Spotted by Lars Eighner on alt.usage.english:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/
(Summary: Ronnie Hazlehurst dies, obituarists copy false fact from his Wikipedia article.)
Various useful comments from their blog:
1. Didn't various dictionaries always add in false words so that they could trace anyone who was just copying them? if so then shouldn't all Wikipedia articles have at least one glaringly obvious lies so that we can identify the lazy journalists and round them up to be disposed of in whatever way a Reg poll decided? 2. Well said my man, well said. When it's not simply copying and pasting stuff en masse including mistakes, it's copying and pasting and claiming it as their own work. That's shoddy journalism. 3. This isn't funny, it's a bloody disgrace. We have once respected news sources forgetting Item 1 on Page 1 of Journalism 101 - use reliable sources. It's not that the obituarists put in something incorrect, it's that they have, en masse, been caught using a single unreliable source without corroborating their facts from a reliable one. My teenage son's teachers keep stressing to the pupils that researching a subject involves more than looking up a Wikipedia article. For educated adults, qualified in a career based on reporting correct facts, to promulgate a falsehood from a Wikipedia article should be a sacking offence.
three people in a row, who seem to understand very well.
On 10/4/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Spotted by Lars Eighner on alt.usage.english:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/
(Summary: Ronnie Hazlehurst dies, obituarists copy false fact from his Wikipedia article.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't funny, it's a bloody disgrace. We have once respected news sources forgetting Item 1 on Page 1 of Journalism 101 - use reliable sources. It's not that the obituarists put in something incorrect, it's that they have, en masse, been caught using a single unreliable source without corroborating their facts from a reliable one. My teenage son's teachers keep stressing to the pupils that researching a subject involves more than looking up a Wikipedia article. For educated adults, qualified in a career based on reporting correct facts, to promulgate a falsehood from a Wikipedia article should be a sacking offence.
Circular referencing incidents are particularly likely given that obituaries are often the best reference material available for a decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
- d.
On 04/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Circular referencing incidents are particularly likely given that obituaries are often the best reference material available for a decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
I'm sorry, I can't tell... was that intended as a joke?
No ... obituaries are often the best available bio of someone notable enough to get an obituary but not to have a book written about them.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 04/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Circular referencing incidents are particularly likely given that obituaries are often the best reference material available for a decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
I'm sorry, I can't tell... was that intended as a joke?
No ... obituaries are often the best available bio of someone notable enough to get an obituary but not to have a book written about them.
I think that he rejects the notion of using obituaries in BLP's. ;-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I think that he rejects the notion of using obituaries in BLP's. ;-)
With the exception of some of the entries in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries :)
David Gerard wrote:
Circular referencing incidents are particularly likely given that obituaries are often the best reference material available for a decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
And notice how nicely it plays into "verifiability, not truth".
On 04/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Circular referencing incidents are particularly likely given that obituaries are often the best reference material available for a decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
And notice how nicely it plays into "verifiability, not truth".
That needs a "but don't be bloody stupid" on the end.
- d.
On 10/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Circular referencing incidents are particularly likely given that obituaries are often the best reference material available for a decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
Living bio? Surely an obituary will not exist, short of mistake.
-Matt
On 04/10/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
Living bio? Surely an obituary will not exist, short of mistake.
Oh, that was the humour ... I'm having a kid-frazzled "day off" :-)
I meant bios in general.
- d.
On 04/10/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Circular referencing incidents are particularly likely given that obituaries are often the best reference material available for a decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
Living bio? Surely an obituary will not exist, short of mistake.
-Matt
Some do (the Queen, former Prime Ministers, likely prince Charles) but anyone significant enough to have one will have had a book written about them.
On 10/4/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/10/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Circular referencing incidents are particularly likely given that obituaries are often the best reference material available for a decent living bio. So this sort of thing is particularly, um, problematic for us.
Living bio? Surely an obituary will not exist, short of mistake.
-Matt
Some do (the Queen, former Prime Ministers, likely prince Charles) but anyone significant enough to have one will have had a book written about them.
-- geni
I once talked to a librarian at a major news organization here in the U.S.; one of the most interesting things I learned was that a big part of her job was doing biographical research on older famous people considered "likely to die soon" -- so that when they actually did bite the dust, there would have a nice obit ready to go. Apparently most news organizations do this. Wikipedia, on the other hand, just scrambles to catch up :)
-- phoebe
On 05/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I once talked to a librarian at a major news organization here in the U.S.; one of the most interesting things I learned was that a big part of her job was doing biographical research on older famous people considered "likely to die soon" -- so that when they actually did bite the dust, there would have a nice obit ready to go. Apparently most news organizations do this. Wikipedia, on the other hand, just scrambles to catch up :)
-- phoebe
Depends. While yes rumor has it that the BBC where running rehearsals for dealing with the queen mother's death every 6 months for the last few years of her life. You can only really have the ready to go oblits for the very top level of people. The ones you are certain you are going to cover. In the case of Ronnie Hazlehurst it is pretty clear people didn't and it would only have taken a couple of slightly more famous people to die that day to removed the coverage of his death.
On 05/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I once talked to a librarian at a major news organization here in the U.S.; one of the most interesting things I learned was that a big part of her job was doing biographical research on older famous people considered "likely to die soon" -- so that when they actually did bite the dust, there would have a nice obit ready to go. Apparently most news organizations do this.
The BBC's such department, legend has it, is known within the Corporation as "the Department of Stiffs"...
James Farrar wrote:
On 05/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I once talked to a librarian at a major news organization here in the U.S.; one of the most interesting things I learned was that a big part of her job was doing biographical research on older famous people considered "likely to die soon" -- so that when they actually did bite the dust, there would have a nice obit ready to go. Apparently most news organizations do this.
