According to the Internet ...
June 14, 2007 7:15 PM Subscribe
Wikipedia claims it has an accuracy rate similar to that of Encyclopedia Britannica. But are Wikipedia articles accurate enough to be relied on? The media frequently cite to the free encyclopedia despite a chance the information might be wildly inaccurate. In an effort to improve the accuracy and quality of articles, Wikipedia's internal editorial team has assessed and graded the content of 300,000 articles (out of 1.8 million articles in English alone.) One obvious way to improve accuracy is to reveal editor names, such as on the Citizendium (as previously posted on MeFi.) A simpler idea, however, might rely on a color scheme to automatically alert users to the accuracy of the article (or lack thereof).
At any given time, I believe Wikipedia is fairly accurate. But given the dynamic nature of the content, I'm betting it's less accurate over time than Britannica. And while color coding will be nice, it doesn't say anything about what will happen to the accuracy of an article in the future. The expectation is that articles will improve in accuracy as they age, but all it takes is one edit, and that trend could change direction.
posted by tommasz at 7:30 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by tommasz at 7:30 PM on June 14, 2007
I think it's fine as is. The quality of articles is clearly summarized on their talk pages, if they've been "graded." Actually, anyone who is motivated or savvy enough to click the talk page tab can easily assess where an article lies in the Wikipedia "quality taxonomy," whether or not it has been graded. A talk page run amok with wingnuts' rantings and vitriol is likely to reflect a pretty lousy article, and the converse is also true.
Wikipedia articles are, on balance, accurate enough to be relied on as a jumping-off point for further inquiry. That's all that should ever be asked or expected of an encyclopedia. And I'd imagine accuracy will improve with time, for the simple reason that "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."
posted by killdevil at 7:31 PM on June 14, 2007
Wikipedia articles are, on balance, accurate enough to be relied on as a jumping-off point for further inquiry. That's all that should ever be asked or expected of an encyclopedia. And I'd imagine accuracy will improve with time, for the simple reason that "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."
posted by killdevil at 7:31 PM on June 14, 2007
I just love it when wikipedia comes up with a new scheme for the admins to busy themselves with. (That isn't writing actual articles, of course.)
How many hours were spent tagging every sentence with "citation required"?
posted by smackfu at 7:52 PM on June 14, 2007
How many hours were spent tagging every sentence with "citation required"?
posted by smackfu at 7:52 PM on June 14, 2007
The expectation is that articles will improve in accuracy as they age, but all it takes is one edit, and that trend could change direction.
History is usually written by whomever is winning at the time.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2007
History is usually written by whomever is winning at the time.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2007
There was a bit of a frenzyu when the Biography Of A Living Person policy was updated - basically becoming a deletionist sledgehammer. I had to find cites for more than a few dumb and obvious things to save them from limbo.
posted by Artw at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by Artw at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2007
The whole it wikipedia reliable? canard is just about the least interesting thing about it.
Far more interesting are the bizarre self-congratulatory internal politics between all of the "editors" that contribute very little or no content to the site. And then there's the enigma wrapped in a douchebag that is Jimmy Wales. It and Eve Online are what political economists should be studying right now. It's the essence of governance.
posted by blasdelf at 7:58 PM on June 14, 2007 [4 favorites]
Far more interesting are the bizarre self-congratulatory internal politics between all of the "editors" that contribute very little or no content to the site. And then there's the enigma wrapped in a douchebag that is Jimmy Wales. It and Eve Online are what political economists should be studying right now. It's the essence of governance.
posted by blasdelf at 7:58 PM on June 14, 2007 [4 favorites]
In my opinion (and I say this as a frequent and somewhat obsessive editor), Wikipedia should be relied upon as a starting off point for further research, not as a source. Many of the articles are exceptionally well-done and indeed highly accurate (especially the articles pertaining to the physical sciences -- not so much for history or political matters), but the thought of a high school student phoning in the assignment designed to familiarize them with conducting research by quoting a Wikipedia article irritates me. I seem to remember a long-standing rule in my public schooling that said a Brittanica article is not a source and should not be included as such. The same should apply to Wikipedia and for chrissakes, the same should apply to lazy reporters!
posted by inoculatedcities at 8:07 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by inoculatedcities at 8:07 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
Color scheme sounds like a nightmare. With the rise of user nag tags around 2005 (ie. "This article needs an expert. This article needs to be re-written.etc,, ) wikipedia went from a meritocracy to a whiner-ocracy. Too many know-nothing critics and not enough actual expertise and work. Wikipedia has gone from amateur scholars to amateur bureaucrats.
