Wikpedia... (grrrr....)

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by 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)

[blue2blue]

Again, I never said -- or meaned in any way to imply -- that anyone misquoted me.

 

If I had meant to say so, I would have said so-- and in no uncertain terms.

 

Also -- I certainly understand that my request to quote me correctly immediately subsequent to the partial quote in question lead to that confusion.

 

I regret that people were confused by that proximity. If I had it to do over again -- with the hindsight provided by these further exchanges -- I would certainly have made it clear that I was not accusing anyone of misquoting me. Apparently, one has to make these things quite specific in order to be understood. So be it.

 

FS, I'm really done trying to communicate with you about wikis in general or Wikipedia specifically.

 

 

 

Paul... if you're referring to the phrase "Is that really so hard to understand?" which I edited off the bottom of my "Let me spell it out..." post that you found "offensive" -- I am certainly sorry to have offended... but I feel the need to include that line here so that people don't think I said something really vile.

 

I hope its inclusion under these circumstances will not give further offense.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by blue2blue

Also -- I certainly understand that my request to quote me correctly immediately subsequent to the partial quote in question lead to that confusion.


It's always difficult - quotes tend to be partial by their nature.
The proximal partial quote seemed to follow a good practice as it completely quoted a postscript which, itself, had breaks inserted by the original author.

It's a tough one


I regret that people were confused by that proximity. If I had it to do over again -- with the hindsight provided by these further exchanges -- I would certainly have made it clear that I was not accusing anyone of misquoting me. Apparently, one has to make these things quite specific in order to be understood. So be it.


Generally, yeah when requesting and criticizing or asserting it's best to be extremely clear as early as possible...It can be more difficult than it appears
Ever write a patent? wow! now talk about stickler for clarity..oof...but there's a reason


FS, I'm really done trying to communicate with you about wikis in general or Wikipedia specifically.

I hope the...raised voices shall we say...doesn't discourage you -- as we were talking earlier -- it's a conversation about a publication method, how irt can be improved, in what use context it is appropriate, etc



Paul... if you're referring to the phrase "Is that really so hard to understand?" which I edited off the bottom of my "Let me spell it out..." post that you found "offensive" -- I am certainly sorry to have offended... but I feel the need to include that line here so that people don't think I said something really vile.

I hope its inclusion under these circumstances will not give further offense.

yup, that's the one -- don't worry abt it, it didn't hurt me (I have to deal with dev teams getting heated all the time, the dynamic here isn't that much different) -- "potentially offensive"? yeah -- I meant more to compliment you on pulling it (and, since you pulled it, I didn't feel it was my place to reintroduce it)

[blue2blue]

Good deal, Paul. I pulled the remark because I thought it was pretty redundant, considering the way the post started out.

I am done talking about this topic in this thread (with FS or anyone) -- but it's as much to lower my temperature as anything; I don't think FS's attempt to draw out further explication was out of line or anything. I just didn't want to go down that road any farther at this time. I think I said my piece...

Anyhow, I certainly hope next time FS and I bump into each other on the board talking about audio that we'll be starting fresh.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by blue2blue ... Anyhow, I certainly hope next time FS and I bump into each other on the board talking about audio that we'll be starting fresh.

You can always count on that from me. Glad I know the same is true for you.

[blue2blue]

You bet.

You just have to wait for my jaw to unclamp, sometimes...

[fantasticsound]

Are you sayin' somethin' 'bout my fashion sense??

(Sadly, if you are, you're probably right. )

[blue2blue]

Well, you know, as time goes by, we all need a skosh more room...

[the stranger]

Good group here.

[franknputer]

Originally posted by fantasticsound Are you sayin' somethin' 'bout my fashion sense?? (Sadly, if you are, you're probably right. )

The shoes, Neil...the shoes...

[Jeff da Weasel]

I like when Neil argues, since I pretend its purely for my personal amusement.

And (now that I've bothered reading three pages of this silliness), I might as well say that I enjoy Wiki and do turn to it as a good source of info quite often. I just do it with the awareness that I can't expect it to be perfect based on its nature.

Of course, it's a huge mistake of assuming everything is perfect in the Encyclopedia Brittanica as well. Remember that history often has an agenda, and facts change based on perspective. It's always SOMEONE's perspective you're reading. In this case, it's mine.

- Jeff

[MorePaul]

I don['t know if it's the same in schools today, but I recall citing stuff like Encyclopedia Brittanica was pretty much a no no after abt 9th grade.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by franknputer The shoes, Neil... the shoes...