The BBC's such department, legend has it, is known within the Corporation as "the Department of Stiffs"...
Thus giving a whole new meaning to a "stiff upper lip". :-)
Ec
phoebe ayers wrote:
I once talked to a librarian at a major news organization here in the U.S.; one of the most interesting things I learned was that a big part of her job was doing biographical research on older famous people considered "likely to die soon" -- so that when they actually did bite the dust, there would have a nice obit ready to go. Apparently most news organizations do this. Wikipedia, on the other hand, just scrambles to catch up :)
I've heard something like this before too. The simple fact that six professional media companies should all draw on the same Wikipedia error begs the question, "Who else is scrambling to catch up?"
Ec
On 05/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I once talked to a librarian at a major news organization here in the U.S.; one of the most interesting things I learned was that a big part of her job was doing biographical research on older famous people considered "likely to die soon" -- so that when they actually did bite the dust, there would have a nice obit ready to go. Apparently most news organizations do this. Wikipedia, on the other hand, just scrambles to catch up :)
The general rule is that if them dying would be mentioned on the evening news, you want to have an obit ready to go. Anyone else, you can take a week or three over. :-)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a good Wikipedia biography of a living person should, basically, be a draft obituary. Neutral tending to slightly sympathetic*, comprehensive, organised, and not unreasonably long; when they do actually die, we should just have to change the tense here and there, change the date in the introduction, and add a short paragraph at the end, same as you would for publishing an obit.
If we have to scramble to get new stuff added when they die - assuming they didn't die gunned down by police on Broadway, at least - then we have, probably, not been doing our job too well earlier. Having to put up that {{recentdeath}} notice is in many ways a sign we dropped the ball :-)
Andrew Gray wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a good Wikipedia biography of a living person should, basically, be a draft obituary. Neutral tending to slightly sympathetic*,
No, no asterisk, no "slightly" non-neutral. Just plain neutral, it's one of our foundation policies and not really negotiable. Obituaries turn into hagiographies far too often.
comprehensive, organised, and not unreasonably long; when they do actually die, we should just have to change the tense here and there, change the date in the introduction, and add a short paragraph at the end, same as you would for publishing an obit.
This I can get behind, though of course "unreasonably long" is a subjective judgment.
If we have to scramble to get new stuff added when they die - assuming they didn't die gunned down by police on Broadway, at least - then we have, probably, not been doing our job too well earlier. Having to put up that {{recentdeath}} notice is in many ways a sign we dropped the ball :-)
On the other hand, it's nice to have all those news agencies out there doing research for us and presenting capsule summaries in nice easily-mimicked forms. :)
On 05/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a good Wikipedia biography of a living person should, basically, be a draft obituary. Neutral tending to slightly sympathetic*,
No, no asterisk, no "slightly" non-neutral. Just plain neutral, it's one of our foundation policies and not really negotiable. Obituaries turn into hagiographies far too often.
Perfection is an unattainable goal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it, but we do need to be realistic. No article is ever going to be 100% neutral, it's impossible. If we accept that our articles are going to have a slight bias to them, it is entirely appropriate that we ensure that that bias is in favour of people we're writing about.
On 10/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a good Wikipedia biography of a living person should, basically, be a draft obituary. Neutral tending to slightly sympathetic*,
No, no asterisk, no "slightly" non-neutral. Just plain neutral, it's one of our foundation policies and not really negotiable. Obituaries turn into hagiographies far too often.
Perfection is an unattainable goal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it, but we do need to be realistic. No article is ever going to be 100% neutral, it's impossible. If we accept that our articles are going to have a slight bias to them, it is entirely appropriate that we ensure that that bias is in favour of people we're writing about.
Precisely. While we may be equivocal about which side to err on when it comes to, say, automobiles or Louis XVI, with living people, if in doubt, err on the sympathetic side. This does not mean we must be sympathetic; it merely means that if there is any doubt, choose the less negative tone.
Johnleemk
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Perfection is an unattainable goal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it, but we do need to be realistic. No article is ever going to be 100% neutral, it's impossible.
What I'm objecting to is the implication that we shouldn't actually be aiming for it, though. "Biographies should ideally be neutral but on the road to that ideal we should be extra careful about including the negative content" is fine, it accepts the real-world problems involved with litigious subjects without compromising the ultimate goal. But "biographies should tend to be sympathetic" isn't fine because it sets an incorrect goal. Biographies of living persons may tend to be sympathetic due to systemic bias but it's not because they _should_ be.
I'm being nitpicky, perhaps, but this is one of our most important policies so I'd rather err on the sensitive side.
On 06/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Perfection is an unattainable goal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it, but we do need to be realistic. No article is ever going to be 100% neutral, it's impossible.
What I'm objecting to is the implication that we shouldn't actually be aiming for it, though. "Biographies should ideally be neutral but on the road to that ideal we should be extra careful about including the negative content" is fine, it accepts the real-world problems involved with litigious subjects without compromising the ultimate goal. But "biographies should tend to be sympathetic" isn't fine because it sets an incorrect goal. Biographies of living persons may tend to be sympathetic due to systemic bias but it's not because they _should_ be.
Agreed. It is an important distinction.
I agree with Thomas. We have enough problems without introducing a deliberate degree of non-objectivity into the proceedings. the day WP starts tending to be on the sympathetic side, will be the last day anyone can trust it. The next step will be saying, to tend to be on the negative side for articles about para-science. And then to whatever a pressure group wants. NPOV is one of the principles that does not accept compromise. Like honesty.
On 10/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Perfection is an unattainable goal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it, but we do need to be realistic. No article is ever going to be 100% neutral, it's impossible.