I'm really looking forward to reading The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture, which is a polemic against Wikipedia and the whole web 2.0 culture.
posted by stbalbach at 8:08 PM on June 14, 2007 [2 favorites]
I'm really looking forward to reading The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture, which is a polemic against Wikipedia and the whole web 2.0 culture.
posted by stbalbach at 8:08 PM on June 14, 2007 [2 favorites]
I really would like Wikipedia to be a bit more reliable, despite the flaws with the site. It's ridiculous how much people already rely on it without further checks (for instance, paralegals in the law firm I work at use Wikipedia to look up medical information, instead of the big medical reference books on everyone's desk.
stbalbach, I don't see how color scheme would be a nightmare., as it would be automated and not something subject to the whims of individual users. Any edited material automatically turns dark red then slowly returns to white as more and more people view the information without re-correcting the material. It's not a perfect fix, but it would give people a better idea of the accuracy range of that section of an article.
posted by Happydaz at 8:18 PM on June 14, 2007
stbalbach, I don't see how color scheme would be a nightmare., as it would be automated and not something subject to the whims of individual users. Any edited material automatically turns dark red then slowly returns to white as more and more people view the information without re-correcting the material. It's not a perfect fix, but it would give people a better idea of the accuracy range of that section of an article.
posted by Happydaz at 8:18 PM on June 14, 2007
inoculatedcities, that's pretty much my opinion as well. Wikipedia is great, just don't cite it. But it's a good thing these articles are including "according to wikipedia"... imagine some unsubstantiated fact ("citation needed") gets into a newspaper article, then someone updates the wikipedia artlce and uses the newspaper article as confirmation. Madness.
posted by bobo123 at 8:33 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by bobo123 at 8:33 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think the following colour scheme could work:
blue: interesting but not guaranteed to be accurate or unbiased. may be a vehicle for pushing agendas. unlikely to be useful for practical, real-life applications. safe to read.
green: has a real-life application. best efforts at accuracy are made, but intrusion of malicious or frivolous text cannot be prevented. use with caution.
grey: contentious & subject to bitter disputes & flamewars. may contain hidden cabalistic messages or in-jokes which can be hard to interpret. avoid where possible.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:38 PM on June 14, 2007
blue: interesting but not guaranteed to be accurate or unbiased. may be a vehicle for pushing agendas. unlikely to be useful for practical, real-life applications. safe to read.
green: has a real-life application. best efforts at accuracy are made, but intrusion of malicious or frivolous text cannot be prevented. use with caution.
grey: contentious & subject to bitter disputes & flamewars. may contain hidden cabalistic messages or in-jokes which can be hard to interpret. avoid where possible.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:38 PM on June 14, 2007
That's a silly scheme UbuRoivas. There is no cabal.
posted by pompomtom at 8:56 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by pompomtom at 8:56 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
But it's a good thing these articles are including "according to wikipedia"
As opposed to the articles that you see that don't include it...
posted by smackfu at 9:01 PM on June 14, 2007
As opposed to the articles that you see that don't include it...
posted by smackfu at 9:01 PM on June 14, 2007
Never mind accuracy. I wish someone would do something about that dead-boring writing style that Wikipedia writers generally adopt in their quest for the goal of objectivity.
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:04 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:04 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's always the framing that gets on my tits. They have unblocked Wikipedia in China again, so I logged on looking to finally edit some obsucre things I couldn't when using a proxy, and happened to read the PRC article, as it was linked off the "good articles" list.
So this country profile held up as "good" contains a section on population policy in China, and another on human rights. These are topics concerning China that deserve scrutiny and debate, but what the fuck are they doing there? It's "China as seen through a US lens" again. There's no "history of evil imperialist hegemony" section in the US entry, quite rightly.
None of the above would rub me up the wrong way quite so much if they didn't bang on about the neutral point of view whilst appearing to lack the collective mental wherewithal to even understand what that might entail.
posted by Abiezer at 9:15 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
So this country profile held up as "good" contains a section on population policy in China, and another on human rights. These are topics concerning China that deserve scrutiny and debate, but what the fuck are they doing there? It's "China as seen through a US lens" again. There's no "history of evil imperialist hegemony" section in the US entry, quite rightly.
None of the above would rub me up the wrong way quite so much if they didn't bang on about the neutral point of view whilst appearing to lack the collective mental wherewithal to even understand what that might entail.
posted by Abiezer at 9:15 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yeah, wikipedia is pretty bureaucratic. I think some of the shine has worn off.
