Wikpedia... (grrrr....)

[Mr. Donovan]

I searched Wikipedia for "Craig Anderton" and nothing came up. Perhaps someone should put something about Craig on Wiki.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally posted by blue2blue 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.

 

 

I just read thru something i know a lot about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

The whole text is very strange, and smells like made by amateur historians. If you take what it says about Switzerland for granted, you are misinformed!

 

This wikipedia has a debacel in Germany, where some editors filled in a old East German Lexicon who is under copyright.

 

I don't wanna that anyone can write my bio in a online lexicon, and i can't do anything to remove it if i don't like it.

 

.

[Piñata Tsunami]

[err, not usually in this forum-- i'm a GJ guy - but I felt this had some interest to the thread at hand]

Recently, the norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg was also the unfortunate victim of Wikipedia's wildly inaccurate claims; the site claimed that the politician is a convicted pedophile and was jailed for a year for his crimes. This is complete and utter rubbish.

Link - Unfortunately only available in norwegian

A short translation for those of you not fluent in norwegian, given you trust it:


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

Lexicon: -Stoltenberg is convicted pedophile

The recognized, user-controlled internet-lexicon Wikipedia informed that Jens Stoltenberg was a convicted pedophile.

By Kjetil M

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by blue2blue 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?

 

 

You're not listening, blue I can't give you examples of unedited, incorrect entries. But before you claim that proves your point, think again. It doesn't prove your point at all. It only means that I don't know what they have wrong or defamatory. Searching for such examples among the thousands of entries would be futile for a single person, and their community will never be large enough to have a knowledge base capable of verifying what is fact and what is fiction for anything but common knowledge, ie., cultural IQ. The point is there's no one minding the store in a substantive way.

 

Mir gets it. Without a specific subset of knowledge, a Wiki becomes too far reaching for productive, content editing by the community.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Again, you misunderstand. I didn't even know what a wiki was until responses from this thread. And that's an important point. Most users of Wikpedia don't know or care what the "Wik" stands for. They think it's an encyclopedia that is fact checked to rigors one would expect from World Book or Britannica.

 

Now, with my knowledge of what a wiki is, I see great applications of the idea, but for the same reasons listed by Mir, I think the idea of a worldwide, open source knowledge base of everything is inherently flawed.

 

Just because I find Wikpedia to be a bad idea doesn't mean I don't appreciate all wikis.

 

 

[qb]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. [/qb]

 

 

I'm not trying to silence anything. But a wiki of the breadth and depth of an Encyclopedia should overstate that it isn't a reliable source for facts, because it isn't. It's just not feasable for a wiki of this scope to be adequately self correcting.

 

And, again, you're wrong. It's not that I don't get it. You don't get that the idea has severe limitations under these circumstances.

 

And why should the "author" of an error filled entry get a free pass to post without "corroborated facts" but someone correcting that fiction should have to? The authors should be held to as high a standard (if not higher) than those correcting an existing entry.

[fantasticsound]

BTW - Great responses all the way around.

I obviously don't think Wikpedia is a good idea, at least not without large print warnings to check other, independent sources for accuracy. But I do appreciate the ability for a wiki to provide accurate information when the knowledge base is directed and the community of adequate size and background.

[MorePaul]

just a couple of notes on QA


There's an old expression in QA "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence"

In a post-publish peer review process, a list of (now-corrected) errors is, itself, a list of uncorrected published errors -- as defined by the process, the corrected information existed, in published, form with those (now-corrected) errors. access of the information in the interval from publish to correction contains those.
That's why journals generally require peer review BEFORE publication


I do have a question

Does wikipedia offer a facility to actively disseminate corrections?
(ie is there facility to, say, send an email alert to those who have accessed a particular entry?)
sort of like the errata/corrections area in a journal -- but being electronic, could be active
So that soemone who accessed the info during the "correction window" could be made aware that a revisit may be warranted

Also, is there facility to log "concurrence count"? so that one could see how many (hopefully peers) concurr

maybe you could have "entry hits" to get an idea of the number of views and "peer stats" where authoritative individuals could log that they
1) activley concurr
2) actively disagree
3) withhold comment

(or maybe this already exists?)

