Hey,
I just came across http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9433599, which is the lead section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about wikipedia. There is also one about wikis in general: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9404276.
These articles appear to be taken from the current revision of the EB itself, not the yearbook or any other of these sources (on this web site, you can never be sure).
EB is now the second (or third, depending on how you count) encyclopedia to mention wikipedia. The Columbia Encyclopedia has one and the 21st edition of the Brockhaus encyclopedia (in German).
I don't have full access to the EB article from here and I am very curious about its accuracy :)
Fun fact: Last time I checked, Brockhaus refused to call Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Mathias
On 8/6/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I just came across http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9433599, which is the lead section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about wikipedia. There is also one about wikis in general: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9404276.
These articles appear to be taken from the current revision of the EB itself, not the yearbook or any other of these sources (on this web site, you can never be sure).
EB is now the second (or third, depending on how you count) encyclopedia to mention wikipedia. The Columbia Encyclopedia has one and the 21st edition of the Brockhaus encyclopedia (in German).
I don't have full access to the EB article from here and I am very curious about its accuracy :)
Fun fact: Last time I checked, Brockhaus refused to call Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Mathias
Well, EB is not afraid to call us an Encyclopedia, although there is an amusing focus on Seigenthaler, and some things which I think may be factually incorrect.
For example: "The author of this information could not be identified, since all that is known about contributors is their computers' IP, or Internet protocol, addresses (many of which are randomly generated each time a user goes online). (The contributor later confessed and apologized, saying that he wrote the false information as a joke.)"
Maybe it is me, but this looks like a contradiction- if the author could not be identified (we all know he could and was) then how could he later apologize? Quite aside, IPs are not randomly generated...
Or: Wikipedia administrators now have the power to block particular IP addresses—a power they used in 2006 after it was found that staff members of some U.S. congressional representatives had altered articles to eliminate unfavourable information. Articles on political subjects have become the greatest test of Wikipedia's principle of neutrality."
Here I'm not sure whether he is implying or stating that admins only got the power to block IPs and users *after* the Seigenthaler affair or just before the House of Representatives scandal. Either way, he's wrong: IP blocks were implemented years and years ago; didn't Jimmy ban a user in the first year?
There are other more minor points, like for example, in the following where he uses "anonymous", it should really be pseudonymous:
"These observers point out that identifiable individuals are far easier to hold accountable for mistakes, bias, and bad writing than is a community of anonymous volunteers, but other observers respond that it is not entirely clear if there is a substantial difference."
And there are some odd passages, where it could be read as damning or praising Wikipedia:
"Regardless of such controversies—perhaps in part because of them—Wikipedia has become a model of what the collaborative Internet community can and cannot do."
All in all, a decent article. Newspapers usually do a lot worse, FWIW.
~maru
On 8/6/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I just came across http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9433599, which is the lead section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about wikipedia. There is also one about wikis in general: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9404276.
Heh, funny. This opening description is interesting: "...encyclopaedia operating under an open-source management style...uses a collaborative software known as wiki that facilitates the creation and development of articles." What an interesting idea to describe our "management style" as "open-source" and to relegate the role of the wiki as just "facilitating" article creation and development. Is this the prejudice of a "traditional" encyclopaedia which has rigid management structures, and sees that as the most striking difference?
Pity I don't have the whole thing to read. It would be interesting to compare four articles: WP on WP, WP on EB, EB on WP and EB on EB. How do we each do for our biases? Do our biases line up as expected - that EB has a much lower opinion of us, than we do of them?
Steve
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, funny. This opening description is interesting: "...encyclopaedia operating under an open-source management style...uses a collaborative software known as wiki that facilitates the creation and development of articles." What an interesting idea to describe our "management style" as "open-source" and to relegate the role of the wiki as just "facilitating" article creation and development. Is this the prejudice of a "traditional" encyclopaedia which has rigid management structures, and sees that as the most striking difference?
What would you say is the most striking difference? I'd say it's a close tie between free as in open source and open as in...wiki. In most news reports I've heard the first part is less emphasized though.
As for relegating the role of the wiki to just "facilitating" article creation and development, what would you say it does? The wiki certainly doesn't write the articles, people do!
Anyway, I'd say the much worse snippet is the one linked to by "open source":
"computer software whose source code is put into the public domain, subject to the restriction that any improvements or derived software also include the source code and be put into the public domain."
