NationStates Jolt Archive

Last week I posted a poll asking if Wikipedia was a reliable source. Most of you said it was and many pointed out that false or incorrect information would be quickly removed.

So much for quick removal. So much for the credibility of Wikipedia.



For 132 days, Seigenthaler said, the biography of him falsely claimed that "for a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby."

The biography also falsely stated that he had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984.

Seigenthaler said he wasn't convinced the new registration requirement would stop the practice of vandals posting content that is slanderous or knowingly incorrect.

Wikipedia will either have to fix the problem or will lose whatever credibility it still has, he said.

"The marketplace of ideas ultimately will take care of the problem," Seigenthaler said. "In the meantime, what happens to people like me?"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177740,00.html

Who cares? Whats the deal with you and Wikipedia anyway?

EDIT: and yes, we all know because of this SNAFU that no other information in Wiki could possibly be right :rolleyes:

of course, the article is fixed now - Wikipedia in action. I don't know why he asked for the edits to be deleted by an admin tho; why not just do it himself? I know I would if I found a wikipedia article spreading malicious lies bout me :confused:

Rather than being a whiny little biatch, he could have just fixed it. :rolleyes:

Rather than being a whiny little biatch, he could have just fixed it. :rolleyes:

He could have, but for some reason there is a major movement to discredit wikipedia. I guess some encyclopedia salesmen are lobbying hard for guys like this to make a media stink.

And man, nobody's removed him! He's still there! Therefore the President is hardly a credible source for information.

Who's eating this chicken?

Somebody call the Waaaaaaaambulance.

They've got the site locked down pretty good. I modified an article falsely as an experiment shortly after this was on the news. Within 5 minutes, the article was back to its original state, my fake account was deleted, and my IP was banned. They have damn good mods there... I still find it to be extremely credible. Of course, I always double check my sources... that's why I look at the links on the bottom of the page and cross-reference that to other sites.

And man, nobody's removed him! He's still there! Therefore the President is hardly a credible source for information.

Who's eating this chicken?
Dobbsy, I think you need to lay off the hootch for a bit. Take a break, walk a way from the computer, and take a nap until the pink elephants go away.

And why is is news that wikipedia isn't the most reliable thing ever? And why do people want to fight the obvious nature of that? Use multiple sources, take all things with a grain of salt, and don't take any advice from the elves that sit at the back of your head. Especially the part about the rusty nails and your neighbour's dog, that one doesn't end well.

It can be edited by ANYBODY. What did you think would happen.

For the most part, it is reliable.

They've got the site locked down pretty good. I modified an article falsely as an experiment shortly after this was on the news. Within 5 minutes, the article was back to its original state, my fake account was deleted, and my IP was banned.
Then they've gotten stiffer recently (maybe the media attention has pissed their mods off, or something). In 10th grade I (using the school account) modified several articles and made a couple other articles that were complete BS. Generally it took them 5 days to a few months to fix it and they never seemed to care about elimination the account.

Then they've gotten stiffer recently (maybe the media attention has pissed their mods off, or something). In 10th grade I (using the school account) modified several articles and made a couple other articles that were complete BS. Generally it took them 5 days to a few months to fix it and they never seemed to care about elimination the account.
So you admit that because people like you do that wikipedia becomes the somewhat unreliable source you claim it to be. Talk about selffulfilling prophecy. Yippie ya yey! http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/elefant.gif

So you admit that because people like you do that wikipedia becomes the somewhat unreliable source you claim it to be.
Note, I was speaking in the past tense. I don't do it anymore because it is a waste of time, and when I want to waste time on the Interweb I come here.
Talk about selffulfilling prophecy. Yippie ya yey!
No, it isn't. See, I wasn't in the prophet business until after I got out of the fulfilling business.

Somebody call the Waaaaaaaambulance.
It's the Waambulance come to save us all! (http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/2539/wambulance7gh.jpg)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Instead of doing something about it, he bitched about it.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

That's what I thought when I saw this one the news. Hmm, anyone can edit it? Why don't you fucking press the edit article link instead of threatening the guy who runs Wikipedia and being a general asshat?