But the truth is it's an incredible resource. Most things I might wonder about, there is a corresponding wikipedia article. Before wikipedia it was always hit-or-miss on the web. In terms of utility it's about as, or even more, useful then google.
posted by delmoi at 9:22 PM on June 14, 2007
But the truth is it's an incredible resource. Most things I might wonder about, there is a corresponding wikipedia article. Before wikipedia it was always hit-or-miss on the web. In terms of utility it's about as, or even more, useful then google.
posted by delmoi at 9:22 PM on June 14, 2007
Wikipedia criticizes itself, so I'll give it a pass. If you want serious material, just go to your library.
posted by Mblue at 9:27 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by Mblue at 9:27 PM on June 14, 2007
There are so many schemes on Wikipedia to double-check the schemes that are already in place that were put in place to double-check the original schemes (on top of the other separate dimension of schemes that are in place to keep the vandalism in check) that it's all become an endless loop of the encyclopedia dog chasing its tail.
posted by blucevalo at 9:31 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by blucevalo at 9:31 PM on June 14, 2007
On the other hand, I would agree with delmoi that it's still an amazing resource, if you use it knowing its limitations -- and in terms of growth, spontaneity, liveliness, and vigor (I said "vigor," not "rigor"), it leaves the Britannicas in the dust.
posted by blucevalo at 9:33 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by blucevalo at 9:33 PM on June 14, 2007
Nope, sorry. The Wikipedia Wikipedia article says that Wikipedia has three times the accuracy of God. I can't believe how wrong you are. It's astounding.
posted by stavrogin at 9:36 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by stavrogin at 9:36 PM on June 14, 2007
Actually, it's 3.754 times the accuracy of God. The vandals downsized the accuracy ratio and they haven't been reverted yet.
posted by blucevalo at 9:39 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by blucevalo at 9:39 PM on June 14, 2007
Wikipedia is cool because it is all open and whatnot. If someone changes something, can go back and look at the history. Oh wait.
posted by Potsy at 9:45 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by Potsy at 9:45 PM on June 14, 2007
The problem with wikipedia is the idiot editors who have decided to get rid of the very things that made Wikipedia such a great site; the quirky stuff that you wouldn't find in a paper encyclopedia.
Seriously, if I want to do research on the contributions of monetary policy to the fall of the Roman Empire I ain't going to Wikipedia. I'm going to wikipedia to find out how often the character Andy Andy appeared on Cheers. I'm going to Wikipedia to find out what Tera Patrick's real name is. I'm going to Wikipedia to refresh my memory about what happened in Book Four of the Whatever Chronicles that was published 3 years ago so I don't have to re-read it before Book Five.
And that's the kind of stuff that is being deprecated... well, okay, not so much Tera Patrick's real name but you get the point.
Another huge problem is that Wikipedia has ended up with cliques of editors trading favors and becoming little tin-pot despots who harass and abuse other contributors. Like "Will BeBack" who is commonly known as a little tyrant but nothing is ever done about it.
Wikipedia was great, but it needs to get its house in order.
posted by Justinian at 9:47 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
Seriously, if I want to do research on the contributions of monetary policy to the fall of the Roman Empire I ain't going to Wikipedia. I'm going to wikipedia to find out how often the character Andy Andy appeared on Cheers. I'm going to Wikipedia to find out what Tera Patrick's real name is. I'm going to Wikipedia to refresh my memory about what happened in Book Four of the Whatever Chronicles that was published 3 years ago so I don't have to re-read it before Book Five.
And that's the kind of stuff that is being deprecated... well, okay, not so much Tera Patrick's real name but you get the point.
Another huge problem is that Wikipedia has ended up with cliques of editors trading favors and becoming little tin-pot despots who harass and abuse other contributors. Like "Will BeBack" who is commonly known as a little tyrant but nothing is ever done about it.
Wikipedia was great, but it needs to get its house in order.
posted by Justinian at 9:47 PM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]
Linda Ann Hopkins Shapiro !!
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:50 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:50 PM on June 14, 2007
I recently looked up the bio on Wikipedia for someone I knew personally, that died 10 years ago. It was tagged as the bio of a living person. Stuff that had been there before (and was accurate) had been deleted.
Yet I agree, the resource is fantastic. If I allow myself, I can get lost for hours of following related links.
posted by Goofyy at 11:01 PM on June 14, 2007
Yet I agree, the resource is fantastic. If I allow myself, I can get lost for hours of following related links.
posted by Goofyy at 11:01 PM on June 14, 2007
Huh, I've been saying for several months now that there should be a little button on each page showing how actively it's been edited, with some averages worked in (average edits over the past six months, since the article was started, over the past week, etc.). I'm not sure that portraying that kind of thing as an indicator of accuracy is the right idea, but it's interesting that someone had a similar idea.
posted by jiawen at 11:03 PM on June 14, 2007
posted by jiawen at 11:03 PM on June 14, 2007
Thanks heaps, Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America.