I suppose the term "public domain" has other meanings apart from the technical "copyright free" one, but that's still damn confusing for someone who doesn't know that open source software is still copyrighted.
Looking at the rest of the snippet though, I see "Open source refers to both a model of software development and an ideology of intellectual property." There again are those two things which I think are the most striking difference(s) in Wikipedia.
Anthony
On 8/7/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What would you say is the most striking difference? I'd say it's a close tie between free as in open source and open as in...wiki. In most news reports I've heard the first part is less emphasized though.
I would say it's that articles are written and published by unpaid volunteers in real-time. Our flat "management structure" (ie, anarchy) certainly plays a part, but it's less central to defining us, imho.
As for relegating the role of the wiki to just "facilitating" article creation and development, what would you say it does? The wiki certainly doesn't write the articles, people do!
Well, so far, the wiki is also the presentation layer. The wiki is the *medium* - not just some dinky little article development utility.
I suppose the term "public domain" has other meanings apart from the technical "copyright free" one, but that's still damn confusing for someone who doesn't know that open source software is still copyrighted.
Yeah, very unclear.
Looking at the rest of the snippet though, I see "Open source refers to both a model of software development and an ideology of intellectual property." There again are those two things which I think are the most striking difference(s) in Wikipedia.
I don't think most Wikipedians are open source fanatics. And I don't think Wikipedia being "closed source" (say there were no db dumps, contributors retained full copyright over contributions, and there was no GFDL in play) would radically alter anything. It would reduce the motivation for many contributors, but it would not actively interfere with getting the job done.
Steve
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What would you say is the most striking difference? I'd say it's a close tie between free as in open source and open as in...wiki. In most news reports I've heard the first part is less emphasized though.
I would say it's that articles are written and published by unpaid volunteers in real-time. Our flat "management structure" (ie, anarchy) certainly plays a part, but it's less central to defining us, imho.
And that makes me think of Nupedia, which I'd say was closer to Encyclopedia Britannica than it was to Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses a bazaar style of development as opposed to a cathedral style, and I think that's incredibly important. Of course, that doesn't mean you or I are wrong, it's just a different way of looking at things.
Interestingly, looking at [[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]], apparently the comparison in that book was between different "open source" projects. So I guess calling the style "open source" is incorrect, though I think I do understand what the author meant by it.
Looking at the rest of the snippet though, I see "Open source refers to both a model of software development and an ideology of intellectual property." There again are those two things which I think are the most striking difference(s) in Wikipedia.
I don't think most Wikipedians are open source fanatics. And I don't think Wikipedia being "closed source" (say there were no db dumps, contributors retained full copyright over contributions, and there was no GFDL in play) would radically alter anything. It would reduce the motivation for many contributors, but it would not actively interfere with getting the job done.
You might be right. I certainly emphasize the role of the "free as in freedom" aspect of Wikipedia more than many others. Personally I think some other project such as the abandoned Gnupedia one would have outshadowed Wikipedia if it hadn't adopted a free license, but that might very well be overly idealistic of me.
Anthony
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/7/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
<snip>
Looking at the rest of the snippet though, I see "Open source refers to both a model of software development and an ideology of intellectual property." There again are those two things which I think are the most striking difference(s) in Wikipedia.
I don't think most Wikipedians are open source fanatics.
No, but Wikipedia has certainly opened us up to such things :) It's a great example of "open source really can work".
And I don't think Wikipedia being "closed source" (say there were no db dumps, contributors retained full copyright over contributions, and there was no GFDL in play) would radically alter anything.
For the most part, contributors still /do/ retain fully copyright; but if you made it "one author per article" we'd become E2.
It would reduce the motivation for many contributors, but it would not actively interfere with getting the job done.
I disagree on the second point.
On 8/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
And I don't think Wikipedia being "closed source" (say there were no db dumps, contributors retained full copyright over contributions, and there was no GFDL in play) would radically alter anything.
For the most part, contributors still /do/ retain fully copyright; but if you made it "one author per article" we'd become E2.
I guess "contributors retain full rights over contributions" was what I meant. Is that more accurate?
Steve
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Pity I don't have the whole thing to read. It would be interesting to
Thank you to the many kind people who, uh, alleviated this concern. I won't name names :) But you can stop now :)
Steve
The author of the EB article (Michael Aaron Dennis) is a very sharp guy, and a very sensitive thinker, I know of his work (he is a historian of science, or sociologist of science, or some combination of the two). He is currently an independent scholar; I have corresponded with him a few times on issues unrelated to Wikipedia, and the work of his I know is really quite excellent. So there's my bias on the table.
