikipedia remains fairly unknown, it will remain mostly factual and good. It was only a matter of time before someone would intentionally or unintentionally write in a diatribe of false info. It's too bad, but it's unfortunately the breaks...

 

 

 

On the contrary -- there is a built in mechanism to prevent that -- other readers with correct or contrary information.

 

It's actually small wikis that have not reached "critical mass" which are not properly self-correcting. The bigger and busier and more well-known the wiki -- the faster and better the self-correction.

 

It's a marketplace concept. (Okay... I know a lot of people in our society clearly don't have a grasp on marketplace theory, but geez. You should.)

 

Again -- if you guys can find incorrect information that is uncorrected and uncontested in Wikipedia -- I'd be really interested to see you post it here.

 

 

Really interested.

[fantasticsound]

Talk about a self fulfilling prophesy..

 

It's not whether we can find erroneous information in the thousands or tens of thousands of entries in Wikpedia, blue. It's that it is out there, unedited, and it's only found when someone complains!

 

I love how supporters of wikis are saying they're self correcting most of the time. The point is you can't know how much incorrect information is out there because there are too many listings that are not shared, cultural IQ information. Not enough people are out there to know the misinformation.

 

Broadcast and paper news are supposed to find at least two credible sources to make a determination that a "fact" is, itself, credible. Wikpedia requires no fact checking. The bio in question was corrected 3 days after it was posted... for a misspelling of the word, "early". Nothing about the content over 4 - 5 months, and it would've remained that way had the person himself not complained.

 

That's hardly encouraging.

 

I'm not saying have faith in every word said on broadcast news or in the papers. Far from it. But at least they have the intention of seeking the truth and verifying it before putting it out to the increasingly connected world. Wikpedia has no accountable verification process and nobody actively researching information that's been posted there for accuracy.

 

It's a fallacy to think such a system is self correcting for anything beyond the obvious. Sure, they'll catch misinformation about a president or a well known celebrity. Not so with the many entries of lesser celebrities, niche-famous people within other walks of life, etc.

[fantasticsound]

And let's not forget that Answers.com and Reference.com copied this BS wrote from Wikpedia, compounding the misinformation. Had Siegenthaler not written an editorial about the situation they probably wouldn't have edited their information ever.

 

And that doesn't take into account a dozen or more other sites that also pulled the information from Wikpedia.

 

Self correcting my ass.

[object.session]

 

Originally posted by fantasticsound Broadcast and paper news are supposed to find at least two credible sources to make a determination that a "fact" is, itself, credible. Wikpedia requires no fact checking. The bio in question was corrected 3 days after it was posted... for a misspelling of the word, "early". Nothing about the content over 4 - 5 months, and it would've remained that way had the person himself not complained.

 

 

anyone know if this is written into law anywhere? or is a common practice, etc.?

 

 

Originally posted by fantasticsound And let's not forget that Answers.com and Reference.com copied this BS wrote from Wikpedia, compounding the misinformation. Had Siegenthaler not written an editorial about the situation they probably wouldn't have edited their information ever. And that doesn't take into account a dozen or more other sites that also pulled the information from Wikpedia.

 

 

are you suggesting that this is wikipedia's fault? also, i don't know about the other sites, but answers.com clearly states that the information from wikipedia is from wikipedia. so, i wouldn't say answers.com is at fault either. (and if they are, is google?)

[object.session]

for those wanting to know more about wikipedia, btw:

 

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

 

(or if you don't trust that, you can look up "wikipedia" in your britannica collection, i'm sure. )

[blue2blue]

 

Originally posted by fantasticsound Talk about a self fulfilling prophesy.. It's not whether we can find erroneous information in the thousands or tens of thousands of entries in Wikpedia, blue . It's that it is out there, unedited, and it's only found when someone complains ! I love how supporters of wikis are saying they're self correcting most of the time. The point is you can't know how much incorrect information is out there because there are too many listings that are not shared, cultural IQ information. Not enough people are out there to know the misinformation. Broadcast and paper news are supposed to find at least two credible sources to make a determination that a "fact" is, itself, credible. Wikpedia requires no fact checking. The bio in question was corrected 3 days after it was posted... for a misspelling of the word, "early". Nothing about the content over 4 - 5 months, and it would've remained that way had the person himself not complained. That's hardly encouraging. I'm not saying have faith in every word said on broadcast news or in the papers. Far from it. But at least they have the intention of seeking the truth and verifying it before putting it out to the increasingly connected world. Wikpedia has no accountable verification process and nobody actively researching information that's been posted there for accuracy. It's a fallacy to think such a system is self correcting for anything beyond the obvious. Sure, they'll catch misinformation about a president or a well known celebrity. Not so with the many entries of lesser celebrities, niche-famous people within other walks of life, etc.

 

 

Again... I'd be very interested in seeing a collection of currently posted incorrect information from Wikipedia.

 

It's one thing to get all tied up in knots over the possibility of uncorrected information -- but let's see some examples -- huh?

 

 

If you think the idea of a wiki is weird -- just don't use it. If someone cites a wiki as "proof" without any other corroboration, don't accept that.

 

I really don't like the idea of trying to silence wikis.

 

A wiki exemplifies free speech.

 

Remember what the antidote to "bad speech" is more speech... not less.

 

_____________

 

 

PS... people who complain about a wiki clearly don't get it. You correct a wiki -- and, if you're smart and you want your correction to stick -- you back it up with corroborated facts.

[mir]

One of my favorite topics: wiki

 

As Lessig and other media activists have utilized them, 'wikis' can be a wonderful way to actively and collaboratively edit projects/information sources. Then again, these are people who are devoted to building upon the invention of others, open source communities, civil libertarians, etc. While wiki started out as a nice idea to have a collective knowlegebase, your information is only as accurate as your contributors are to a wiki of any kind. Of course, wikis of all kinds (not just by media activists) can be found all around the 'net.

 

Wikipedia took the idea of 'wiki' to another level by inviting the world to contribute to a collective encyclopedic knowledgebase. It's a grand, albeit flawed, idea. While I'm saddened that anyone was maliciously defamed in this way, I'm only not surprised.

 

Because Wikipedia has always allowed anyone to update 'encyclopedic'-type information to reflect 'fact', there is inherently an invitation to skew 'fact' based on personal agenda or perception. Because of this, I've always thought that while Wikipedia can be an okay immediate source of information, I've not been inclined to depend upon it as being accurate.

 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but sometimes it's not... especially on the internet.

 

My opinion is my own. Thanks for reading.

 

Happy Holidays!

 

 

~Mir

[blue2blue]

Perhaps it's my innate skepticism... I guess I just never thought to believe everything I read. (I guess that's a side benefit of growing up with a hometown paper owned by a guy who felt the US would be better off if slavery hadn't been abolished.)

 

 

Anyhow, if it makes anyone feel better, I've added the Columbia Encyclopedia to my signature on this forum. Freedom of choice. Use it. Don't try to stamp it out.

 

 

Again -- I'd be very interested to see a list of extant errors in Wikipedia.

[Mr. Donovan]

This is a very interesting lively discussion. I

[the stranger]

Originally posted by blue2blue blue's thoughts...

 

[the stranger]

Originally posted by Mr. Donovan Factual Error Found On Internet

 

"Will we ever fully trust the Web again?" Boutin asked. "We may well be witnessing the dawn of a new era of skepticism in which we no longer accept everything we read online at face value. But regardless of what the future holds, one thing is clear: The Internet's status as the world's definitive repository of incontrovertible fact has been jeopardized."

 

[Ani]

Blue,

 

I am not finding the actual article that I read across on Wikipedia when I was researching Bruce Swedien's past, but it was just about as bogus as it came... I just now ran a search for Bruce's name on Wikipedia, because there was a featured article where Bruce was the main topic; I thought the search might turn up the article that I had read. Instead, when I ran the search for his name I found this link.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Bruce_Swedien

 

3 topics deleted obviously reflects that there was, at one time, inprecise or flawed information posted that has been removed.

 

However, at the time I was researching, the articles were still in tact and had I not already read "Make Mine Music" and held personal discussions with Bruce; I would not have known that the articles contained false information. As it were, I knew that the articles were inaccurate and dismissed them as being erroneous. I have not looked back to Wikipedia since as a source of information.