Who cares? Whats the deal with you and Wikipedia anyway?

EDIT: and yes, we all know because of this SNAFU that no other information in Wiki could possibly be right :rolleyes:
I agree and it's almost always biographies that are vandalized. Do you think the reproduction of dust mites would be vandalized? It is interesting that no one corrected this though.

There is some site that argues about a guy who lost his privacy to wikipedia, but then tells the location of every administrator on wikipedia.

And why is is news that wikipedia isn't the most reliable thing ever? And why do people want to fight the obvious nature of that? Use multiple sources, take all things with a grain of salt, and don't take any advice from the elves that sit at the back of your head. Especially the part about the rusty nails and your neighbour's dog, that one doesn't end well.
That's why: (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/)

Two great cries have rung around the internet since the Seigenthaler scandal broke.

One is that Seigenthaler should have corrected the entry himself, and the other is that no source of authority can be trusted "definitively". That's a deliciously weaselly phrase we'll examine in a moment.

...The first, and the most immediately absurd of these two defenses, is that since nothing at all can be trusted, er, "definitively", then Wikipedia can't be trusted either. This is curious, to say the least, as it points everyone's expectations firmly downwards.

If you recall the utopian rhetoric that accompanied the advent of the public "internet" ten years ago, we were promised that unlimited access to the world's greatest "knowledge" was just around the corner. This hasn't happened, for reasons cited above, but now the public is now being exhorted to assume the posture of a citizen in an air raid, where every moving object might be a dangerous missile.

Everything you read is suspect! You'd better duck!

Only a paranoiac, or a mad person, can sustain this level of defensiveness for any length of time however, and to hear a putative "encyclopedia" making such a statement is odd, to say the least.

This defense firmly puts the blame on the reader, for being so stupid as to take the words at face value. Silly you, for believing us, they say.

The second defense is rather more intriguing, and repellant.

Wikipedia's defenders point to the open model, where anyone can make changes, as another example of shrugging off responsibility.

...Wikipedia's second defense rests heavily on the assumption that everyone in the whole world is participating, watching, and writing at every moment of the day, and so that a failure to pay attention represents negligence on the part of the complainer. Seigenthaler, the argument goes, was clearly being an idiot when he failed to notice that day's piece of web grafitti. Instead of taking his dog for a walk, or composing an email to his grandchildren, he should have been paying ceaseless attention to ... his Wikipedia biography.

To which the only honest answer is, "we don't owe you anything".

Really, we don't. If they can't get it right, why on earth should we have to clean up the mess. I can't speak for you, but I have better things to do.

Peer review is clearly a false and dangerous system. We must take all articles and news reports at the face value of the original author lest we be damned to ignorance and satanic debauchery.

DOWN WITH PEER REVIEW!!

Peer review is clearly a false and dangerous system. We must take all articles and news reports at the face value of the original author lest we be damned to ignorance and satanic debauchery.

DOWN WITH PEER REVIEW!!

You should only believe things that some guy in a bar tells you. Everything else is lies.

You should only believe things that some guy in a bar tells you. Everything else is lies.

i'm holding a beer, so the above must be true

It sacrafices a little credibility for the ability to have a huge amount of data that is always updating. It is also written from many perspectives and prejudicies, which have a way of balancing out so that you can see what everyone believes.

Ultimately, Wikipedia is revolutionary (I said it) and can do things that other encyclopedias simply can't do. However, people should realize it has limitations as far as credibility is concerned (really, it's surprisingly credible, considering anyone can write on it) and probably shouldn't be used when you absolutely can't be wrong.

All in all, Wikipedia has its place on the internet. It's just not the same one as traditional encyclopedias.

By the way, I hated the intervied on CNN. Both the journalist guest and the CNN interviewer just attacked Wikipedia's founder for the full length of the interview. I didn't think it was very fair.