I think the article is pretty fair on the whole. I think describing "open source" as the management style and Wiki as the way of facilitating it is not entirely inaccurate, at least along the lines of "open source" as described by someone like Eric Raymond, which is not dependent on any particular technology but rather on an adherance to certain authorship principles and copyright practices.
He takes the time to get the core aspects of Wikipedia correct, I think. For example, how many other articles on Wikipedia have bothered to outline something like this in the very beginning of the article (third paragraph, following the lead and the brief "history of nupedia"):
"In some respects, Wikipedia's open-source production model is the epitome of the so-called Web 2.0, an egalitarian environment where the web of social software enmeshes users in both their real and virtual-reality workplaces. The Wikipedia community is based on a limited number of standard principles. One important principle is neutrality; another is the faith that contributors are participating in a sincere and deliberate fashion. Readers can correct what they perceive to be errors, and disputes over facts and possible bias are conducted through contributor discussions, with Wales remaining as the final arbiter. Three other "pillars of wisdom" are not to use copyrighted material, not to contribute original research, and not to have any other rules. The last pillar reinforces the project's belief that the open-source process will make Wikipedia into the best product available, given its community of users."
Now this doesn't actually mirror the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]] perfectly, but it covers most of the bases (NOR, NPOV, free content, code of conduct, no firm rules). He follows it by a paragraph describing the fact that some users don't gives sources, but that all users are expected to be able to monitor articles for problems and hopefully catch them.
He has one paragraph on the Seigenthaler incident, citing it as a highly-publicized *example* of some of the difficulties related to content problems. I don't think that's a bad approach. Some of the computing details are a little fuzzy -- I don't know how big proxy servers generate IPs but it is definitely not random, and in any case the contributor was indeed eventually identified through his IP address. He also says that Wikipedia in 2006 has the power to block IP addresses, but that power has been around for a long time. Regardless, despite being incorrect, the conclusion of the paragraph is ultimately in favor of Wikipedia, saying essentially that Wikipedia has developed better methods of content verification and control in the wake of the incident. I don't think this is entirely incorrect. He ends the paragraph with somewhat of a neutral non-sequitur, "Articles on political subjects have become the greatest test of Wikipedia's principle of neutrality."
The final paragraph is ultimately a fairly balanced view:
"For many observers of these controversies, a troubling difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias lies in the absence of editors and authors who will accept responsibility for the accuracy and quality of their articles. These observers point out that identifiable individuals are far easier to hold accountable for mistakes, bias, and bad writing than is a community of anonymous volunteers, but other observers respond that it is not entirely clear if there is a substantial difference. Regardless of such controversies—perhaps in part because of them—Wikipedia has become a model of what the collaborative Internet community can and cannot do."
I think that's a pretty fair assessment, if one is willing to step outside of the "Wikipedia is great and will eventually work perfectly!" boosterism that is naturally part of one's enthusiasm to work on such a project, and instead look at it from the point of view as a scholar attempting to situate Wikipedia within the history of publishing, authorship, and computers.
I think most of us on the list have somewhat too high expectations about how Wikipedia is covered elsewhere. On the list we are happy to go back and forth about the problems and possible changes and so forth. But we expect everyone else to look at it only in the most positive of lights. This is not an unexpected phenomena -- most members of organizations will happily take part in intra-organizational dispute but will unite against perceived threats from outside.
I don't think this is a threat. For something published by they-who-feel-most-threatened-by-us (EB), it is remarkably balanced, and attempts to highlight the positive aspects of Wikipedia as well as pointing out the common criticisms. It is much shorter than anything which would exist on Wikipedia itself, which limits its scope and scale. As a concise summary of What-Wikipedia-Is and What-People-Think-About-It, I don't think it's far off the mark.
Nevertheless, if there was an "edit this page" option (or even a "submit a bug report") we could fix up a few of the simple errors on it. Despite being from an identifiable, respected professional, and despite going through the seive of professional editors, it still contains errors, and, perhaps worse than Wikipedia itself, it gives no citations for further follow-up or critical evaluation. This is a problem with the content model, though. Encyclopedia Brittancia has become a model of what exclusive and controlled editorship can and cannot do.
