67 replies to this topic

[projectphp]

That's good advice but the problem is that a lot of people do take Wikipedia too seriously and mistakenly assume it's on the level of a typical encyclopedia with professional research standards.

And who, exactly, are these people? I have certainly never met them, because the people I actually ask, always say "but isn't wikipedia unreliable", to which I reply "no more so than any other medium, and it is far better than the 1951 Brittanica you have lying about" (who knew men would land on the moon, or the President would shag a movie star who shagged Joltin' Joe, who left and went away?).

Unfortunately, just calling it an Encyclopedia is a misleading frame from the start.

A phooey! Bluenote, let me ask you, when was the last time you read a encyclopedia? I'll make it multiple choice:
a. 5 years ago.
b. 10 years ago.
c. 20 years or longer ago.
d. I have small children, and we read one recently for {INSERT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT HERE}.

I have a whole post on why this argument is wrong, but I'll summarise to save everyopne time:

The problem isn’t with Wikipedia, it is with the whole concept of an encyclopedia. Our view of Encyclopedias is skewed by childhood memories of what we thought they were, i.e. great books full of all of humanities knowledge.

But is that true? Is an encyclopedia actually a good, useful, primary source? Or is it a brief introduction to a topic for people not interested enough to read a proper book, or looking to get into a topic? I would argue it is the later, and think that actually makes Wikipedia close to ideal.

Any user editted document will have innaccuracies, but so will any document. Finding and pointing them out isn't a black mark for wikipedia but, like alcoholism, admitting the problem is the first step in finding a solution.

[bluenote]

And who, exactly, are these people? I have certainly never met them ...

I am glad you asked that. In this particular case I have a much larger statistical sampling to draw from - literally 1000's of call logs that I've been given access to -- much more than my small circle of acquaintances. The wide use of Wikipedia as a pawn by competitors against companies who don't want to participate in such deception hurts businesses and people severely.

I don't think many people would dispute that for every good Wikipedia page that compares favorably to a traditional professionally edited Encyclopedia, anyone can find at least 10 that don't...do you dispute this? Cherry-picking examples in this way doesn't make a very strong case (no one is saying there are no good Wikipedia pages). Again, it's a matter of credibility and not vetting sources/editors by professional standards across the board. A good Wikipedia page is created despite this, not because of it.

For some reason you choose to compare current Wikipedia to a 1951 Britannica. Why would you feel the need to choose one that is so old to try to make a point when there are fairly current versions (both in print and online)? Would it be credible for me to use the 2001 version of Wikipedia as an example?

Your self quote creates a false choice - an artificial double bind. I haven't seen anyone claim that an encyclopedia is a "primary source of knowledge." It is however a very good starting point and many people don't go further. It's comparable to watching an hour documentary about a topic.

I agree with you that like alcoholism, admitting the problem with Wikipedia is the first step in finding a solution (though you seem to argue against it and admit it at the same time). The problem is that Wikipedia is still drinking the spiked kool-aid after attending the AA meeting. In order to be more than a structured topical forum, it will eventually need to make a fairly fundamental change - learning from professional research standards (hiring a staff of professional researchers to vett sources for example). I remember reading somewhere that Jimmy Wales is already considering this anyway (I might be mistaken in this). It needs to want to quit drinking first and will probably need enough "significant emotional events" for motivation

In other words, in order to solve its problems it will eventually have to keep some of the things that are great about Wikipedia but become more like a traditional Encyclopedia in other ways. This will help mitigate the problems much more than its current state. That's a hard drink to swallow I know but it goes down better in the long term than the current kool-aid.

I'll paste the daily show example again below since it illustrates a symptom of the fundamental problem pretty well in a humorous example - not vetting sources/editors in this way can hurt a lot of people. It's one thing to have a poor quality article about the history of the cigarette lighter and quite another to have a poor quality article about a person, company, town, etc.

"The Daily Show with John Stewart" last night (9/10/2007) - the guest made a comment regarding his Wikipedia page.

Guest: Jeff Garlin (comedian, actor)
"...By the way, the last time we did this show we joked that I was at one point studying to be a Rabbi. It showed up on Wikipedia! [laughter] Truthfully. Then my brother and my friend Brian Leach are constantly changing my Wikipedia to where I was a classical pianist. [laughter]. Currently it says, I think, that I was studying international law and the comedy bug bit me. That's why...don't ever take Wikipedia seriously..."