You should only believe things that some guy in a bar tells you. Everything else is lies.

The internet is the Devil's magic.

...The first, and the most immediately absurd of these two defenses, is that since nothing at all can be trusted, er, "definitively", then Wikipedia can't be trusted either. This is curious, to say the least, as it points everyone's expectations firmly downwards.

How silly. Every bit of serious research uses multiple sources - exactly for this reason.

This hasn't happened, for reasons cited above, but now the public is now being exhorted to assume the posture of a citizen in an air raid, where every moving object might be a dangerous missile.

Everything you read is suspect! You'd better duck

Indeed. Because having critical thinking skills is dangerous and undesireable.

Only a paranoiac, or a mad person, can sustain this level of defensiveness for any length of time however

And yet it is expected of scientists.

This defense firmly puts the blame on the reader, for being so stupid as to take the words at face value. Silly you, for believing us, they say.

for believing us without question.

Wikipedia might not be 100% accurate all the time, but in general it is a useful source of info. Why would you have a massive grudge against it?

When popular resources become platforms for slander and propaganda, something's not right. Type "failure" into google and hit "I'm feeling lucky." See what I mean? If anybody can edit the wikipedia, I don't see why people use wikipedia as their main source of researching a topic, or even as a cited supplement. People complain that he could've just edited the article - exactly what stops anybody from re-editing it?

Uhhhh. Nothing.

Wikipedia is a great place to start if you want information, but people should take every single article with a grain of salt and look for more scholarly sources of information. Uncyclopedia.org is just as reliable, IMHO.

...The first, and the most immediately absurd of these two defenses, is that since nothing at all can be trusted, er, "definitively", then Wikipedia can't be trusted either. This is curious, to say the least, as it points everyone's expectations firmly downwards.

If you recall the utopian rhetoric that accompanied the advent of the public "internet" ten years ago, we were promised that unlimited access to the world's greatest "knowledge" was just around the corner. This hasn't happened, for reasons cited above, but now the public is now being exhorted to assume the posture of a citizen in an air raid, where every moving object might be a dangerous missile.

Everything you read is suspect! You'd better duck!

Only a paranoiac, or a mad person, can sustain this level of defensiveness for any length of time however, and to hear a putative "encyclopedia" making such a statement is odd, to say the least.

Bombs and misile during an air raid kill people, which is different than being aware that everything we read is written by humans, beings given to make mistakes every now and than.
There is a big difference between: "They are out to get you, run for your life" and "To err is human"

This defense firmly puts the blame on the reader, for being so stupid as to take the words at face value. Silly you, for believing us, they say.

No, silly you for not crossreferencing.

...Wikipedia's second defense rests heavily on the assumption that everyone in the whole world is participating, watching, and writing at every moment of the day, and so that a failure to pay attention represents negligence on the part of the complainer. Seigenthaler, the argument goes, was clearly being an idiot when he failed to notice that day's piece of web grafitti. Instead of taking his dog for a walk, or composing an email to his grandchildren, he should have been paying ceaseless attention to ... his Wikipedia biography.
The argument is not that he should have paid constant attention, but once he found out instead of protesting and doing nothing change it himself.
Its like being tripped in a skating dome. You could sit on your ass and cry for the owner to do something, while he isnt exactly responsible, or you could get up on your own and go after the one who tripped you.

of course, the article is fixed now - Wikipedia in action. I don't know why he asked for the edits to be deleted by an admin tho; why not just do it himself? I know I would if I found a wikipedia article spreading malicious lies bout me :confused:

The problem I've seen is that sometimes a group of people takes over a topic, and you'll never be able to make your changes stick without resorting to an admin.

They have this problem over on the topic about swinging.

Peer review is clearly a false and dangerous system. We must take all articles and news reports at the face value of the original author lest we be damned to ignorance and satanic debauchery.

DOWN WITH PEER REVIEW!!