I had no idea who this Shapiro person was & assumed it must have been a funny entry, for whatever reason.
Now, I'm on the server log as having surfed for porn stars from work.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:31 PM on June 14, 2007
I had no idea who this Shapiro person was & assumed it must have been a funny entry, for whatever reason.
Now, I'm on the server log as having surfed for porn stars from work.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:31 PM on June 14, 2007
Sorry, but the double italic bold exclamation points are the international symbol for "this shit is serious, yo."
You don't want to be surfing serious shit at work.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:42 AM on June 15, 2007
You don't want to be surfing serious shit at work.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:42 AM on June 15, 2007
eh... i don't think jimmy wales is any more of a douchebag than any other guy that started out in internet porn...
heh... most of their servers are still held under the bomis name come to think of it...
posted by MonkNoiz at 1:10 AM on June 15, 2007
heh... most of their servers are still held under the bomis name come to think of it...
posted by MonkNoiz at 1:10 AM on June 15, 2007
"eh... i don't think jimmy wales is any more of a douchebag than any other guy that started out in internet porn..."
Whoa.. watchitnow. Minus the douchebag part (and my not being Jimmy Wales), I resemble that remark.
Does it change things if I wasn't ever actually running an internet porn business?
posted by revmitcz at 1:54 AM on June 15, 2007
Whoa.. watchitnow. Minus the douchebag part (and my not being Jimmy Wales), I resemble that remark.
Does it change things if I wasn't ever actually running an internet porn business?
posted by revmitcz at 1:54 AM on June 15, 2007
So which would be more accurate - a newspaper whose journalists had been impudent enough to base every article on something in Wikipedia - or a regular newspaper?
posted by rongorongo at 2:04 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by rongorongo at 2:04 AM on June 15, 2007
I just love it when wikipedia comes up with a new scheme for the admins to busy themselves with.
The article assessment project (whatever its merits in implementation) is considered a necessary step toward building the "Wikipedia 1.0" CD-ROM/print edition. Some editors think that's a really important thing, I'm a bit meh, but the assessment sometimes prompts an article to get improved.
A project like Wikipedia does need people to write articles, but it also needs "WikiElves", who do those maintenance tasks. I certainly don't object to what they're doing, even if I have my doubts about the need.
Far more interesting are the bizarre self-congratulatory internal politics between all of the "editors" that contribute very little or no content to the site.
There's an editor life-cycle. Most people do start out writing stuff, but eventually run out of missing articles on stuff they enjoy writing about. They either leave, or get into one of the many behind-the-scenes projects. Myself, I have a long list of articles I'd like to write, but I find myself happier (or at least more productive) in the role of article rescuer (either from general badness, or from badness sufficient to put it on the chopping block).
The problem with wikipedia is the idiot editors who have decided to get rid of the very things that made Wikipedia such a great site; the quirky stuff that you wouldn't find in a paper encyclopedia.
A lot of that quirky stuff is difficult, if not impossible, to properly verify. I wish it weren't so, and as an inclusionist I find myself on a losing side more often than not, but the policies in general have been a good thing. An article, as a thing, is more viable when it's properly attributed. People don't muck with them as much, and people don't nominate them for deletion as much.
someone I knew personally, that died 10 years ago. It was tagged as the bio of a living person.
Biographies without death dates are assumed to be living, due to liability concerns. I think it's reasonable.
Stuff that had been there before (and was accurate) had been deleted.
So, given the choice between complaining about it here, and pointing out the problems on the article's talk page (ore better yet, fixing it yourself) you ....
As for the color scheme idea, I just don't see it working. Accuracy is an intangible that can be subject to POV, and any tagging process would become subject to the article's internal politics. George W. Bush would cycle through all the colors six times a day. And so would his article.
If I have one consistent complaint about the site, it's the current focus on excising any hint of what Wales apparently thinks are "tabloid" articles, ranging from Little Fatty and Allison Stokke to Crystal Gail Mangum and Katie Faber. I haven't reconciled myself, entirely, to the idea that a newspaper can print it but we can't. A biography -- complete with schooling, current employment, etc. -- is probably not the best way to tell certain stories, but it's an awfully convenient one, and telling them as "events" isn't always successful.
posted by dhartung at 2:47 AM on June 15, 2007
The article assessment project (whatever its merits in implementation) is considered a necessary step toward building the "Wikipedia 1.0" CD-ROM/print edition. Some editors think that's a really important thing, I'm a bit meh, but the assessment sometimes prompts an article to get improved.