(Gulp!) I should've seen that one coming from a mile away.

Hey Jeff:

"Funny, funny how? What am I, a comedian, I'm here to make you laugh?"

Paul - You are correct. Even with extensive editing, Britannica and World Book both had mistakes. But at least someone was hired to research each entry, limiting those mistakes. And Jeff is right. A lot of history is being re-written as more information is known and as those writing it change.

Interesting aftermath.

It turns out an investigator somehow traced the Bellsouth ISP address to a company in Nashville. They probably would never have discovered who in the company wrote the piece on Seigenthaler but, as they got close, the author came forward and apologized to John. He didn't realize how far reaching Wikpedia was and wrote the entry as a joke to make his friend, a staunch fan of JS, think he had a nefarious past. The author didn't even know anything about JS beyond his co-workers rants. He apologized and quit his job to limit the embarrassment to his employer. JS has urged the company to rehire him but, as of the report my wife saw, he hadn't been rehired. John didn't want "his pound of flesh", he simply wanted to know how this happened and why, and to get an apology. Good for him.

[aeon]

Originally posted by Jeff da Weasel Of course, it's a huge mistake of assuming everything is perfect in the Encyclopedia Brittanica as well. Remember that history often has an agenda, and facts change based on perspective. It's always SOMEONE's perspective you're reading.

Yep...it made me laugh when a person said they wouldn't ever read Wikipedia again because it might have subjective content.


cheers,
Ian

[philbo]

This might be an interesting counterpoint to look at:

http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=69780&cat_id=643

[the stranger]

Good link, philbo!

[MorePaul]

I don't find it particularly shocking, I mean Britannica isn't exaclty a source of authoritative citation after Jr high, when we are just learnign research techniques (which, I think brings back the use context thing..here on HC we'll see disagreements and people will actually cite a wiki link as support!)

a couple of thoughts on the article in general (might as well cite the original there as opposed to a digest...even there we get "telephone game" distortion is the titles

Original :

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html


"Internet encyclopaedias go head to head"


Digest :

http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=69780&cat_id=643


"Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica"


-The 42 entries appear to be in the sciences (it looks like they pertain to NPG's jounrals) which could, potentially, have more quantitatives as opposed to, say, history or humantieis or any number of things
- I would have liked to have seen a historgram as opposed to averages
- The article does mention structure as well as content, which can lead to poor interpretation
- I think in BOTH cases..."Who wrote this stuff?" asked another reviewer. "Do they bother to check with experts?"
may be very telling

- The study itself...I think may be best classed as a casual study...while a nice online piece, I don't know it would pass review for publication in a Nature journal


On a persnal note, I do find it an odd sort of "target fixation" to bash it out for the bronze standard, when I think the research accuracy problem in general could be better addressed by
-context awareness
-when looking for citation, go deeper to the source material...yes, it is seductive to go to the "one stop shopping" solution for the quick answer, but often the quick answer can oversimplify the question...when researching the answer with dilligence, one often finds the problem to be far richer than one first suspected

[blue2blue]

An important thing to note... Today, all those mistakes are still in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (at least the print edition -- and I'll bet even money in the online edition), whereas in Wikipedia, spurred by the additional publicity, I'll bet a lot of specific errors have been fixed. And, yes, it is entirely possible if not even likely that some new errors have been introduced. Most human progress is two-steps-forward-one-step-back stuff. And I think it's clear from this study if one reads the entire special report in Nature, that the same basic processes are at work at EB. They just happen slower and errors take longer to be corrected. When they are corrected.

Those who point out that the sciences are easier to get right because of the nature of scientific methodology and peer review are correct as far as that goes.

But where Wikipedia gets really interesting and reveals some of its greatest strengths -- and its greatest dangers for the overcredulous -- is in controversial subjects where the truth is far, far harder to pin down.

Open up the Wikipedia entry on Libertarianism if you want to see intellectual dialectic in process. Make sure you read the support and discussion pages, too.

Such an entry (assuming it hasn't changed that much in the several weeks since I spent any time there which is perhaps not at all a safe assumption) will absolutely fall under the "confusing structure" criticism, as several thousand flavors of small-L libertarians bring their own understanding of the wildly variegated philosophies that fall under that general rubric to the discussion.

Will someone get one definitive answer about just what libertarianism is?

No. Absolutely not.

Why?

Because there is no one definitive answer...

Will they get a wealth of viewpoints and information? Yes...


Wikipedia is not for those who demand absolute certainty in all things.

