On 8/6/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: