67 replies to this topic

[jehochman]

Matt, I am happy to discuss your objections to Wikipedia. Your criticisms are thoughtful and made in good faith. This thread, with 29 responses already, is much better quality than the ones that were going at SEL and SEW. So far we've had no trolling. That is a testament to the strength of this forum.

[Jill]

So far we've had no trolling. That is a testament to the strength of this forum.

Like Wikipedia, they wouldn't last more than a few mins.

[mcanerin]

IMO, the problem with wikipedia is the same one with most open source initiatives, except wikipedia has a lower barrier to entry. That problem, of course, is that people usually only contribute to things that interest them. As a result, you end up with lots of information on dragons and little on lizards, to use an earlier example.

Although wikipedia isn't necessarily a popularity contest, it suffers from a similar malady - things that tend to be popular are the ones that get written about, resulting in huge amounts of trivia related to TV shows but little on more esoteric topics. Directed Open Source projects (like Linux) not only allow people to contribute where they wish, but also request things that may not be sexy but are necessary nonetheless. wikipedia doesn't seem to do this, which is too bad. I'd loive to see a list of topics that need better information in them listed, as a simple example.

If wikipedia had a staff of editors who did nothing but "fill in the blanks" it would be a more useful resource, though of course that staff would need to be compensated, which is an issue.

Having said all that, I've found most wikipedia entries to be quite useful - unlike most blogs, there is at least a little oversight (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?), entries related to popular culture or topics that have clubs and user groups dedicated to them tend to be fairly complete, and sometimes it's the only place you can get information without a major commercial or personal bias or needing to pay for it.

Am I the only person who always checks the discussion and history areas as part of checking a wikipedia entry (unless it's not important enough to bother)? It's a great way to approach te information with a better understanding of some of the issues. I wish I could see the discussions behind encyclopedias and mainstream news stories! I'm sure it would be an eye opener.

I'd love it to be better. But I think that wikipedia works far better than DMOZ, which had similar goals about different content. I'd like to see DMOZ run more like wikipedia, honestly. It might become useful again.

My opinion, of course.

Ian

[Martin C]

Although wikipedia isn't necessarily a popularity contest, it suffers from a similar malady - things that tend to be popular are the ones that get written about, resulting in huge amounts of trivia related to TV shows but little on more esoteric topics.

Wikipedia is not limited by space, part of its strength in my view is that its content is broad and you are likely only going to notice the amount of TV show related entries if you are interested in looking for that sort of information - is it a problem that Wikipedia covers both ends of the spectrum?

Wikipedia is not perfect but in my view it is an asset and the pro's far outweigh the cons. For serious topics it has more documented citations than any so called 'serious' newspaper that can often just express the view of a journalist. Like Google is not the be all and end all of search, Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of encyclopedia information but it is an excellent complimentary resource and on controversial subjects can be more balanced than most.

[chrishirst]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

I wonder how many people will go and look that up at Wikipedia

[arteworks]

Matt, I am happy to discuss your objections to Wikipedia. Your criticisms are thoughtful and made in good faith. This thread, with 29 responses already, is much better quality than the ones that were going at SEL and SEW. So far we've had no trolling. That is a testament to the strength of this forum.

More of a testament to Jill's iron fist! No I agree jehochman it has been a good thread.

mcanerin - don't get me started on DMOZ now! although what a good idea! dmoz is actually worse than wikipedia, even though they do have a sort of editorial review in place. it would be great if anyone could directly edit dmoz, although i can already see the problems with that as far as someone trying to delete their competition. but what this does show is that even with an editorial review in place, the system is still only as good as the people doing that review, which proves the points made by many on this thread with viewpoints opposite to mine.

[projectphp]

huge amounts of trivia related to TV shows but little on more esoteric topics

You had me right up til then. The problem is Wikipedia is good at the extremes: extremely esoteric; good. Extremely popular; good. Inbetween... not so much. People usually like specific things, but not general things Combine that with people's talents (most people can only help on very general things), and the middle is where it lacks.

Am I the only person who always checks the discussion and history areas as part of checking a Wikipedia entry (unless it's not important enough to bother)?

That is where Wikipedia really kicks arse: links and history. You can actually see why edits were made, and start to judge the edits not as standalone statements of one perspective, but in the historical context of collaboration. More information on why the page reads the way it does is better than more accuracy short term, but less transparency. I would hate to see a Fundamentalist Christian encyclopaedia that didn't make that clear.

If Wikipedia had a staff of editors who did nothing but "fill in the blanks" it would be a more useful resource

Useful for whom? That word is used as an absolute when there is really no such thing. A hammer is a useful tool, but wouldn't be more useful if it was a screwdriver as well. It might actually be worse at both of its tasks, than two separate items.

Filling in the gaps might be better served not with more content, but by viewing Wikipedia as part of the web, and linking to different, better resources, like the IMDB or other topic specific sites.

Wikipedia is useful more often than not, and the real usefulness advance is in connecting people and answers with both conten AND links. We've had either or, but newver before both. If, rather than being a destination exclusively, you view Wikipedia as a starting point that connects people to answers the same way a highway connects cities, then any faults in Wikipedia's content itself is forgiven by the fact the links take you to a better answer.