Peer review is Bullshit... though not always necessarily "false" nor "dangerous"... The peer review process merely forces information to presented in a manner which best suits and adopts the ideologies of the majority of those in review.

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

Special Report
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
Jim Giles

Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.


One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource. But it is also controversial: if anyone can edit entries, how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?

Several recent cases have highlighted the potential problems. One article was revealed as falsely suggesting that a former assistant to US Senator Robert Kennedy may have been involved in his assassination. And podcasting pioneer Adam Curry has been accused of editing the entry on podcasting to remove references to competitors' work. Curry says he merely thought he was making the entry more accurate.

However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule.

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

Considering how Wikipedia articles are written, that result might seem surprising. A solar physicist could, for example, work on the entry on the Sun, but would have the same status as a contributor without an academic background. Disputes about content are usually resolved by discussion among users.

But Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia and president of the encyclopaedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation of St Petersburg, Florida, says the finding shows the potential of Wikipedia. "I'm pleased," he says. "Our goal is to get to Britannica quality, or better."

Wikipedia is growing fast. The encyclopaedia has added 3.7 million articles in 200 languages since it was founded in 2001. The English version has more than 45,000 registered users, and added about 1,500 new articles every day of October 2005. Wikipedia has become the 37th most visited website, according to Alexa, a web ranking service.

But critics have raised concerns about the site's increasing influence, questioning whether multiple, unpaid editors can match paid professionals for accuracy. Writing in the online magazine TCS last year, former Britannica editor Robert McHenry declared one Wikipedia entry — on US founding father Alexander Hamilton — as "what might be expected of a high-school student". Opening up the editing process to all, regardless of expertise, means that reliability can never be ensured, he concluded.

Yet Nature's investigation suggests that Britannica's advantage may not be great, at least when it comes to science entries. In the 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 encyclopaedias; they were not told which article came from which encyclopaedia. A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team.

Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.

Editors at Britannica would not discuss the findings, but say their own studies of Wikipedia have uncovered numerous flaws. "We have nothing against Wikipedia," says Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications at the company's headquarters in Chicago. "But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written. There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."

Several Nature reviewers agreed with Panelas' point on readability, commenting that the Wikipedia article they reviewed was poorly structured and confusing. This criticism is common among information scientists, who also point to other problems with article quality, such as undue prominence given to controversial scientific theories. But Michael Twidale, an information scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says that Wikipedia's strongest suit is the speed at which it can updated, a factor not considered by Nature's reviewers.

"People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica," Twidale adds. "Print encyclopaedias are often set up as the gold standards of information quality against which the failings of faster or cheaper resources can be compared. These findings remind us that we have an 18-carat standard, not a 24-carat one."

The most error-strewn article, that on Dmitry Mendeleev, co-creator of the periodic table, illustrates this. Michael Gordin, a science historian at Princeton University who wrote a 2004 book on Mendeleev, identified 19 errors in Wikipedia and 8 in Britannica. These range from minor mistakes, such as describing Mendeleev as the 14th child in his family when he was the 13th, to more significant inaccuracies. Wikipedia, for example, incorrectly describes how Mendeleev's work relates to that of British chemist John Dalton. "Who wrote this stuff?" asked another reviewer. "Do they bother to check with experts?"

But to improve Wikipedia, Wales is not so much interested in checking articles with experts as getting them to write the articles in the first place.

As well as comparing the two encyclopaedias, Nature surveyed more than 1,000 Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of Wikipedia and 17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to update it. The steady trickle of scientists who have contributed to articles describe the experience as rewarding, if occasionally frustrating (see 'Challenges of being a Wikipedian').

Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a "multiplier effect", says Wales. Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely. "Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced way," he says.

Wales also plans to introduce a 'stable' version of each entry. Once an article reaches a specific quality threshold it will be tagged as stable. Further edits will be made to a separate 'live' version that would replace the stable version when deemed to be a significant improvement. One method for determining that threshold, where users rate article quality, will be trialled early next year.