Someone using such a page as a starting point will be very misled from the start - again most such pages are not "self outed" on a TV show. Though difficult to accpet, there will always be people manipulating Wikipedia who are smarter than the admins - just as there are people in the world smarter than we are. I doubt anyone seriously disputes that there are many more examples of such things on Wikipedia than something with professional research standards.

Just like Britannica, its strength is also its weakness. Canadians are technically Americans, but calling them Americans is often misleading. Similarly, calling Wikipedia an Encyclopedia may be accurate in once sense but it's misleading at the same time.

Edited by bluenote, 13 September 2007 - 07:18 PM.

[Randy]

umm... I almost hate to jump in with one single comment, but I guess I will anyway. And this is one I think everybody can come to agreement on.

Anybody who believes that anything they read from a single source is totally reliable --especially a single 'Net source-- needs serious professional help. Because they obviously have a disconnect with reality.

[nethy]

Some universities are now lifting the ban on referencing wikipedia.
Personally I think that Wikipedia is amazingin how well it works.

Generally speaking, I would guess that people are overcautious in trusting Wikipedia when compared to their level of cautiousness when approaching any other source.

Mostly when people have a problem with wikipedia, they actually have a problem with the the weakening of an imperfect but comforting concept: Authority over knowledge or a truth

Truth as an inherent or external concept is very slippery. Consensus is the real life alternative. However consensus is easier to achieve when the community of contributors is smaller and the price of disagreeing higher. Often, In a scientific or academic community, voicing minority opinions is higly priced. Imagine being a climatolagist disagreeing with climate change predictions, or an seo that believes in the dangers of PR leakage. This has both a negative & a postive effect on arriving at a 'truth'.

[bluenote]

Some universities are now lifting the ban on referencing wikipedia.
Personally I think that Wikipedia is amazingin how well it works.

Generally speaking, I would guess that people are overcautious in trusting Wikipedia when compared to their level of cautiousness when approaching any other source.

Mostly when people have a problem with wikipedia, they actually have a problem with the the weakening of an imperfect but comforting concept: Authority over knowledge or a truth

Truth as an inherent or external concept is very slippery. Consensus is the real life alternative. However consensus is easier to achieve when the community of contributors is smaller and the price of disagreeing higher. Often, In a scientific or academic community, voicing minority opinions is higly priced. Imagine being a climatolagist disagreeing with climate change predictions, or an seo that believes in the dangers of PR leakage. This has both a negative & a positive effect on arriving at a 'truth'.

Which universities are those? As discussed before, universities generally don't accept general encyclopedias as references anyway (I'm not sure how more specific encyclopedias like medical encyclopedias are handled though).

To Randy: Not trusting any one source is a good point but that's not in dispute - the question is the credibility of the source. I hope that you would find a reputable experienced mechanic a more credible source for advice on your car than the hotdog vendor on the street you just met 2 minutes ago. Assuming you only had time to consider those two sources, then you need professional (and credible) help if you believe the hotdog vendor.

As for "truth as an inherent or external concept being very slippery", this is something I used to believe too. I'm no longer much of an "all truth is relative" person though because I've seen the result of consensus can easily be just as or more damaging than a straight up lie. The truth is that truth does exist, but we hate to admit that our human minds are too puny (and our perspective too limited) to grasp it most of the time.

Although we often don't have direct access to the truth, it's important to believe that it exists. Otherwise, it's extremely difficult for someone to maintain integrity - they will have a mountain of excuses and have little accountability when things aren't going well in their lives. This requires having some of the F word in truth - faith (which scares a lot of people and makes them uncomfortable). There are of course two ways to skate through easily in life - having faith in nothing and having faith in everything (both avoid thinking).

The kind of truth I'm talking about is relatively concrete and doesn't need to be an existential discussion though. It's not like we're talking about whether it's true that you love someone or not. As an illustration: You can confront someone who took $20 out of your wallet and even show them unedited video tape of them doing it while you watched it take place yourself. Despite this, many thieves will still be saying "the truth is relative and it doesn't prove I took the money. You imagined it and the video tape was doctored and I was on the moon at the time" all day long; but the real truth is that they are only lying to themselves. Fact: they took the money and that's the truth. The only place that's slippery is in the person's head denying it. The "all truth is relative" doesn't work very well when pulled over for speeding either.

Ultimately, everything is based on assumption (you have to at least stipulate the assumption of your own cognitive ability and sanity). But if you try to make those arguments to your creditors in the real world of consequences and results, the truth is that they will eventually come and repo your car. In the examples I've seen in Wikipedia, the non-vetted consensus often ends up to be a skewed lie because both parties compromised (or never compromised) so much that it was misleading from the truth when the facts and editors aren't vetted. While you might not always get the pure truth when sources are vetted and researched to professional standards, your chances of ending up with a much closer version of the truth are greater.