And neither is real life.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by blue2blue
An important thing to note... Today, all those mistakes are still in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (at least the print edition -- and I'll bet even money in the online edition), whereas in Wikipedia, spurred by the additional publicity, I'll bet a lot of specific errors have been fixed. And, yes, it is entirely possible if not even likely that some new errors have been introduced. Most human progress is two-steps-forward-one-step-back stuff. And I think it's clear from this study if one reads the entire special report in Nature, that the same basic processes are at work at EB. They just happen slower and errors take longer to be corrected. When they are corrected.


By all means, but Addemnda and errata filings are not unknown in even PRINTED form

by that I mean to point out that the processes (and quite possibly if not probably) and many of the errors are coming from the nature of teir SIMILAR processes


Those who point out that the sciences are easier to get right because of the nature of scientific methodology and peer review are correct as far as that goes.


I guess that'd be me [ Note : the focus of the article was only one those entries] -- yeah, that's the basis of the scientific process as a whole
quantitative reductions

AND (here's an important par) -- what we can draw from those reductions

In many ways, these rigors FORCE as LESS absolute view (as the qualitatives -- even based on quantitatives must be called out as such..it's not "proof" of, its "converging evidence" of for instance)

[Note : that's the same kind of exactness we were talking about in the 'misquoted' v 'misinterpreted' thing earlier]



But where Wikipedia gets really interesting and reveals some of its greatest strengths -- and its greatest dangers for the overcredulous -- is in controversial subjects where the truth is far, far harder to pin down.

Open up the Wikipedia entry on Libertarianism if you want to see intellectual dialectic in process. Make sure you read the support and discussion pages, too.


that sort of applies to, and at varying levels of focus, the internet as a whole all the way to the entirety of human discourse

That brings into play a couple of perspectives

The level of agreement can vary all the way from "established accreditation " all the way to disagreeing with "Human consensus Reality" (AI has to deal with that)

That's where the idea of use context, peer review, etc really come into play and where we need to be sensitive to not the *IF* of something, but the *WHEN* and *HOW* of its use, the rigors to which an entry has been exposed (note in the article the idea of the "stable" flag...not all that dissimilar to the "peer approved" flag forwarded earlier in this discussion...especially in citation (as opposed to mere reference)

as with, well the internet as a whole!

[MorePaul]

Interesting story, certainly not unique to me -- you guys might have had this

In Calc II, I believe, back in college

the first question on the first exam was

"who wrote the textbook?"

[Jeff da Weasel]

Ironically (or not so much so), articles came out this past week showing that Wiki was at least as accurate as Brittanica...

Wikipedia rivals Britannica in accuracy
An investigation performed by the scientific review, Nature, on Wikipedia and Britannica science entries, found that the two encyclopedias have similar degrees of accuracy in their content.

Nature used peer reviewing to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science. In this study, entries were chosen from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica on a broad range of scientific disciplines and sent to a relevant expert for peer review. Each reviewer examined the entry on a single subject from the two encyclopedias without being told which article came from which encyclopaedia. The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told where the information came from.

Among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not significant: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three. In the pairs of articles reviewed, eight serious errors such as misinterpretations of important concepts were detected, four from each encyclopaedia. Reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica.

So, there we go. I still like Wiki, and I know to check multiple references if I'm looking for something important to me.

- Jeff

[MorePaul]

um, Jeff -- please reread the immediately preceeding entries -- they were actually a discussion on that very article

[blue2blue]

Well, I'd say we've wrestled this issue to a point where those of us following the thread to its end probably have a much better idea of where the other is coming from.

I do have to say that the first article's 'gloss' loses some of the distinctions that exist in the actual Nature article. Wikipedia wasn't found to be "as accurate" but rather "nearly as accurate." Since I'm (in a sense) on Wikipedia's 'side' I think it's safe for me to point out that an average of 4 errors against an average of 3 errors is, indeed, 33% more errors... and that is at least somewhat significant.

But I think that general level of accuracy is, nonetheless, impressive -- we are, after all, measuring it against what for most would probably be considered the 'gold standard' of encyclopedias.

And, I think, it shows the enormous potential for the wiki as an educational and informational tool that mirrors the way knowledge is gathered, vetted, and accepted (for a time... let's not forget what they say about paradigms -- shift happens).

[Jeff da Weasel]

Originally posted by MorePaul um, Jeff -- please reread the immediately preceeding entries -- they were actually a discussion on that very article

Ah. Indeed!

I am guilty as charged of thread skimming.

- Jeff

[blue2blue]

Jeff, you thread-skimming weasel, you...