A project like Wikipedia does need people to write articles, but it also needs "WikiElves", who do those maintenance tasks. I certainly don't object to what they're doing, even if I have my doubts about the need.
Far more interesting are the bizarre self-congratulatory internal politics between all of the "editors" that contribute very little or no content to the site.
There's an editor life-cycle. Most people do start out writing stuff, but eventually run out of missing articles on stuff they enjoy writing about. They either leave, or get into one of the many behind-the-scenes projects. Myself, I have a long list of articles I'd like to write, but I find myself happier (or at least more productive) in the role of article rescuer (either from general badness, or from badness sufficient to put it on the chopping block).
The problem with wikipedia is the idiot editors who have decided to get rid of the very things that made Wikipedia such a great site; the quirky stuff that you wouldn't find in a paper encyclopedia.
A lot of that quirky stuff is difficult, if not impossible, to properly verify. I wish it weren't so, and as an inclusionist I find myself on a losing side more often than not, but the policies in general have been a good thing. An article, as a thing, is more viable when it's properly attributed. People don't muck with them as much, and people don't nominate them for deletion as much.
someone I knew personally, that died 10 years ago. It was tagged as the bio of a living person.
Biographies without death dates are assumed to be living, due to liability concerns. I think it's reasonable.
Stuff that had been there before (and was accurate) had been deleted.
So, given the choice between complaining about it here, and pointing out the problems on the article's talk page (ore better yet, fixing it yourself) you ....
As for the color scheme idea, I just don't see it working. Accuracy is an intangible that can be subject to POV, and any tagging process would become subject to the article's internal politics. George W. Bush would cycle through all the colors six times a day. And so would his article.
If I have one consistent complaint about the site, it's the current focus on excising any hint of what Wales apparently thinks are "tabloid" articles, ranging from Little Fatty and Allison Stokke to Crystal Gail Mangum and Katie Faber. I haven't reconciled myself, entirely, to the idea that a newspaper can print it but we can't. A biography -- complete with schooling, current employment, etc. -- is probably not the best way to tell certain stories, but it's an awfully convenient one, and telling them as "events" isn't always successful.
posted by dhartung at 2:47 AM on June 15, 2007
Wikipedia's internal editorial team has assessed and graded the content of 300,000 articles
300,000 articles is a shitload of material. I wonder how big the team that did this assessing/grading was, and how well qualified they were to do these assessments?
Or is this yet another example of the typical Wikipedia editorial obsession with assessing form rather than content?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:33 AM on June 15, 2007
300,000 articles is a shitload of material. I wonder how big the team that did this assessing/grading was, and how well qualified they were to do these assessments?
Or is this yet another example of the typical Wikipedia editorial obsession with assessing form rather than content?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:33 AM on June 15, 2007
The idea that the Encyclopedia Britannica is more accurate because it's set in stone is kind of ridiculous. OMGPEOPLECANEDITTHEWORLDISOVAR!!!
posted by DU at 4:24 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by DU at 4:24 AM on June 15, 2007
I support anything that encourages critical thinking the ability to separate shit from shinola. Stupid people who believe unconsidered everything they read deserve to use solution of Drano as a safe-and-effective douche, or Biblical epistles as the foundation of their personal epistemology.
But fuck 'em: grind 'em up, and plow the meat slurry into the earth as fertilizer. The species is better off without their bland trusting doe-eyed gaze.
Wikipedia is all about accelerating Darwinian intellectual selection, motherfuckers.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:00 AM on June 15, 2007
But fuck 'em: grind 'em up, and plow the meat slurry into the earth as fertilizer. The species is better off without their bland trusting doe-eyed gaze.
Wikipedia is all about accelerating Darwinian intellectual selection, motherfuckers.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:00 AM on June 15, 2007
An accuracy rate similar to that of Encyclopedia Brown? Awesome!
posted by OmieWise at 5:36 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by OmieWise at 5:36 AM on June 15, 2007
This sort of thing will be why I remain a fan of Wikipedia. I'm rarely able to defeat it - someone somewhere has written about what I'm looking up, even if it's just a stub.
I never use it as a definitive source for anything, but like others have said here, it's a great starting point. Mainly I use it to get a rough outline or definition on something.
I'm really looking forward to reading The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture, which is a polemic against Wikipedia and the whole web 2.0 culture.