Notice now, the next time you speak with someone and the truth comes out of their mouth, it's very powerful and very pure. Usually, the most truthful person in a room at any given time is the most powerful.

Does any one person have a monopoly on truth? Of course not. Believing that truth does exist though sure is useful and overall brings one closer to it than if they didn't believe in it at all. If you believe the truth is too slippery and doesn't exist, then you lack a clear goal in finding it...therefore, the goal will likely be "protection" and just "winning" an argument more than anything else.

Take from this some humble relationship advice:
1. Don't marry anyone who doesn't believe in truth (how could they be worthy of your trust?)
2. Don't marry anyone until you've seen them drunk.

The truth is that this is way too long - it could all be summed up succinctly by Churchill below.

The truth is incontrovertible; Malice may attack it, Ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill

Edited by bluenote, 14 September 2007 - 11:36 AM.

[projectphp]

I am glad you asked that. In this particular case I have a much larger statistical sampling to draw from - literally 1000's of call logs that I've been given access to -- much more than my small circle of acquaintances. The wide use of Wikipedia as a pawn by competitors against companies who don't want to participate in such deception hurts businesses and people severely.

Can you rewrite that in English?

If you mean you haven't asked people, but looked at logs, how do you know how they feel? How can you possibly know how much they trust? That requires asking.

For some reason you choose to compare current Wikipedia to a 1951 Britannica. Why would you feel the need to choose one that is so old to try to make a point when there are fairly current versions (both in print and online)? Would it be credible for me to use the 2001 version of Wikipedia as an example?

And how often do people upgrade? The vast majority of people either:
1. Have no encyclopedia.
2. Have a really, really, really old version (1951 is the one we had at school).
3. Have a CD they never installed.

In which case, my analogy stands

EVERYONE with internet has access to both the present and historical Wikipedia. So the comparison is a known (Wikipedia) to an unknown.

Your self quote creates a false choice - an artificial double bind. I haven't seen anyone claim that an encyclopedia is a "primary source of knowledge." It is however a very good starting point and many people don't go further. It's comparable to watching an hour documentary about a topic.

Rubbish! An offline encyclopedia, with no hyperlinks, in a book format, is 100% useless, and the proof is in the pudding: no one uses them, as your decision to not answer my multiple choice question shows. If all an encyclopedia is is a starting point, game, set, match Wikipedia.

I'll paste the daily show example again

Who cares? He is a nobody, whose friends change his entry. So what? That is like arguing that Al Qaeda, because of 9/11, is proof that terrorism is the biggest cause of deaths (it isn't, and never has been).

And the thing is, if users are smart, they can look at a page's history, and actually see every change. That, combined with the links, makes Wikipedia vastly, infinitely, both more absolutely useful (as in better fullstop) and also more practically useful (as in people actually use it) than any comparative knowledge repository ever.

It certainly is not perfect, but given it is evolving, and getting better all the time, you can take your encyclopedias that I have absolutely no need for, and I'll keep my Wikipedia.

Edited by projectphp, 16 September 2007 - 02:30 AM.

[bluenote]

Can you rewrite that in English?

English is not my first language but I've felt zero stress in communicating with you. While your embarrassing attempt at an insult seems desperate, if it is true that my English is poor, thanks for tolerating me!

Realize now that the logs I spoke of are the evidence and the record of a LOT of listening and asking people. I'm honestly not being sarcastic here when I say that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this. This is good information gathered and analyzed by a very reputable market research firm by experienced people who do this for a living and take it seriously - not Wikipedia consensus. I was surprised by some of the other things found as well and wish I were able to share them.

And how often do people upgrade? The vast majority of people either:
1. Have no encyclopedia.
2. Have a really, really, really old version (1951 is the one we had at school).
3. Have a CD they never installed.

Regarding #1 - when they are using Wikipedia, they still don't have a encyclopedia with vetted research/sources. This is not to say that they don't have access to a useful resource.

I and others have been talking about credibility, not popularity. I agree that Wikipedia is relatively strong in popularity, and it's relatively weak in credibility. If you're talking about the most popular singer, resort to the rubbish of "American Idol". If you're talking about the best singer that has stood the test of time, you might want to use additional and better criteria. Wikipedia hasn't really been around long which is one contributing factor to its relative lack of credibility. If/when it grows up enough in the right way to have earned such credibility it will have a couple fundamental differences from where it is now and it will have more in common with what you say is "useless" now. I am optimistic that it will continue to improve as you are.