What I'm objecting to is the implication that we shouldn't actually be aiming for it, though. "Biographies should ideally be neutral but on the road to that ideal we should be extra careful about including the negative content" is fine, it accepts the real-world problems involved with litigious subjects without compromising the ultimate goal. But "biographies should tend to be sympathetic" isn't fine because it sets an incorrect goal. Biographies of living persons may tend to be sympathetic due to systemic bias but it's not because they _should_ be.
Agreed. It is an important distinction.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
the day WP starts tending to be on the sympathetic side, will be the last day anyone can trust it.
The point is that no one can trust Wikipedia.
On 06/10/2007, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
the day WP starts tending to be on the sympathetic side, will be the last day anyone can trust it.
The point is that no one can trust Wikipedia.
That's hardly a reason to stop trying.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 06/10/2007, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
the day WP starts tending to be on the sympathetic side, will be the last day anyone can trust it.
The point is that no one can trust Wikipedia.
That's hardly a reason to stop trying.
And trust isn't binary, there's a full spectrum of gray between "Trusted" and "Untrusted". Every little bit of nudging toward the trusted end has tangible benefits, even if we don't ever get all the way there.
Heck, I don't even have my own senses or thought processes all the way at the "Trusted" end of the spectrum. They've screwed me in the past and will no doubt do so again in the future.
On 06/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
the day WP starts tending to be on the sympathetic side, will be the last day anyone can trust it.
The point is that no one can trust Wikipedia.
That's hardly a reason to stop trying.
No-one is saying we shouldn't try. I'm just saying it's important to accept that we will fail, and when we do, we need to do as little harm as possible. We do that by erring on the side of sympathy (that is, pretty much, what BLP says).
On 06/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No-one is saying we shouldn't try. I'm just saying it's important to accept that we will fail, and when we do, we need to do as little harm as possible. We do that by erring on the side of sympathy (that is, pretty much, what BLP says).
mmm. Mind you, far too many of our pop culture articles go too far the other way. (Because fans police them, and because only fans care enough to.)
- d.
On 06/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No-one is saying we shouldn't try. I'm just saying it's important to accept that we will fail, and when we do, we need to do as little harm as possible. We do that by erring on the side of sympathy (that is, pretty much, what BLP says).
BLP says silence not sympathy.
On 06/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No-one is saying we shouldn't try. I'm just saying it's important to accept that we will fail, and when we do, we need to do as little harm as possible. We do that by erring on the side of sympathy (that is, pretty much, what BLP says).
BLP says silence not sympathy.
And failing to mention the bad things people might have done isn't sympathetic? It says silence on negative things, it doesn't say silence on positive things - that's sympathy.
On 06/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No-one is saying we shouldn't try. I'm just saying it's important to accept that we will fail, and when we do, we need to do as little harm as possible. We do that by erring on the side of sympathy (that is, pretty much, what BLP says).
BLP says silence not sympathy.
And failing to mention the bad things people might have done isn't sympathetic? It says silence on negative things, it doesn't say silence on positive things - that's sympathy.
It does say silence on positive things. Read the opening section. Of course if you do read it you will put yourself in an extreme minority but that is something you may have to accept.
It does say silence on positive things. Read the opening section. Of course if you do read it you will put yourself in an extreme minority but that is something you may have to accept.
The page, WP:BLP, says silence on positive things. WP:BLP is not policy, it's an imperfect description of policy. When was the last time you saw someone remove positive material from an article citing BLP? The page talks about "contentious material", how that is interpreted, however (and it's the interpretation that is the policy, not the words) is as "negative material".
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The page, WP:BLP, says silence on positive things. WP:BLP is not policy, it's an imperfect description of policy.
Given that BLP was in effect imposed from above WP:BLP is a flawless description of BLP at any given time. If you want to claim policy describes practice you would first have to show community support for BLP.
When was the last time you saw someone remove positive material from an article citing BLP?
Generally I don't see people citing BLP around me.
The page talks about "contentious material", how that is interpreted, however (and it's the interpretation that is the policy, not the words) is as "negative material".
By people who rather miss the point of wikipedia yes. What of it?
On 07/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The page, WP:BLP, says silence on positive things. WP:BLP is not policy, it's an imperfect description of policy.
Given that BLP was in effect imposed from above WP:BLP is a flawless description of BLP at any given time. If you want to claim policy describes practice you would first have to show community support for BLP.
There may be some disagreement on individual cases, but I think people do generally support BLP.
When was the last time you saw someone remove positive material from an article citing BLP?
Generally I don't see people citing BLP around me.
Fair point.
The page talks about "contentious material", how that is interpreted, however (and it's the interpretation that is the policy, not the words) is as "negative material".
By people who rather miss the point of wikipedia yes. What of it?
Whether or not you agree with it does not change the facts of the matter. Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, which, in layman's terms, means it's determined by what actually happens.
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The page, WP:BLP, says silence on positive things. WP:BLP is not policy, it's an imperfect description of policy.
Given that BLP was in effect imposed from above WP:BLP is a flawless description of BLP at any given time. If you want to claim policy describes practice you would first have to show community support for BLP.
There may be some disagreement on individual cases, but I think people do generally support BLP.
Evidences?
When was the last time you saw someone remove positive material from an article citing BLP?
Generally I don't see people citing BLP around me.
Fair point.
The page talks about "contentious material", how that is interpreted, however (and it's the interpretation that is the policy, not the words) is as "negative material".
By people who rather miss the point of wikipedia yes. What of it?
Whether or not you agree with it does not change the facts of the matter. Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, which, in layman's terms, means it's determined by what actually happens.
If we go by what happens BLP does not exist unless an admin with an agenda turns up.
Evidences?