You had me intrigued until I read this on the Amazon page:
In its last third, the book runs off the rails completely, blaming Web 2.0 for online poker, child pornography, identity theft and betraying "Judeo-Christian ethics."
posted by Zinger at 5:45 AM on June 15, 2007
I never use it as a definitive source for anything, but like others have said here, it's a great starting point. Mainly I use it to get a rough outline or definition on something.
I'm really looking forward to reading The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture, which is a polemic against Wikipedia and the whole web 2.0 culture.
You had me intrigued until I read this on the Amazon page:
In its last third, the book runs off the rails completely, blaming Web 2.0 for online poker, child pornography, identity theft and betraying "Judeo-Christian ethics."
posted by Zinger at 5:45 AM on June 15, 2007
Ironically, the more little notes and stuff that wikipedia adds, the less professional it looks. How often do you run into a page that doesn't have a little box at the top bitching about some policy the page doesn't follow?
posted by smackfu at 5:45 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by smackfu at 5:45 AM on June 15, 2007
'Professional' isn't necessarily something desirable. 'Professional' is something that I'd argue things like Wikipedia and Fucking and Drinking and Metafilter Commenting and a whole bunch of other Good Stuff should never be, nor aspire to.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:56 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:56 AM on June 15, 2007
Justinian good observations and agree 100%. I've run into various cliques - they co-ordinate off-line (through chat, email etc..) and use an array of sock-puppets to hide identities. Some of them are admins, they monitor the Conflict Resolution boards, they rarely loose a dispute. If you want to see it in action, visit the Quackwatch page - but it's not limited to that. One member yells "Hey, Rube!" and the rest come running to help.
posted by stbalbach at 6:10 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by stbalbach at 6:10 AM on June 15, 2007
I agree, but Wikipedia clearly thinks it's desirable. So they add crap to every page that has a Trivia section saying it should be nuked, when that's usually the most interesting part. Similarly, they hate bulleted lists of points, but they don't have writers with the skill to replace them with something better.
posted by smackfu at 6:11 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by smackfu at 6:11 AM on June 15, 2007
You had me intrigued until I read this on the Amazon page
Well, Publisher's Weekly reviews are not known for their accuracy. Do you trust an anonymous PW review, or the array of quotes by well known personalities that follow it? In any case, it's a polemic, it will contain things you disagree with, it's meant to stir conversation and thought, it's not a Wikipedia article.
posted by stbalbach at 6:16 AM on June 15, 2007
Well, Publisher's Weekly reviews are not known for their accuracy. Do you trust an anonymous PW review, or the array of quotes by well known personalities that follow it? In any case, it's a polemic, it will contain things you disagree with, it's meant to stir conversation and thought, it's not a Wikipedia article.
posted by stbalbach at 6:16 AM on June 15, 2007
I'm with Justinian, I love the wikipedia for looking up episode guides, finding out biographies of television characters, or to refresh my memory about a book. I don't look at it so much for hard facts.
posted by drezdn at 7:35 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by drezdn at 7:35 AM on June 15, 2007
My computer science TEXTBOOK pointed readers to a wikipedia page for further information about something. Wikipedia is good for looking up a reference I didn't understand, or finding search terms but citing it in a book seems sketchy. That said, the yearbook editors at my school this year looked really silly when they got a bunch of "fun facts" off the school's wikipedia article and didn't verify them and then realized after the yearbooks were passed that some jokers had just made them up.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 8:42 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 8:42 AM on June 15, 2007
Well, Publisher's Weekly reviews are not known for their accuracy. Do you trust an anonymous PW review, or the array of quotes by well known personalities that follow it?
Meh. Reviewer's quotes aren't exactly objective. Authors solicit them from each other all the time, for the sake of mutual ego stroking or for publicity. I'm not particularly swayed by the fact they're "personalities" either. Paris Hilton is a well-known personality.
posted by Zinger at 9:20 AM on June 15, 2007
Meh. Reviewer's quotes aren't exactly objective. Authors solicit them from each other all the time, for the sake of mutual ego stroking or for publicity. I'm not particularly swayed by the fact they're "personalities" either. Paris Hilton is a well-known personality.
posted by Zinger at 9:20 AM on June 15, 2007
I love Wikipedia. How did anyone ever win an office argument without it?
posted by mckenney at 9:22 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by mckenney at 9:22 AM on June 15, 2007
Wikipedia is a great place to find music. I'm serious about that. Punch in the name of a band and look at the "Related Links" and you're likely to find another band in the same genre.