In which case, my analogy stands

The word analogy doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Citing a 1951 version of encyclopedia (the one you have used) does not constitute an "analogy" (look up the word in Wikipedia), you cited a poor example in attempt to make things easier for yourself; so what you said earlier might still make sense. Secondly, the 1951 example is dated and not relevant no matter how you try frame it. Just as this wouldn't be an acceptable reference in Wikipedia for this subject, it damages the credibility of your case here too.

Travel outside your town to mainland China (about 1.3 billion people) sometime for an eye opening experience of their version of internet access. Besides that, many parents, universities, and libraries have encyclopedias installed in their computers for this very reason. There are a lot of "locked down" computers out there for research.

That said, your use of sweeping phrases like "vast majority" are amusing but realize now that a "vast majority" of people don't use Wikipedia either! Pop that thought bubble.

EVERYONE with internet has access to both the present and historical Wikipedia. So the comparison is a known (Wikipedia) to an unknown.
Rubbish! An offline encyclopedia, with no hyperlinks, in a book format, is 100% useless, and the proof is in the pudding: no one uses them, as your decision to not answer my multiple choice question shows.

Reading well researched books is not very "popular" - does that mean books are less credible? Popularity is one indicator to be considered among many, but it is a sad state of falling standards these days when such things are equated. As for an encyclopedia in book format (which you of course failed to mention digital format which has links) being 100% useless, that statement is too absurd to waste a response on. I didn't answer your specific "multiple choice" question because 1. you are not in any position to give an exam and 2. it has to do with popularity, not quality. 3. I am not limited to your limited number of "choices" that you are able to think of.

If all an encyclopedia is is a starting point, game, set, match Wikipedia.

What "game" are you speaking of? You don't seem aware of what you're disagreeing with. Rather you are more concerned with winning some sort of "game" which you are playing with yourself.

Who cares? He is a nobody, whose friends change his entry. So what? That is like arguing that Al Qaeda, because of 9/11, is proof that terrorism is the biggest cause of deaths (it isn't, and never has been).

If he is a "nobody" why does he have his own Wikipedia page? You are unwittingly criticizing Wikipedia not him. A lot of people care when pages about themselves are being edited by others in an inaccurate way. If you are someday significant enough in your field for a Wikipedia page about yourself (which doesn't take much considering the "nobodys" that are in Wikipedia according to you) you will care when people are editing your page in an innacurate manner you don't like.

And the thing is, if users are smart, they can look at a page's history, and actually see every change. That, combined with the links, makes Wikipedia vastly, infinitely, both more absolutely useful (as in better fullstop) and also more practically useful (as in people actually use it) than any comparative knowledge repository ever.

"If users are smart"? This is condescending to a lot of people you've never spoken to and is an illustration of the particular mental bubble you're living in. For two weeks, I was lucky enough to work closely with a Nobel Prize winning (yes, the real Nobel Prize) neuroscientist who has broken new ground and made the lives of many people with MS to be bearable (according to many of them). All I did was help him in his research for one project. He did not have a clue about such details regarding Wikipedia because he refers to professionally researched/vetted digitized Encyclopedias often in areas he does not specialize in as a starting point (both Medical Encyclopedias and general ones). Does this mean he's "not smart"? Rubbish. To summarize, someone can be far more intelligent and contribute more to the world than you and I put together and not know anything about how Wikipedia works. Fortunately, he knew enough not to use it as a starting point when people's lives are at stake (or at least his own reputation when peers review his work).

It certainly is not perfect,

Oh really? What an amazing admission. No encyclopedia is "perfect" either let alone Wikipedia. You admit it's not perfect but when someone points out a fundamental imperfection you defend it like you defend a family member who has some dirt on you. Divorce yourself a bit emotionally, crush some tin foil over your antenna, and you'll get better reception. Wikipedia won't warm you on the next cold night. If another person or pet doesn't, a professionally researched/designed/vetted furnace will.

but given it is evolving, and getting better all the time, you can take your encyclopedias that I have absolutely no need for, and I'll keep my Wikipedia.

You've made it clear that you have no need for it, but some people actually do have a need for an encyclopedia with vetted research and sources by professional standards. And all I'm saying is that until Wikipedia has higher standards in this area (which I believe it will eventually), it correlates to a lot of needless harm. As much as I like Wikipedia just as much as you do for some of the reasons you've stated yourself, this is the truth whether you can swallow it or not.