Lack of evidence to the contrary. When people disagree with something, they generally say so quite loudly. When people agree with something, they are usually much quieter. I've seem plenty of people complaining about the application of BLP to a particular article, but few complaining about BLP in general.
If we go by what happens BLP does not exist unless an admin with an agenda turns up.
*shrugs* Then that's the policy.
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Evidences?
Lack of evidence to the contrary. When people disagree with something, they generally say so quite loudly. When people agree with something, they are usually much quieter. I've seem plenty of people complaining about the application of BLP to a particular article, but few complaining about BLP in general.
Because you can't effectively overturn that which is opposed from above.
If we go by what happens BLP does not exist unless an admin with an agenda turns up.
*shrugs* Then that's the policy.
It is not an acceptable policy for a rational community.
On 07/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Evidences?
Lack of evidence to the contrary. When people disagree with something, they generally say so quite loudly. When people agree with something, they are usually much quieter. I've seem plenty of people complaining about the application of BLP to a particular article, but few complaining about BLP in general.
Because you can't effectively overturn that which is opposed from above.
According to WP:BLP, the policy is based on consensus, just like any other. While it may have been suggested by Jimbo, there is nothing on the page saying it's imposed by the board.
If we go by what happens BLP does not exist unless an admin with an agenda turns up.
*shrugs* Then that's the policy.
It is not an acceptable policy for a rational community.
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
On 07/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Evidences?
Lack of evidence to the contrary. When people disagree with something, they generally say so quite loudly. When people agree with something, they are usually much quieter. I've seem plenty of people complaining about the application of BLP to a particular article, but few complaining about BLP in general.
Because you can't effectively overturn that which is opposed from above.
According to WP:BLP, the policy is based on consensus, just like any other. While it may have been suggested by Jimbo, there is nothing on the page saying it's imposed by the board.
If we go by what happens BLP does not exist unless an admin with an agenda turns up.
*shrugs* Then that's the policy.
It is not an acceptable policy for a rational community.
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
Remember, too, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community second (or, idealistically, not at all) and an encyclopedia- writing project first.
The nice thing about all this emotional hand-wringing policy stuff is that a lot of the time, you can just ignore it (well, as long as you're not reading this mailing list, anyway :-) ) and get on with the task of writing the encyclopedia.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
on 10/7/07 11:40 AM, Steve Summit at scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Remember, too, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community second (or, idealistically, not at all) and an encyclopedia- writing project first.
The nice thing about all this emotional hand-wringing policy stuff is that a lot of the time, you can just ignore it (well, as long as you're not reading this mailing list, anyway :-) ) and get on with the task of writing the encyclopedia.
You miss a huge point here, Steve. An "encyclopedia-writing project" is a collaboration of a community of people. And the quality of that collaboration is, to a great degree, dependent upon the emotional state and interaction of that community.
Like it or not, Wikipedia is not a refuge from having to deal with people.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/7/07 11:40 AM, Steve Summit at scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Remember, too, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community second (or, idealistically, not at all) and an encyclopedia- writing project first.
The nice thing about all this emotional hand-wringing policy stuff is that a lot of the time, you can just ignore it... and get on with the task of writing the encyclopedia.
You miss a huge point here, Steve. An "encyclopedia-writing project" is a collaboration of a community of people...
Thanks, but I do I understand that point! (All too well.) That's why I wrote "is supposed to be" instead of "is", and "idealistically" instead of "ideally".
The point remains that the community stuff, while it can't be denied, is supposed to come second. And I stand by my second point, too. :-)
I don't know, Marc. Wikipedia is not a closed "community": it is such an open one, with people entering and leaving all the time, that it is questionable whether the editing "community" is really worthy of the name.
Obviously, some editors are worth trying to retain, but losing people is scarcely a problem for us. We can simply draft in a new population or two.
C More schi
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:56:08 -0400 From: michaeldavid86@comcast.net To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] oopsie-- mainstream journalists trust Wikipedia again
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
on 10/7/07 11:40 AM, Steve Summit at scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Remember, too, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community second (or, idealistically, not at all) and an encyclopedia- writing project first.
The nice thing about all this emotional hand-wringing policy stuff is that a lot of the time, you can just ignore it (well, as long as you're not reading this mailing list, anyway :-) ) and get on with the task of writing the encyclopedia.
You miss a huge point here, Steve. An "encyclopedia-writing project" is a collaboration of a community of people. And the quality of that collaboration is, to a great degree, dependent upon the emotional state and interaction of that community.
Like it or not, Wikipedia is not a refuge from having to deal with people.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk
on 10/7/07 12:22 PM, Christiano Moreschi at moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I don't know, Marc. Wikipedia is not a closed "community": it is such an open one, with people entering and leaving all the time, that it is questionable whether the editing "community" is really worthy of the name.
Obviously, some editors are worth trying to retain, but losing people is scarcely a problem for us. We can simply draft in a new population or two.
That is a sad state, Christiano. Perhaps that is why the reliability and consistency of the Project is so much in question in the larger world.
Marc
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:56:08 -0400 From: michaeldavid86@comcast.net To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] oopsie-- mainstream journalists trust Wikipedia again
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
on 10/7/07 11:40 AM, Steve Summit at scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Remember, too, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community second (or, idealistically, not at all) and an encyclopedia- writing project first.
The nice thing about all this emotional hand-wringing policy stuff is that a lot of the time, you can just ignore it (well, as long as you're not reading this mailing list, anyway :-) ) and get on with the task of writing the encyclopedia.
You miss a huge point here, Steve. An "encyclopedia-writing project" is a collaboration of a community of people. And the quality of that collaboration is, to a great degree, dependent upon the emotional state and interaction of that community.