That Wikipedia, and hence a modern encyclopaedia, doesn't need to be all things to all people, but rather is the conduit and facilitator of questioning, is the real revolution it has brought to the world, and why it is the perfect manifestation of both the oracle encyclopaedias try to be, and the perfection of the advances the hyperlink has long promised.

My $0.02.

[torka]

I wonder how many people will go and look that up at Wikipedia

Not me!

(I Googled it. Of course, the first two entries that came up were Wikipedia... )

--Torka

[Scottie]

It seems to me that people who are irked with Wikipedia and the same ones who get irked with Google... people who've tried to use a resource for their own ends and been thwarted.

As a user of Wikipedia who's edited a few hobby topics, all I can say is the amount of information contained there- whether 100% accurate or not- is truly amazing and what the Internet should be about. Shared knowledge.

With so many people wanting to contribute their own unique perspective of "fact", it's inevitable that everyone can't be happy. Someone's got to be the final judge where pages get edited back and forth constantly.

Just as judges in the justice system don't always get it right, neither do the humans in charge of the Wikipedia. And... like the Justice system... I have no doubt there are some here and there who are corrupt, pushing a personal agenda or profiting unethically for their work.

That's life.

Some people will unfairly abuse public resources, including some people in charge of said resources. But that doesn't mean it's not useful. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

And FTR- I thought the article was kind of all over the place as well. Was the point to refute that Wikipedia was a search engine? (Which is a weird claim.) Was it to point out abuse at the hands of politicians? The misunderstanding of Wikipedia in the mainstream press? A rant against journalists who don't do research? A helpful article for persons or companies who need to keep their entry up to date? Dealing with conflict-of-interest issues in Wikipedia?

It touched a little of a lot of subjects and by the time I got to the tips promised by the article, I had lost interest. I assumed they wouldn't be very helpful to me because they were probably for someone who wants to edit their own wikipedia page.

[qwerty]

I wonder how many people will go and look that up at Wikipedia

Look it up? I've already answered it

[mcanerin]

The problem is Wikipedia is good at the extremes: extremely esoteric; good. Extremely popular; good. Inbetween... not so much.

Agreed - esoteric was a poor choice of words.

connecting people and answers with both conten AND links.

One thing I like about wikipedia is that it gives tons of contextual links in the articles. In this case, I'm not talking about external links, but links within wikipedia.

I admit to occasionally being annoyed when I read a general article and end up doing the old "open in new tab" thing on links that I want to follow up on, only to look up and find that I've got a few dozen to go through by the end of the article, but at the same time, I think it's wonderful to be able to do this.

Part of doing research is cross referencing, and this is an area that wikipedia does pretty well. I found myself starting a search on merchant banking law the other day and ended up learning about the 100 years war and the French Revolution, followed by a bunch of information on the rise of communism/socialism and completed with a survey on the world corruption index and offshore financing systems. In the meantime, I'd looked up biographies of a few dozen interesting people.

I'm not sure if I was answering my questions and getting educated, or just being diverted like a researcher with ADD, but I know I learned a bunch and enjoyed myself at the same time.

Though I still have no idea how to set up a merchant bank to do what I want...

Ian

[projectphp]

Though I still have no idea how to set up a merchant bank to do what I want...

No one ever knows THAT!

Also a good example of where an encyclopedia with links works well, by linking to tutorials (not their focus) and the official docs. That would be the ideal "answer machine", and because wikipedia is free, with no revenue model, they are freed from the worry about sending traffic offsite.

[Durova]

That is where Wikipedia really kicks arse: links and history. You can actually see why edits were made, and start to judge the edits not as standalone statements of one perspective, but in the historical context of collaboration. More information on why the page reads the way it does is better than more accuracy short term, but less transparency.

I'm very glad to see that some of the posters here have shifted away from the paradigm of static publication. The site's discussions and histories often get undervalued. One noteworthy exception last year was the Iraq Museum International, which republished an e-book of Wikipedia's Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons debate.

http://en.wikipedia....-20/In_the_news

This transparency is an excellent asset, particularly on subjects where overall Internet coverage is scarce or when seeking tertiary information about why people reach particular conclusions. In some situations that could be as valuable as a conventional focus group.

Edited by Durova, 24 July 2007 - 12:17 AM.

[projectphp]

Welcome Durove.

Perhaps history can be the Wikipedia message du jour?

Back to your specific article, did you find the advice helpful? I really do think it was too much information and not enough specific.

[Durova]

Welcome Durove.

Perhaps history can be the Wikipedia message du jour?

Back to your specific article, did you find the advice helpful? I really do think it was too much information and not enough specific.

I'm very interested in feedback that could help target future articles to the SEL audience. My volunteer work often focuses on conflict of interest reports and dispute resolutions. So I had in mind a cross section of people who've come to my attention that way.

If you'd like, pretend you're my editor at SEL: what issues would you assign me in my next two or three articles? What would you want to learn from a Wikipedia administrator who has 15,000+ site edits? I promise my next pieces will be shorter than the last one.