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by MorePaul just a couple of notes on QA There's an old expression in QA "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence" In a post-publish peer review process, a list of (now-corrected) errors is, itself, a list of uncorrected published errors -- as defined by the process, the corrected information existed, in published, form with those (now-corrected) errors. access of the information in the interval from publish to correction contains those. That's why journals generally require peer review BEFORE publication

Ding, ding, ding!!!! MorePaul not only understands my stance, but has a clear explanation of how a reference should work. I know all wikis will inherently fail his peer review system (private peer review prior to publication.. say that 5 times fast. ) but I think it speaks volumes to the differences I and others point out specifically in such a far reaching wiki as Wikpedia.

I do have a question Does wikipedia offer a facility to actively disseminate corrections? (ie is there facility to, say, send an email alert to those who have accessed a particular entry?) sort of like the errata/corrections area in a journal -- but being electronic, could be active So that soemone who accessed the info during the "correction window" could be made aware that a revisit may be warranted Also, is there facility to log "concurrence count"? so that one could see how many (hopefully peers) concurr maybe you could have "entry hits" to get an idea of the number of views and "peer stats" where authoritative individuals could log that they 1) activley concurr 2) actively disagree 3) withhold comment (or maybe this already exists?)

Absolutely not. So far as Wikpedia is concerned, they're just an informational bulletin board posing as an encyclopedia. Even if they could manage the correction system you suggest, it isn't even a thought in their head. As far as the founder is concerned, it is what it is and they try to do their best to edit inappropriate or inaccurate information. But unless you post something outlandish (as many morons do, apparently), your mis-information could easily be in place a long, long time.

By their own admission, Wikpedia is constantly battling deliberate misinformation. Can you imagine how many updates they'd have to send for popular culture entries that make big targets for pranksters?

It would be a logistical nightmare to keep up.

[Brittanylips]

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

 

To control one's identity on the net - not an easy thing.

 

-Peace Love and **********

[blue2blue]

Good grief.

I'll keep the rest of my thoughts to myself.

[MorePaul]

by all means don't -- its exactly these sorts of discussions which can

improve processes and produts
and
help folks clarify appropriate use context for tools

[fantasticsound]

No one is trying to shut you down, blue.

I hope that instead of insisting there are no flaws with this system you, as a proponent of wikis, would be most interested in fixing them for the betterment of this and other wikis.

[blue2blue]

I never insisted there were no flaws.

Please do not distort my views.

[fantasticsound]

Then how would you characterize you opinion of wikis?

You said:

...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...

How condescending and arrogant is that? It seems to indicate you feel wikis are fine just the way they are and that those of us who disagree are simply ignorant.

Again, we understand how wikis are supposed to work. But two facts remain. They are easily messed with and the average person doesn't know there is a good chance they contain factual errors that aren't proofread... unless someone in the know both reads it and takes the time to correct it. They expect a site named like a typical encyclopedia to be held to similar standards a publisher of encyclopedias is held to. Especially when there is potential for worldwide, instantaneous defamation of character at stake.

[blue2blue]

Your ability to draw meanings I never intended nor that I think a reasonable person could infer from my statements is really quite astounding.

I strongly recommend you refrain from interpreting my statements for me since you seem manifestly incapable of drawing the intended meaning.


If you need to refer to what I said -- please quote me and quote me correctly.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by blue2blue If you need to refer to what I said -- please quote me and quote me correctly.

 

 

hmm, the quotation appears correct

[Mr. Donovan]

Usually, when I'm involved in a discussion that gets this heated and bitter, I just stop posting and let the thread fall off the front page. Then I take a walk outside and realize there is much more to life than arguing about stuff on the internet.

Originally posted by blue2blue Good grief. I'll keep the rest of my thoughts to myself.

Blue, if I were you, I would have stopped right there.

[blue2blue]

No, Paul -- if I was trying to say that he had misquoted me, I would have said that he misquoted me.


It's simply best, here, if I say nothing more.



Is that condescending?


Yes.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by blue2blue No, Paul -- if I was trying to say that he had misquoted me, I would have said that he misquoted me.