It's more useful for finding new music than Napster ever was for me. :)
posted by drstein at 9:43 AM on June 15, 2007
It's more useful for finding new music than Napster ever was for me. :)
posted by drstein at 9:43 AM on June 15, 2007
Zinger, what if I told you PW operates like Wikipedia, it gets free reviews from people whose qualifications and background are unknown. For all we know it was written by a 20 year old Wikipedia-fanatic. And unlike Wikipedia, no one can go in and fix mistakes and there is no NPOV policy. Feel free to trust the review but take it in balance with other sources.
posted by stbalbach at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2007
posted by stbalbach at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2007
Zinger, what if I told you PW operates like Wikipedia, it gets free reviews from people whose qualifications and background are unknown.
I'd say [citation needed] .
posted by Zinger at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2007
I'd say [citation needed] .
posted by Zinger at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2007
"A lot of that quirky stuff is difficult, if not impossible, to properly verify."
This is why I find this debate both amusing and ..whatever the word is for 'a rolling of the eyes' kinda emotion.. what is that? Anyway...
What is the difference between a 'definitive source' and a descriptive one? Most of the time I don't need accuracy. I just need an answer. Mayhaps people who are anal about accuracy are also snobbish about knowledge.
And random funny references about bananas should not be removed outright from the wiki, unless it's not funny. Quirky stuff shouldn't be verifiable, as it tends to diminish its quirkyness. Who ever heard of quirky stuff that was verifiable? Where's the fun in that?
posted by ZachsMind at 11:45 AM on June 15, 2007
This is why I find this debate both amusing and ..whatever the word is for 'a rolling of the eyes' kinda emotion.. what is that? Anyway...
What is the difference between a 'definitive source' and a descriptive one? Most of the time I don't need accuracy. I just need an answer. Mayhaps people who are anal about accuracy are also snobbish about knowledge.
And random funny references about bananas should not be removed outright from the wiki, unless it's not funny. Quirky stuff shouldn't be verifiable, as it tends to diminish its quirkyness. Who ever heard of quirky stuff that was verifiable? Where's the fun in that?
posted by ZachsMind at 11:45 AM on June 15, 2007
Trivia sections tend to be a way for people to cram in a reference to whatever nerd-media they're a fan of. I don't really need a "[character X] from [Joss Whedon product/some videogame] used a lawnmower in [episode/level number] in the lawnmower article, thanks.
posted by Artw at 12:08 PM on June 15, 2007
posted by Artw at 12:08 PM on June 15, 2007
How often do you run into a page that doesn't have a little box at the top bitching about some policy the page doesn't follow?
Let's say I find an article on, oh, Dravidian royalty of the 16th century that has no sources. Is it better for me to munge around some, given I know nothing about the topic (don't tempt me, I actually find that sort of thing fun), or better for me to alert someone who will come across the article on purpose because they do have some knowledge?
As for trivia sections, I don't hate them, but a lot of editors absolutely detest them -- especially the ones sneakily renamed "references in popular culture". Almost every single one you come across, I guarantee, has an item that is essentially "* [My cousin Joey's garage band] recorded a song named [article name]."
Just a couple of weeks ago, there was some controversy when a guy used a bot to tag every article on Wikipedia that had a trivia section, but it basically stood and was left to the editors of individual articles to fix it or remove the tag.
posted by dhartung at 12:39 PM on June 15, 2007
Let's say I find an article on, oh, Dravidian royalty of the 16th century that has no sources. Is it better for me to munge around some, given I know nothing about the topic (don't tempt me, I actually find that sort of thing fun), or better for me to alert someone who will come across the article on purpose because they do have some knowledge?
As for trivia sections, I don't hate them, but a lot of editors absolutely detest them -- especially the ones sneakily renamed "references in popular culture". Almost every single one you come across, I guarantee, has an item that is essentially "* [My cousin Joey's garage band] recorded a song named [article name]."
Just a couple of weeks ago, there was some controversy when a guy used a bot to tag every article on Wikipedia that had a trivia section, but it basically stood and was left to the editors of individual articles to fix it or remove the tag.
posted by dhartung at 12:39 PM on June 15, 2007
"I don't really need a "[character X] from [Joss Whedon product/some videogame] used a lawnmower in [episode/level number] in the lawnmower article, thanks."
Yeah? Well I DO! If you don't like the trivia section, SKIP it. No one's makin' ya read the whole entry. I have hated it the times when I had to dig around Wikipedia through the history to find the sections that i like which get zapped.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2007
Yeah? Well I DO! If you don't like the trivia section, SKIP it. No one's makin' ya read the whole entry. I have hated it the times when I had to dig around Wikipedia through the history to find the sections that i like which get zapped.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2007
Its been a while since I added many new articles, but what I do daily is keep an eye on my Watch list (consists of more than 200 articles) for edits to articles that I've worked on, or feel I have a familiarity with. This, from my own experience, seems to be what a lot of people do. There are a bunch of hardcore editors who simply monitor edits for vandalism or general additions/detractions.