I have to agree with Michael Martinzez here that Wikipedia suffers from credibility issues for well documented reasons. Do you still disagree with this? I'm amazed this is actually controversial.

Anyway, while I think overall this discussion was good, time is a precious currency so you are welcome to the last word in your Wikipedia game. Have at it and take care.

Edited by bluenote, 17 September 2007 - 12:48 PM.

[projectphp]

While your embarrassing attempt at an insult seems desperate, if it is true that my English is poor, thanks for tolerating me!

Wasn't meant as an insult, but a request to understand what the hell you meant. "literally 1000's of call logs that I've been given access to". what the heck are they, and how do you know what they say about wikipedia? The only way to know that is to ask, and your post didn't indicate that they say anything about people's trust oin wikipedia... Or did they? I still don't know! So, what did these logs tell you specifically within the context of my question?

I and others have been talking about credibility, not popularity. I agree that Wikipedia is relatively strong in popularity, and it's relatively weak in credibility.

Rubbish! Its credibility is just right. It is, perhaps, the most accurately assessed website ever. Compare people's response to "is wikipedia credible" with "Is fox news credible" or "is al jazeera credible" and I bet the answers are far more similar for the first than the latter two. People know what they get with wikipedia, and if you read my blog post (you did, right? You didn't just get all offended because I was wasn't listenning to you, but you were the better man and read what I wroite, right?), the format, the openness, history and the links, all make wikipedia the greatest starting point to learning ever. NOT, and I want to make this crystal clear for all the 1% short equals abject failure crowd, NOT the final step, but the best first step imaginable.

And why? Because it is so easy. Usability is all about making tasks easier, to remove the barriers that stop people. Wikipedia + Google = the start of a learning journey. Not the end, but a start. The entire Enclyclopedia whatevery = a big waste of space that sits in the corner of a cupboard (or on a CD) and serves no practical purpose, as evidence by the fact so few people use them.

Any credibility wikipedia loses is, IMHO, more than made up for in its wilingness to link, and send people to, better resources, something many commercial sites do very, very poorly. Brittanica may be brilliant, but if it doesn't help me verify itsefl (and last I checked it doesn't), then it is britannica, not wikipedia, which should really have teh credibility issues.

Oh really? What an amazing admission. No encyclopedia is "perfect" either let alone Wikipedia. You admit it's not perfect but when someone points out a fundamental imperfection you defend it like you defend a family member who has some dirt on you. Divorce yourself a bit emotionally, crush some tin foil over your antenna, and you'll get better reception. Wikipedia won't warm you on the next cold night. If another person or pet doesn't, a professionally researched/designed/vetted furnace will.

Dude(ette?), I get that my english comment offended you, and I apologise for that, but seriously, build a bridge and get over it. Clearly, your english is better than my whatever other language (for one, I didn;t knowm it wasn;t your first language so kudos there, and two, I only knows me one language, so anyone else wins there), so I apologise (again) if you were offended.

Now, whilst I do indeed play with myself (in all sense of the term), I am not defending wikipedia for any fundamentalist reason, i.e. The evidence, IMHO, supports wikipedia as the best in practice, and all the criticisms I have ever heard are, again IMHO, glass of wine not quite full and compared to a glass of urine style criticims, which I think, personally, have no value. If wikipedia isn't perfect, that is a good thing. It means humanity isn't extinct, and new information is being generated all the time

For me, the final factb about wikipedia is this: I haven't read an encyclopedia in nigh on 20 years, but I use wikipedia every single day, if not several times a day. For that reason alone, wikipedia, flaws and all, is better than anything else. At the very least for me.

But I will concede one point: it should not be called an encyclopedia, just not for the reasons others believe. It should not be called an encyclopedia because it is infinitely more useful than an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is an innaccurate, unchangeable snap shot of the prejudiuces and time constraints of a limitted number of people in the employ of one company, who exchange information for money, in all directions.

Whereas wikipedia is a document whose current status can be changed, whose changes and reasons for changes can reviewed, with a constantly evolving content mix that is always building, not replacing, old content and that provides a handy set of contextual links to relevant internal and external resources, all for a monetary cost that is infintely more valuable then the knowledge returned (i.e. it's free). It is, in short, the web as it should be: imperfect but ever improving, effecient but not 100% accurate. Any criticism of wikipedia is, by proxy, a criticism of the web itself and, whilst often valid, perhaps missing the point that in most cases faster is more effective than good.

My $0.02.

PS: I changed my avatar, because I think you are right: I need my tinfoil hat back