Like it or not, Wikipedia is not a refuge from having to deal with people.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/7/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/7/07 12:22 PM, Christiano Moreschi at moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I don't know, Marc. Wikipedia is not a closed "community": it is such an
open
one, with people entering and leaving all the time, that it is
questionable
whether the editing "community" is really worthy of the name.
Obviously, some editors are worth trying to retain, but losing people is scarcely a problem for us. We can simply draft in a new population or
two.
That is a sad state, Christiano. Perhaps that is why the reliability and consistency of the Project is so much in question in the larger world.
I don't know why you'd say that; if the WMF staff is continually rotating, then yes, turnover is a major credibility issue. But we are not a paid staff of editors; we are all volunteers. Turnover is to be expected.
Johnleemk
On 07/10/2007, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know why you'd say that; if the WMF staff is continually rotating, then yes, turnover is a major credibility issue. But we are not a paid staff of editors; we are all volunteers. Turnover is to be expected.
Indeed. Wikipedia editorship tends to be on the same six- to eighteen-month cycle that other online communities, including MMORPGs, seems to be.
Therefore: stick around two years and you're an institution.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/10/2007, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know why you'd say that; if the WMF staff is continually rotating, then yes, turnover is a major credibility issue. But we are not a paid staff of editors; we are all volunteers. Turnover is to be expected.
Indeed. Wikipedia editorship tends to be on the same six- to eighteen-month cycle that other online communities, including MMORPGs, seems to be.
Therefore: stick around two years and you're an institution.
So some of us have been around long enough to require institutionalization?
Ec
On 10/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So some of us have been around long enough to require institutionalization?
Perhaps so!
-Matt
On 10/7/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/7/07 12:22 PM, Christiano Moreschi at moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I don't know, Marc. Wikipedia is not a closed "community": it is such an open one, with people entering and leaving all the time, that it is questionable whether the editing "community" is really worthy of the name.
Obviously, some editors are worth trying to retain, but losing people is scarcely a problem for us. We can simply draft in a new population or two.
That is a sad state, Christiano. Perhaps that is why the reliability and consistency of the Project is so much in question in the larger world.
Why is it a sad state? That statement strikes me like saying that the United States or Canada is a weak and untrustworthy country because it keeps attracting immigrants; it's patently absurd. The attractiveness of the project to new volunteers should never be used as an attack on it; quite the opposite, I think our continued success relies on maintaining our ability to attract good new editors from outside the "community".
On 10/7/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I don't know, Marc. Wikipedia is not a closed "community": it is such an open one, with people entering and leaving all the time, that it is questionable whether the editing "community" is really worthy of the name.
Obviously, some editors are worth trying to retain, but losing people is scarcely a problem for us. We can simply draft in a new population or two.
The statistical research showing that 0.1% of the people are making 40% - ish of the viewed words on WP pages, with 1% making about another 40%, indicates that we do have a strong and important comunity of core contributors.
We hope that many in the 10% and 100%tiles will join up and become 1% or 0.1%ers. That hope and the new blood and ideas they bring in keep us exciting.
Steve Summit wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
Remember, too, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community second (or, idealistically, not at all) and an encyclopedia- writing project first.
One could get into a lot of semantic issues here. There is a community whose primary objective is to build an encyclopedia. We can too easily confuse ourselves when we try to equate the two.
The nice thing about all this emotional hand-wringing policy stuff is that a lot of the time, you can just ignore it (well, as long as you're not reading this mailing list, anyway :-) ) and get on with the task of writing the encyclopedia.
Is there no salvation for those of us who regularly follow the mailing list(s)? :'(
Ec
Steve Summit wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
Remember, too, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community second (or, idealistically, not at all) and an encyclopedia- writing project first.
on 10/7/07 3:21 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One could get into a lot of semantic issues here. There is a community whose primary objective is to build an encyclopedia.
Yes, Ray, but this community is made up of people with emotions. The most common cause of gridlock in the project is not the conflict of ideas - but of emotions.
And, you can keep filling a building with stuff. But, unless you have a reliable, stable, consistent infrastructure to support it - and are constantly working to support and maintain that infrastructure - that building will eventually collapse.
Much of the present thinking is not keeping pace with the reality.
The thought suggested by someone else on this thread that, in essence, it doesn't matter if, or why, a person leaves the project there are always those to replace them - is bullshit. Once again we are reduced to expendable bodies building a monument to someone.
Marc
Reporters got FACTS out of Wikipedia and newspapers published them? Wow! I wonder how much lazy reporters get paid? Probably a lot more than starving artists and part time researchers....
KP
K P wrote:
Reporters got FACTS out of Wikipedia and newspapers published them? Wow! I wonder how much lazy reporters get paid? Probably a lot more than starving artists and part time researchers....
Precisely, but we do have devotees who like to see the slightest error as an excuse for collective self-flagellation. Can autism be attributed to an organisation?
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/7/07 3:21 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote
One could get into a lot of semantic issues here. There is a community whose primary objective is to build an encyclopedia.
Yes, Ray, but this community is made up of people with emotions. The most common cause of gridlock in the project is not the conflict of ideas - but of emotions.
More precisely emotions dressed up as ideas.
And, you can keep filling a building with stuff. But, unless you have a reliable, stable, consistent infrastructure to support it - and are constantly working to support and maintain that infrastructure - that building will eventually collapse.
That sounds too much like my wife's complaint about my clutterholic book collecting habits.
Much of the present thinking is not keeping pace with the reality.
That has multiple aspects. Among these is the inability of many people to think in big-picture terms.
The thought suggested by someone else on this thread that, in essence, it doesn't matter if, or why, a person leaves the project there are always those to replace them - is bullshit. Once again we are reduced to expendable bodies building a monument to someone.