This can be a great thing, to preserve the accuracy of articles, or it ultimately can devolve into edit wars between warring Point of Views. In my own experience, its much more the former rather than the latter and it gives me hope for the project.
Something akin to the color idea would prove useful. Though, in this idea, I think it'd make for messed up highlighting going on. A simple square or circle of color in the corner (for example, how the star for FAs are positioned) would be a good spot. Someone did ask how the assessed articles are judged...and its entirely by committee. Basically, for the highest honor, the Feature Article status, you nominate a page to a group of editors who take it upon themselves to look over the article and judge it on anything from syntax to Wikibility to contents. This can prove troublesome if you throw forward an article on a more obscure topic, as fewer people will offer any form of judgment on it. Resulting, more often, than not, in denial to the FA club.
posted by Atreides at 4:05 PM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]
This can be a great thing, to preserve the accuracy of articles, or it ultimately can devolve into edit wars between warring Point of Views. In my own experience, its much more the former rather than the latter and it gives me hope for the project.
Something akin to the color idea would prove useful. Though, in this idea, I think it'd make for messed up highlighting going on. A simple square or circle of color in the corner (for example, how the star for FAs are positioned) would be a good spot. Someone did ask how the assessed articles are judged...and its entirely by committee. Basically, for the highest honor, the Feature Article status, you nominate a page to a group of editors who take it upon themselves to look over the article and judge it on anything from syntax to Wikibility to contents. This can prove troublesome if you throw forward an article on a more obscure topic, as fewer people will offer any form of judgment on it. Resulting, more often, than not, in denial to the FA club.
posted by Atreides at 4:05 PM on June 15, 2007 [1 favorite]
About six months ago I made some modifications to my browser's search behavior so I can easily perform three different types of queries:
?query performs a Google search.
=query goes to Google I'm Feeling Lucky.
:query searches Wikipedia.
Since I made this change, I've noticed an interesting trend in the way I find information. Lately I find myself using Wikipedia far more than Google. I still do many Lucky searches, but only for phish-proof URL completion (e.g. =bofa). And for very specific things like error messages I still use Google. But most of the time I'm looking for information about a well-known person, place, or concept. For this type of information, Wikipedia just kills Google. One can debatable whether Wikipedia is as accurate as traditional encyclopedias, but compared to web search engines, there's no contest. In most cases, the best Google can do is point me to the Wikipedia article.
Google should fear Wikipedia. Wikipedia produces far higher quality of results while using fewer servers, less bandwidth, less electricity, and with no ads. I suppose some may claim Wikipedia's open content complements Google's search engine, but in my experience Wikipedia is sufficiently well organized that searching is unnecessary.
Lycos -> Altavista -> Google -> Wikipedia.
posted by ryanrs at 9:29 AM on June 16, 2007
Since I made this change, I've noticed an interesting trend in the way I find information. Lately I find myself using Wikipedia far more than Google. I still do many Lucky searches, but only for phish-proof URL completion (e.g. =bofa). And for very specific things like error messages I still use Google. But most of the time I'm looking for information about a well-known person, place, or concept. For this type of information, Wikipedia just kills Google. One can debatable whether Wikipedia is as accurate as traditional encyclopedias, but compared to web search engines, there's no contest. In most cases, the best Google can do is point me to the Wikipedia article.
Google should fear Wikipedia. Wikipedia produces far higher quality of results while using fewer servers, less bandwidth, less electricity, and with no ads. I suppose some may claim Wikipedia's open content complements Google's search engine, but in my experience Wikipedia is sufficiently well organized that searching is unnecessary.
Lycos -> Altavista -> Google -> Wikipedia.
posted by ryanrs at 9:29 AM on June 16, 2007
After several years of WP editing, I'd say WP will only improve rapidly after people stop fixing it.
WHY should it look or act like Britannica? Britannica already exists. I very much concur with Justinian and inoculated cities: let it do what it does best, by letting it do it.
As for the endless squabbling: human beings are hopeless. I'm leaving.
posted by Twang at 12:34 AM on June 17, 2007
WHY should it look or act like Britannica? Britannica already exists. I very much concur with Justinian and inoculated cities: let it do what it does best, by letting it do it.
As for the endless squabbling: human beings are hopeless. I'm leaving.
posted by Twang at 12:34 AM on June 17, 2007
« Older Gay-OK in MA | Industruele Landschappen Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 7:21 PM on June 14, 2007 [3 favorites]