 

 

ah, perhaps I'm misunderstanding why

you asked him to quote you and quote you correctly after he already did. (there appears no edit marker on his quote)

 

If you need to refer to what I said -- please quote me and quote me correctly

 

It just seems a strange construct

 

A: "here's the salt"

 

B : "thank you - would you please pass me the salt"

 

A : "you're holding it dude, I already did"

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MorePaul]

I don't think that we need to get heated - I mean we are talking about a project, a workpiece -- merits flaws, what kind of use context, etc

[blue2blue]

Let me spell it out for you, Paul.

FS had, innocently enough, I'm sure, mischaracterized what I said, distorting the meaning, to my thinking. I asked him not to do so.

He then recharacterized my intent, quoting part of a sentence from one of my posts -- which I can only suppose he felt supported his interpretation.

I then reiterated my recommendation that -- since he was not accurately characterizing the meaning of my statements -- he refrain from doing so.


For the record -- if I had thought he was then misquoting me -- intentionally or otherwise -- I would have said so. In no uncertain terms.

Now, others may argue that his use of extreme decontextualization is problematic -- but I think folks can go back and read the quote in context, after all.

No -- my quarrel is with his interpretation of my comments -- or rather his misinterpretation -- which was -- I'd like to think -- an honest one.

[MorePaul]

Ah, see that would be mischaracterization as opposed to misquotation

you requested a quote and a correct quote -- which he did do

(now one can certainly misquote - a different animal from an interpretation or completeness of quotation)

Please be aware that the quoted statement does itselfcontain an interpretation (which I believe to be inaccurate )

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by blue2blue Your ability to draw meanings I never intended nor that I think a reasonable person could infer from my statements is really quite astounding. I strongly recommend you refrain from interpreting my statements for me since you seem manifestly incapable of drawing the intended meaning. If you need to refer to what I said -- please quote me and quote me correctly.

Ironically, I believe this whole exchange proves my point. I'm trying to discern your opinions by asking you for answers and contemplating your thoughts, but so far (by your own statements) I've missed the mark yet you haven't explained any of it. Not that you have to, but you're the one saying I'm ascribing meanings you don't intend.

...I strongly recommend you refrain from interpreting my statements for me since you seem manifestly incapable of drawing the intended meaning...

Well then, educate me. I really don't mean this to be rude, but is it my problem, misunderstanding your comments or a your problem of imprecise writing? I'm just trying to understand your position and state my own in reference because we're on opposite sides of the issue.

And MorePaul proved I'm not the only one who sees something other than what you intended to say. Your command to quote you correctly is implicit that I've misquoted you somewhere, yet when Paul pointed this out to you you claim it doesn't mean that. What you wrote does imply I've somehow misquoted you.

I've misunderstood people online before and people have misunderstood me. Most of us find our writing skills are not adequate to communicate with no visual or audible cues as in face to face communication. I know mine are insufficient. All I can do is press on, try to be clear, concise and to the point (which I'm really not very good at) and clarify any miscommunication.

If I'm quoting you correctly but drawing inaccurate conclusions than feel free to correct what I've said. You may also be helping others to understand your point(s).

But don't sweat it. If you really don't care to elaborate, don't. This is a hang, not a court room or legislative chamber, and I, for one, certainly don't want it to be a place that frustrates anyone to contribute to. Please don't let this become a mirror of the political forum.

It's cool, Blue.

[MorePaul]

blue -- thank you for pulling the, possibly offensive, statement at the end of the last post

I realize when discussing QA issues, esp acceptance testing, folks feel attacked -- it really isn't the case, it's an honest the analysis of the workpiece

So yes, I understand that some folks will get emotionally invested (it's just going to happen) -- and I do appreciate you taking the step back and "de-barbing" the comment

[fantasticsound]

I try not to take bait, but... I have my off days, too.

And I've been known to be obtuse. (looking up at the ceiling, whistling and twiddling thumbs.)

[MorePaul]

I try not to take bait, but... I have my off days, too.

 

I don't

 

I'm always an asshole and I'm always "ON"

 

(I surely hope that my last statement was seen as "bait" I was serious abt that -- something gets said in heat or maybe the internal dialog leaks -- I just wanted to recognize the cooler head coming in and righting the listing boat)