The theory of expendable bodies sometimes works well when you're trying to support an army with cannon fodder. :-(
Ec
On 10/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The thought suggested by someone else on this thread that, in essence, it doesn't matter if, or why, a person leaves the project there are always those to replace them - is bullshit. Once again we are reduced to expendable bodies building a monument to someone.
The theory of expendable bodies sometimes works well when you're trying to support an army with cannon fodder. :-(
Or pouring massive amounts of concrete.
—C.W.
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 07/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It is not an acceptable policy for a rational community.
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
There's a very important dynamic to be balanced between the emotional and the rational. That part of the community which is rooted in computer technology tends too much toward the rational side of the equation. I was reading the "Artificial Intelligence" entry in the Geek's Glossary that is appended to the October issue of "Wired" where they remark that robots still fail in a lot of tasks which are relatively obvious for humans. Seeing what needs to be done when you have a sink full of dishes is not a task that a robot easily recognizes. They have a great deal of difficulty with the ambiguities of life, with puns and with cultural allusions. Even chess-playing computers depend on brute force analysis which they can do better than any human.
We need the rational to keep the train on the track, but we also need the emotional to look at opportunities for new tracks. The effects are often subtle. Our massive use of templates gives the impression of order, but it also reduces options. A person with a more intuitive approach who wants to suggest alternatives that might very well be improvements needs to be ready to work his way through a cloud of virtual insect repellent. Getting through to the egg needs pretty tough sperm.
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 07/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It is not an acceptable policy for a rational community.
on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one. Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
on 10/7/07 5:03 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There's a very important dynamic to be balanced between the emotional and the rational. That part of the community which is rooted in computer technology tends too much toward the rational side of the equation. I was reading the "Artificial Intelligence" entry in the Geek's Glossary that is appended to the October issue of "Wired" where they remark that robots still fail in a lot of tasks which are relatively obvious for humans. Seeing what needs to be done when you have a sink full of dishes is not a task that a robot easily recognizes. They have a great deal of difficulty with the ambiguities of life, with puns and with cultural allusions. Even chess-playing computers depend on brute force analysis which they can do better than any human.
We need the rational to keep the train on the track, but we also need the emotional to look at opportunities for new tracks. The effects are often subtle. Our massive use of templates gives the impression of order, but it also reduces options. A person with a more intuitive approach who wants to suggest alternatives that might very well be improvements needs to be ready to work his way through a cloud of virtual insect repellent. Getting through to the egg needs pretty tough sperm.
Thank you very much for this, Ray. In my work I am confronted every day with persons in pain produced by the collision of the rational and the emotional. My task is to help them separate, and find a balance between, the two. Yes, we do need both: the rational to help us navigate relatively safely through life, and the emotional so we can fully participate in the process. Keep in mind, emotional memory is the most powerful one we've got.
Marc
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
According to WP:BLP, the policy is based on consensus,
It lies.
On 10/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Evidences?
Lack of evidence to the contrary. When people disagree with something, they generally say so quite loudly. When people agree with something, they are usually much quieter. I've seem plenty of people complaining about the application of BLP to a particular article, but few complaining about BLP in general.
Because you can't effectively overturn that which is opposed from above.
If we go by what happens BLP does not exist unless an admin with an agenda turns up.
*shrugs* Then that's the policy.
It is not an acceptable policy for a rational community.
What's not acceptable, that not every single member of the wider Wikipedia community understands and agrees with and lives by BLP (much less the other policies, rules, guidelines, pillars...) ?
By definition, we're open to drivebys and new members joining who don't have much understanding of our existing policy infrastructure...
On 07/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If we go by what happens BLP does not exist unless an admin with an agenda turns up.
True with almost all policy.
On 07/10/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If we go by what happens BLP does not exist unless an admin with an agenda turns up.
True with almost all policy.
NPOV? Most of our copyright policy?
Vee wrote:
On 06/10/2007, David Goodman wrote:
the day WP starts tending to be on the sympathetic side, will be the last day anyone can trust it.
The point is that no one can trust Wikipedia.
That's exactly as things should be! But we keep battling with people who want to trust something, and for whom that lack of trust is a major source of insecurity. We want them to mistrust other sources just as much. For centuries they could "Trust God", but the armour has been falling away from that particular kind of political deception. We want students to question, but that skill is not well-taught when received truths are a significant element in pedagogy.
Ec
On 07/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's exactly as things should be! But we keep battling with people who want to trust something, and for whom that lack of trust is a major source of insecurity. We want them to mistrust other sources just as much. For centuries they could "Trust God", but the armour has been falling away from that particular kind of political deception.
Fortunately, they've invented a convenient electronic God substitute:
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814...
It should come with mobile phones soon.
- d.
David Goodman wrote:
I agree with Thomas. We have enough problems without introducing a deliberate degree of non-objectivity into the proceedings. the day WP starts tending to be on the sympathetic side, will be the last day anyone can trust it. The next step will be saying, to tend to be on the negative side for articles about para-science. And then to whatever a pressure group wants. NPOV is one of the principles that does not accept compromise. Like honesty.
NPOV has to be lived, and the test comes when it questions our most pronounced beliefs.
Ec
On 05/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a good Wikipedia biography of a living person should, basically, be a draft obituary. Neutral tending to slightly sympathetic*,
No, no asterisk, no "slightly" non-neutral. Just plain neutral, it's one of our foundation policies and not really negotiable. Obituaries turn into hagiographies far too often.
The original asterisk, incidentally - not sure if it got lost - was "or, at least, polite where possible...". I was talking about our editorial style, not our editorial content :-)
The way I see it, "sympathetic" and "neutral" are not incompatible; neutral is what we choose to say (and not say) about them, and sympathetic is how we present it.
