Someone came to Wikipedia's defense today:
http://www.conservapedia.com/ Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_about_twice_as_non_religiou s_as_Americans
"Wikipedia is a GLOBAL source. Edited by GLOBAL users, who all are supposed to be submitting factual information or for controversial subjects, both possible sides (or all possible sides if more than two). So no-matter what, the end-result on Wikipedia, after it is editted by its PAYED professionals and experts, is factual information and non-biased articles. Wikipedia, and any other site should not have to cater to the religious just because there are more of them in America. There are other countries too, and nobody is attempting to cater to them. There are other points of view, but nobody is catering to them. Facts are facts are facts, they remain the same whether they support religious claims or not. 100% of America could be Creationists, yet Wikipedia would still show every possible side of things, not ONLY the creationist part, if you understand what I mean. Every statistic that is used to try and show that Wikipedia has biased is 100% irrelevant in every way."
No, I do not think this is a joke. (Although on Conservapedia it is always hard to be sure. A new piece of jargon has emerged on Conservapedia, one which I don't think I've ever seen on Wikipedia: the phrase "parody vandal.")
I wish my reaction to this could be something simple, like, "You tell 'em kid! I stutter!" But that "PAYED professionals" part disturbs me.
How many other Wikipedia readers think this?
As nearly as I can guess at his thinking, it must go something like this:
1a) Wikipedia must be reliable, because it's at the top of so many Google searches, and "they" wouldn't put it at the top if it weren't.
Or (more sophisticated version of same)
1b) Wikipedia's being at the top of so many Google searches proves that a lot of people use it, so it must be reliable.
2) The only way for an information source to be reliable is to be "editted by PAYED professionals and experts."
3) Therefore, Wikipedia must be "editted by PAYED professionals and experts."
Fortunately, Wikipedia's mission is to be a free encyclopedia, because if its mission was to make some point about the virtue of non- authoritarianism and the sterility of "expertise," it's not getting through.
I wonder how many Wikipedia readers even think of the possibility that they could be looking at a page during the minute or so that it contains unreverted vandalism?
Someone came to Wikipedia's defense today:
http://www.conservapedia.com/ Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_about_twice_as_non_religiou s_as_Americans
"Wikipedia is a GLOBAL source. Edited by GLOBAL users, who all are supposed to be submitting factual information or for controversial subjects, both possible sides (or all possible sides if more than two). So no-matter what, the end-result on Wikipedia, after it is editted by its PAYED professionals and experts, is factual information and non-biased articles. Wikipedia, and any other site should not have to cater to the religious just because there are more of them in America. There are other countries too, and nobody is attempting to cater to them. There are other points of view, but nobody is catering to them. Facts are facts are facts, they remain the same whether they support religious claims or not. 100% of America could be Creationists, yet Wikipedia would still show every possible side of things, not ONLY the creationist part, if you understand what I mean. Every statistic that is used to try and show that Wikipedia has biased is 100% irrelevant in every way."
No, I do not think this is a joke. (Although on Conservapedia it is always hard to be sure. A new piece of jargon has emerged on Conservapedia, one which I don't think I've ever seen on Wikipedia: the phrase "parody vandal.")
I wish my reaction to this could be something simple, like, "You tell 'em kid! I stutter!" But that "PAYED professionals" part disturbs me.
How many other Wikipedia readers think this?
As nearly as I can guess at his thinking, it must go something like this:
1a) Wikipedia must be reliable, because it's at the top of so many Google searches, and "they" wouldn't put it at the top if it weren't.
Or (more sophisticated version of same)
1b) Wikipedia's being at the top of so many Google searches proves that a lot of people use it, so it must be reliable.
- The only way for an information source to be reliable is to be
"editted by PAYED professionals and experts."
- Therefore, Wikipedia must be "editted by PAYED professionals and
experts."
Fortunately, Wikipedia's mission is to be a free encyclopedia, because if its mission was to make some point about the virtue of non- authoritarianism and the sterility of "expertise," it's not getting through.
I wonder how many Wikipedia readers even think of the possibility that they could be looking at a page during the minute or so that it contains unreverted vandalism?
I wish people would stop giving credence to anything said on Convservapedia. The [[Talk:Conservapedia]] page is ridiculous.
