Site Meter

What Wikipedia Is (and Isn’t)

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. John Armstrong says:

    I’m sorry, but this is just too much of a coincidence. I think you need to have that “Not everything on the web is true” conversation with Dan.

  2. Greg Lastowka says:

    Hmm… When I read Dan’s post, it triggered my skepticism — it seemed way too unlikely and way too much of a tellable story. That was before I knew WWN was the source.

    But while I still doubt it is true, I think we need to confirm it is untrue. *News alert! Once in a while, the stuff you read in Weekly World News might actually be true!* (I used to buy it in college and remember two separate times when I read something in the WWN and had seen the same story elsewhere in respectable media.) This is the kind of weird story from the WWN that just might be true (but might not be.)

    Actually, part of the above post, which I cut but I’ll now indulge in, was about how Wikipedia might be useful as a teaching tool regarding our trust in any kind of printed authority. For instance, when I was reading Orin’s comments about Wikipedia’s lack of trustworthiness on the Patriot Act, I asked myself if I would trust something Orin published on the Patriot Act? Orin is a brilliant guy imho, and I’m sure he knows more about the Patriot Act than 99.99% of the people in the country — but sometimes people make mistakes, or have particular opinions, etc. Would I feel comfortable simply relying on his summary if an interpretation of the Act was really important to me?

    And re the WWN’s funny place among newspapers, even putting aside folks like Jayson Blair, I’m often pretty stunned by how much journalists in generally reliable organizations get wrong when they write about a subject that I know well.

  3. Anon says:

    I agree, for the most part, with your analysis. Wikipedia and other wiki references are advantageous beceause they allow for fairly accurate information that is useful for a quick information, much like encyclopedia’s themselves.

    I remember in middle school writing papers and being told not to cite encyclopedia’s because they were often out-of-date or soft on analysis. I don’t see how this rule of thumb should be different for Wikipedia.

    However, I think that the overall utility of Wikipedia and other wikis will eventually make them a mainstay of our culture. Every individual possesses various wells of information. Wikis provide people with an efficient avenue to share this information with others, on the terms people want.

    Wikis are also comparatively cheap to run. The traditional media model is hire expensive experts and sell the product. Wikis aggregate people’s knowledge and produce something in the ballpark of the traditional media model.

    Even if the traditional media has a slight advantage over wikis in terms of accuracy, the advantages will narrow as more people use and contribute to wikis. Linus’s Law instructs us that the more people who look at a given piece of information the more accurate the information will become. Currently Wikipedia has 2.5 billion page-views per week, if that number increased to 5 billion page views per day the information would likely become more accurate.

    Wikipedia’s true problem is its novelty. Society has yet to embrace this technology, just as people were hestitant to accept other new forms of technology (the internet, cars, television). As the novelty wears and wikis utilitarian benefits will remain and everyone will have an additional resource. We all benefit from this.

  4. Anon says:

    Last sentence should have said . . . As the novelty of wikis fades, wiki’s still will possess utilitiarian benefits. Utilitarian services always seem to win out in the end.

  5. Greg Lastowka says:

    Yes, I think I agree with all that, Anon.

    Part of the point, I think, is that the Wiki isn’t just the same as the Web, it is an improvement on the Web insofar as it concentrates information resources in a more coherent and collaborative system.

    One possible downside I see (that I don’t want to go into too much here) is that while the wiki model works well for functional projects (Linux) where everyone agrees on a paradigm of software performance and what is a “bug,” forcing collaborative agreement doesn’t work quite as well for content that is more inherently artistic or political. (Hence, Orin’s laments about the Patriot Act.) But, like I said, I like Wikis & I think more people should be exposed to them.

  6. anon says:

    I agree it improves the web through aggregation. Hence, why its one of the many new Web 2.0 technologies that strives to build communities and provide users with a more dynamic and engaging experience.

    I think that the wiki by itself is an imperfect technology. However, I predict that wikis will soon fuse with other Web 2.0 technologies, making wikis more ammenable to creative and political settings.

    If your curious, you should check out Democracy 2.0, which is a wiki experimenting with the idea of collaborative legislation. Although just launched and slightly clumsy, the results are fairly interesting.

  7. Simon says:

    I think it’s fair to say that Wikipedia has a good self-correcting mechanism. A perfect example ocurred within the last hour: At 18:58, a user from Whitehall, Pennsylvania (209.18.49.15) replaced the entire article related to the Supreme Court of the United States with an alternate history of the Supreme Court, viz., “ROB STOKES LOVES LITTLE BOYS”. Within a minute, an editor had spotted the change and reverted it. Five minutes after that, I happened to glance at my Watchlist, and as with most editors who “adopt” an article, I review all changes for vandalism. So when something goes in to an article, it often gets taken note of.

  8. Bruce says:

    The one problem Wikipedia has that I think will be harder to correct, and distinguishes it from for-profit media, is one of consistency. Some entries are excellent, and some give you the equivalent of the phlogiston theory of heat, but there’s little ability for non-experts to tell the slightly off from the truly crazy.

  9. greglas says:

    Simon — yes, it does correct itself, and it is a rather noteworthy development, I think,that you have volunteers stewarding entries in that way. But I think there is a (small) potential downside, which I take to be Orin Kerr’s point about the Patriot Act. Where people differ about the meaning of “correction,” there might be a tendency to favor consensus over expertise on “hot” issues. I honestly don’t see that as a major issue, but it does pose an interesting problem — if you see it as a problem.

    One thing I didn’t mention is that Wikipedia has become a poster child for a lot of people (admittedly I’m one) who point to it as a model of distributed information production in opposition to more traditional models. So a lot of people want it to be more than it is, and a lot of people want it to be less than it is. Because of this, it stands in as a proxy in certain debates over information politics.

  10. Skeptic Rant says:

    5 Random Links – Wikipedia

    Greg Lastowka makes the point that Wikipedia is just a reflection of the Web in regards to the question of reliability and verifiability. The parallels are striking.

  11. Anonymoose says:

    I love wikipedia, even when it’s wrong.

    Check out this joint wikipedia/google search thingy

    I made for a home page.

  12. Open Source Vs. Proprietary Knowledge

    Recently, scientific journal, Nature, published a report which asked scientific experts to peer review entries from two distinct sources, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica. Interestingly, the report found that Encyclopedia Britanica only had margi…

  13. San Diego Criminal Lawyers – San Diego Criminal Lawyer, Anna R. Yum defending individuals with her excellent criminal defense attorney skills covering a large practice area.

  14. I think Wikipedia is a great source of information although not an accurate and true source for citing fact. It’s a hodge podge of ideas and knowledge from a wide range of people. It some ways, allowing multiple authors clutters up the pages, but on the other, it provides a broad scope of information. What one person may think correlates and is of important, another may not even think to include. I use Wikipedia regularly for little random facts that I know I wont find easily and it often helps narrow down my search of specific information. For example if you search “Domestic Violence” on Wikipedia, you’ll see a short paragraph that simply states what level of relationship two people must have for a dispute to be labeled “domestic”. To me, this is an essential detail to be included, yet it was nowhere to be found in the page when I first came upon it. So I added, “The definition of a “domestic violence” is dependent upon the relationship between the perpetrator and victim. Depending on jurisdiction, they may be considered to be in a “domestic relationship” if they are married, cohabiting, immediate family member, blood relation, parents of a child/children, or two people who date, or have been engaged to be married.” And cited my source: http://www.sandiegocrimedefense.com/domesticviolence-restrainingorders.html This is information I was surprised to find wasn’t included and found a viable source to cite therefore improving the page overall and providing additional helpful information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image