It is simply not possible to have no editorial slant whatsoever in a written piece - at least, not without presenting biographies as bulletpointed lists, and even then you've just removed the "style" side of the equation and left the "content" one.
So, our articles are neutral - they cover all material with appropriate weight, etc - but the editorial voice is, where appropriate, broadly tending towards the sympathetic side to a small degree. I don't see anything wrong with this - when dealing with living people, it's often the only way to make the articles avoid sounding like charge sheets!
This should not be construed as "make them hagiographies", of course - editorial decorum and so on - but I don't think it's a fundamentally damaging concept.
Steve Summit wrote:
Spotted by Lars Eighner on alt.usage.english:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/
(Summary: Ronnie Hazlehurst dies, obituarists copy false fact from his Wikipedia article.)
I have replied to them with the following:
I write as a person who has participated in Wikipedia for more than five years.
I'm glad that the article points the finger in the right place: journalists who don't check their sources. Wikipedians themselves tell school kids to seek independent support for what they use from Wikipedia. Teachers who dwell upon Wikipedia's inaccuracies, often to the extent of blocking its use entirely, miss an opportunity for teaching kids to question anything that they read from whatever source. That will be an absolutely vital lesson for children growing up in a time when access to information is unbridled, and the most convincing presentations are often from people with a vested interest.
Journalists should have learned better a long time ago. Wikipedia would be very happy if those journalists notified Wikipedia to say that some detail is mistaken; someone would investigate and most often the problem would soon be solved. Instead they whine that Wikipedia is wrong, rather than accepting their own responsibility in the matter. Wikipedia's capacity for self-correction probably results in its being more often correct than many, many other sources, either printed or online. Those who view this as changing history also need to remember that an archive of those changes remains fully available. If newspapers publicly retract an error it cannot happen in the same issue as the error; it will likely appear a few days later. Some years later, a historian will look at the original article, and use it, completely oblivious of the retraction. A readily linked archive of changes and retractions reflects a much higher level of accountability.
Errors on Wikipedia will continue to arise with great regularity, and, regrettably, many will not be found until there is another incident like the present one. Unfortunately such an incident tends to magnify inaccuracies out of proportion to their frequency. They take on the inevitable nature of Cúchulainn being served a meal of dog-meat.
Someone in the responses to the article quite fairly cited "It's clearly not true, but it's now been in several reliable and verifiable sources, and under Wikipedia rules it makes no difference whether it's true or not" from the article's talk page. It's Wikipedia's paradox. Without it the inaccuracies would be much worse, and Wikipedia would be full of bizarre physics and urban legends. It seems that some Wikipedian brains have the same gear shift as some journalist brains. A good driver will know that his vehicle comes specially equipped with gear positions for mountainous terrain. A poor driver will just damage his own vehicle. Rules do that to us. Daleks and Vogons are very certain of their mission in life; doubt is inimical to belief, even when that belief is blatantly stupid. Reliable and verifiable sources become virtual teddy-bears that we can hug when we want to go to sleep; they will protect us from the ghosts of doubt.
On 04/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I have replied to them with the following:
I write as a person who has participated in Wikipedia for more than five years.
I'm glad that the article points the finger in the right place: journalists who don't check their sources. Wikipedians themselves tell school kids to seek independent support for what they use from Wikipedia. Teachers who dwell upon Wikipedia's inaccuracies, often to the extent of blocking its use entirely, miss an opportunity for teaching kids to question anything that they read from whatever source. That will be an absolutely vital lesson for children growing up in a time when access to information is unbridled, and the most convincing presentations are often from people with a vested interest.
Journalists should have learned better a long time ago. Wikipedia would be very happy if those journalists notified Wikipedia to say that some detail is mistaken; someone would investigate and most often the problem would soon be solved. Instead they whine that Wikipedia is wrong, rather than accepting their own responsibility in the matter. Wikipedia's capacity for self-correction probably results in its being more often correct than many, many other sources, either printed or online. Those who view this as changing history also need to remember that an archive of those changes remains fully available. If newspapers publicly retract an error it cannot happen in the same issue as the error; it will likely appear a few days later. Some years later, a historian will look at the original article, and use it, completely oblivious of the retraction. A readily linked archive of changes and retractions reflects a much higher level of accountability.
Errors on Wikipedia will continue to arise with great regularity, and, regrettably, many will not be found until there is another incident like the present one. Unfortunately such an incident tends to magnify inaccuracies out of proportion to their frequency. They take on the inevitable nature of Cúchulainn being served a meal of dog-meat.
Someone in the responses to the article quite fairly cited "It's clearly not true, but it's now been in several reliable and verifiable sources, and under Wikipedia rules it makes no difference whether it's true or not" from the article's talk page. It's Wikipedia's paradox. Without it the inaccuracies would be much worse, and Wikipedia would be full of bizarre physics and urban legends. It seems that some Wikipedian brains have the same gear shift as some journalist brains. A good driver will know that his vehicle comes specially equipped with gear positions for mountainous terrain. A poor driver will just damage his own vehicle. Rules do that to us. Daleks and Vogons are very certain of their mission in life; doubt is inimical to belief, even when that belief is blatantly stupid. Reliable and verifiable sources become virtual teddy-bears that we can hug when we want to go to sleep; they will protect us from the ghosts of doubt.
Yes the journalists are most to blame here.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not completely off the hook. The incidence of errors in the project, and ability of anyone to add anything (which will not necessarily be picked up by others, despite what ultra-wiki-faith evangelists would have you believe) *is* a major issue.
Look at it another way. People say, well, you shouldn't just rely on Wikipedia if you are looking for a proper reference, go and find the source material after looking at the Wikipedia article. So, even if we accept this in the context of someone doing research, what about the casual browser? They aren't going to go look up the sources. And yet even subconciously they are going to remember anything non-controversial or plausible that they read on Wikipedia as fact.