And in answer to your question, I don't think as many people are clueless as to the way Wikipedia works as Wikipedians seem to think. But I guess there are some out there. I see an awful lot of comments on talk pages to the tune of "Why does [article] say [stupid thing]??? This is totally incorrect!!!" without seeming to realise that it's just vandalism, can be reverted by anyone, including themselves, and that things like this are bound to happen where anyone can edit... I suppose from this it also follows that the same people are reading less obvious vandalism (i.e. a case where a vandal has changed all the dates in the article, or the subject's place of birth or something) and accepting it as truth because 'they' wrote it. Is there a disclaimer anywhere obvious on Wikipedia that points out that as any can edit, information may not be accurate and the page that they are viewing may have been vandalised? I don't recall seeing one. I remember before I started editing WP at the instigation of a friend I mentally blocked out all the 'edit' buttons and cleanup tags encouraging me to improve the articles, etc.
(this is my first post to the mailing list.. hope i've done it right)
I think someone should do a study to see how many people actually have misconceptions about Wikipedia and which of those are more persistent than the others.
Mgm
On 3/16/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
Someone came to Wikipedia's defense today:
http://www.conservapedia.com/ Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_about_twice_as_non_religiou s_as_Americans
"Wikipedia is a GLOBAL source. Edited by GLOBAL users, who all are supposed to be submitting factual information or for controversial subjects, both possible sides (or all possible sides if more than two). So no-matter what, the end-result on Wikipedia, after it is editted by its PAYED professionals and experts, is factual information and non-biased articles. Wikipedia, and any other site should not have to cater to the religious just because there are more of them in America. There are other countries too, and nobody is attempting to cater to them. There are other points of view, but nobody is catering to them. Facts are facts are facts, they remain the same whether they support religious claims or not. 100% of America could be Creationists, yet Wikipedia would still show every possible side of things, not ONLY the creationist part, if you understand what I mean. Every statistic that is used to try and show that Wikipedia has biased is 100% irrelevant in every way."
No, I do not think this is a joke. (Although on Conservapedia it is always hard to be sure. A new piece of jargon has emerged on Conservapedia, one which I don't think I've ever seen on Wikipedia: the phrase "parody vandal.")
I wish my reaction to this could be something simple, like, "You tell 'em kid! I stutter!" But that "PAYED professionals" part disturbs me.
How many other Wikipedia readers think this?
As nearly as I can guess at his thinking, it must go something like this:
1a) Wikipedia must be reliable, because it's at the top of so many Google searches, and "they" wouldn't put it at the top if it weren't.
Or (more sophisticated version of same)
1b) Wikipedia's being at the top of so many Google searches proves that a lot of people use it, so it must be reliable.
- The only way for an information source to be reliable is to be
"editted by PAYED professionals and experts."
- Therefore, Wikipedia must be "editted by PAYED professionals and
experts."
Fortunately, Wikipedia's mission is to be a free encyclopedia, because if its mission was to make some point about the virtue of non- authoritarianism and the sterility of "expertise," it's not getting through.
I wonder how many Wikipedia readers even think of the possibility that they could be looking at a page during the minute or so that it contains unreverted vandalism?
I wish people would stop giving credence to anything said on Convservapedia. The [[Talk:Conservapedia]] page is ridiculous.
And in answer to your question, I don't think as many people are clueless as to the way Wikipedia works as Wikipedians seem to think. But I guess there are some out there. I see an awful lot of comments on talk pages to the tune of "Why does [article] say [stupid thing]??? This is totally incorrect!!!" without seeming to realise that it's just vandalism, can be reverted by anyone, including themselves, and that things like this are bound to happen where anyone can edit... I suppose from this it also follows that the same people are reading less obvious vandalism (i.e. a case where a vandal has changed all the dates in the article, or the subject's place of birth or something) and accepting it as truth because 'they' wrote it. Is there a disclaimer anywhere obvious on Wikipedia that points out that as any can edit, information may not be accurate and the page that they are viewing may have been vandalised? I don't recall seeing one. I remember before I started editing WP at the instigation of a friend I mentally blocked out all the 'edit' buttons and cleanup tags encouraging me to improve the articles, etc.
(this is my first post to the mailing list.. hope i've done it right) _______________________________________________ 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 3/16/07, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
I wish my reaction to this could be something simple, like, "You tell 'em kid! I stutter!" But that "PAYED professionals" part disturbs me.
How many other Wikipedia readers think this?
Yeah. We should start a campaign to teach them to spell it properly.
Steve