FF
On 8/6/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I just came across http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9433599, which is the lead section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about wikipedia. There is also one about wikis in general: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9404276.
These articles appear to be taken from the current revision of the EB itself, not the yearbook or any other of these sources (on this web site, you can never be sure).
EB is now the second (or third, depending on how you count) encyclopedia to mention wikipedia. The Columbia Encyclopedia has one and the 21st edition of the Brockhaus encyclopedia (in German).
I don't have full access to the EB article from here and I am very curious about its accuracy :)
Fun fact: Last time I checked, Brockhaus refused to call Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Mathias _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/7/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, if there was an "edit this page" option (or even a "submit a bug report") we could fix up a few of the simple errors on it.
Well, a couple of weeks ago, Britannica.com had a survey on their website that included a few questions (I can't remember the exact wording but it sounded like "Would we suck less if we allowed people to edit the pages?") in that direction.
I wonder what the results of that survey were.
Mathias
On 8/7/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The author of the EB article (Michael Aaron Dennis) is a very sharp guy, and a very sensitive thinker, I know of his work (he is a historian of science, or sociologist of science, or some combination of the two). He is currently an independent scholar; I have corresponded with him a few times on issues unrelated to Wikipedia, and the work of his I know is really quite excellent. So there's my bias on the table.
....
FF
If you've corresponded with him before, why not send him some of this thread? I'm sure he wasn't intentionally making those mistakes, and he'd probably appreciate the corrections. I tried to find his email address so I could CC: my own critique, but I eventually gave up and just sent to only to wikien-l.
~maru
On 8/7/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think the article is pretty fair on the whole. I think describing "open source" as the management style and Wiki as the way of facilitating it is not entirely inaccurate, at least along the lines
Oh, it's not "inaccurate", it's just the biggest difference that would have immediately come to mind for me.
He has one paragraph on the Seigenthaler incident, citing it as a highly-publicized *example* of some of the difficulties related to content problems. I don't think that's a bad approach. Some of the computing details are a little fuzzy -- I don't know how big proxy servers generate IPs but it is definitely not random, and in any case the contributor was indeed eventually identified through his IP address. He also says that Wikipedia in 2006 has the power to block IP
IP addresses are, on a local scale, allocated by a process which might as well be random. However, it's the scale that counts. Given some ISP that gives out addresses like aa.bb.cc.dd, the dd may well be "random" - but the aa.bb.cc is easily enough to identify the ISP, and in many cases the local branch of the ISP, effectively narrowing the suspect down to a few suburbs. To use the dd bit, you need to work with the ISP, telling them the time and date that you're interested in, so they can cross check their records. Not rocket science, it's just actually getting them cooperative (and convincing them that you're not breaching someone's privacy) that's a pain.
addresses, but that power has been around for a long time. Regardless, despite being incorrect, the conclusion of the paragraph is ultimately in favor of Wikipedia, saying essentially that Wikipedia has developed better methods of content verification and control in the wake of the incident. I don't think this is entirely incorrect. He ends the
What methods do we have now that we didn't before? I think everyone is more aware of the issues, but what has changed, formally? Did we already have semi-protection? I seem to recall Seigenthaler being the third or fourth in a series of steadily escalating incidents.
"For many observers of these controversies, a troubling difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias lies in the absence of editors and authors who will accept responsibility for the accuracy and quality of their articles. These observers point out that identifiable individuals are far easier to hold accountable for mistakes, bias, and bad writing than is a community of anonymous volunteers, but other observers respond that it is not entirely clear if there is a substantial difference. Regardless of such
If I saw this text at Wikipedia, I'd be stamping {{citation needed}} all over it ;) Those statements sound like common sense, but I don't recall having read them anywhere.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment, if one is willing to step outside of the "Wikipedia is great and will eventually work perfectly!" boosterism that is naturally part of one's enthusiasm to work on such a project, and instead look at it from the point of view
I don't suffer from that ;) I love well-informed critiques that locate our achille's heel and aim straight for them. This piece mostly seemed a good, broad "encyclopaedic" coverage of us.
Just on a side note...Seriously, I would love to know how often EB researchers start their research at WP.
This is a problem with the content model, though. Encyclopedia Brittancia has become a model of what exclusive and controlled editorship can and cannot do.
:D
Steve