We really really need to take Wikipedia's spreading of disinformation very seriously. One cannot get away with solely blaming those who source information from Wikipedia.
At least, if we really want Wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia rather than a factoid lucky-dip. Yes an encyclopaedia isn't a reliable first hand source for research, but it should be generally quite accurate nevertheless. The mistakes Britannica makes are actually worth the hoo-hah people make over them. It's very bad for an information source, even an informal one not for use in research, to have errors creeping into it. People read encyclopaedia articles for facts, not "maybe facts - I guess I'll check each fact".
Zoney
On 04/10/2007, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
We really really need to take Wikipedia's spreading of disinformation very seriously. One cannot get away with solely blaming those who source information from Wikipedia. At least, if we really want Wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia rather than a factoid lucky-dip. Yes an encyclopaedia isn't a reliable first hand source for research, but it should be generally quite accurate nevertheless. The mistakes Britannica makes are actually worth the hoo-hah people make over them. It's very bad for an information source, even an informal one not for use in research, to have errors creeping into it. People read encyclopaedia articles for facts, not "maybe facts - I guess I'll check each fact".
It's about a lot more than the FlaggedRevisions extension.
- d.
On 10/4/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not completely off the hook. The incidence of errors in the project, and ability of anyone to add anything (which will not necessarily be picked up by others, despite what ultra-wiki-faith evangelists would have you believe) *is* a major issue.
Most agree it is a major issue, see the Wikimedia Quality site. (David linked to it.)
Look at it another way. People say, well, you shouldn't just rely on
Wikipedia if you are looking for a proper reference, go and find the source material after looking at the Wikipedia article. So, even if we accept this in the context of someone doing research, what about the casual browser? They aren't going to go look up the sources. And yet even subconciously they are going to remember anything non-controversial or plausible that they read on Wikipedia as fact.
We really really need to take Wikipedia's spreading of disinformation very seriously.
We really really do take it seriously and are working on the issue, it is one of the board's goals or visions or something along those lines. ;-)
One cannot get away with solely blaming those who source
information from Wikipedia.
At least, if we really want Wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia rather than a factoid lucky-dip. Yes an encyclopaedia isn't a reliable first hand source for research, but it should be generally quite accurate nevertheless. The mistakes Britannica makes are actually worth the hoo-hah people make over them. It's very bad for an information source, even an informal one not for use in research, to have errors creeping into it. People read encyclopaedia articles for facts, not "maybe facts - I guess I'll check each fact".
Zoney
-- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/4/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not completely off the hook. The incidence of errors in the project, and ability of anyone to add anything (which will not necessarily be picked up by others, despite what ultra-wiki-faith evangelists would have you believe) *is* a major issue.
[snip]
Indeed, if our answer is going to be to direct people to follow the citations why not blank the articles and replace them with the citations?
... because we do expect people to actually use the article text. Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "use the citations" is just dishonest.
On the subject, does anyone care to write an explanation of why "mark as patrolled" didn't help us eons ago when it was done?
Zoney wrote:
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not completely off the hook. The incidence of errors in the project, and ability of anyone to add anything (which will not necessarily be picked up by others, despite what ultra-wiki-faith evangelists would have you believe) *is* a major issue.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Sure, we need to accept responsibility for what goes on, but it's also important to recognize the inevitability of a certain level of this stuff. Every time one of these small errors comes to light there are a few hand-wringers willing to panic as though the end of the universe were imminent. What you seem to forget is that the ability of anyone to add anything has been one of the important features that has gotten us where we are to-day. The benefit of that has far exceeded the prevalence of these errors.
Look at it another way. People say, well, you shouldn't just rely on Wikipedia if you are looking for a proper reference, go and find the source material after looking at the Wikipedia article.
As indeed they should.
So, even if we accept this in the context of someone doing research, what about the casual browser? They aren't going to go look up the sources. And yet even subconciously they are going to remember anything non-controversial or plausible that they read on Wikipedia as fact.
Yes. So...? "Buyer beware" applies just as much to Wikipedia as to anything else. I had never heard of Ronnie Hazlehurst before this incident, but suppose that I had visited the erroneous article as a casual browser. Would I have focused on the error as much as on anything else in the article? How much would I be likely to remember anything there at all? Are you saying that you can click on "Random article" and remember whatever that brings up? And where is the casual reader going with that random knowledge? Can we try to be at least a little realistic?
We really really need to take Wikipedia's spreading of disinformation very seriously. One cannot get away with solely blaming those who source information from Wikipedia.
"Spreading of disinformation" suggests a wilful act. Most of us are quite happy to correct any errors that we do find. At the same time we cannot allow ourselves to be stifled by perfectionism. It's not about our "getting away" with anything. It's also not about "blaming" anybody. In this case professionals at six different media establishments copied the same error that was made by a gang of amateurs. It makes me smile smugly; I don't need to blame anybody. It's incumbent on all of us to exercise critical thinking.
At least, if we really want Wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia rather than a factoid lucky-dip. Yes an encyclopaedia isn't a reliable first hand source for research, but it should be generally quite accurate nevertheless. The mistakes Britannica makes are actually worth the hoo-hah people make over them. It's very bad for an information source, even an informal one not for use in research, to have errors creeping into it. People read encyclopaedia articles for facts, not "maybe facts - I guess I'll check each fact".
If the "fact" is important to what you are doing, by all means check it. Nobody is promoting the inclusion of errors in Wikipedia. Yes, we want to avoid errors, but not at all costs. I believe that we should start putting more emphasis on the good things about Wikipedia, and not stressing over the occasional error.
Ec