An accusation of lack of reliability -- http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/07/12/one_great_sour...
An accusation of failing to explain "Islamic terrorism" - http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/8148/
RickK
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Rick wrote:
An accusation of lack of reliability -- http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/07/12/one_great_sour...
Jimbo is being a little too modest when he says that scholars haven't picked articles for fact-checking - we have a number of scholars and other authorities who are WPers, the articles in their areas get pretty thoroughly fact-checked, and they watch those articles closely to see that new errors don't get in. The only thing that hasn't happened yet is a large-scale systematic review.
As a future response to news queries, I suggest "de-personalizing" a bit; Wikipedia's authority should rest on the published body of knowledge, not individual expertise. Part of how we're able to leverage non-experts is that if an article references an authoritative source, anybody can compare the two. I have no personal experience of aircraft carriers, but I can make sure a launching date matches what the Royal Navy says it is.
Conversely, if random Nobelists were to get on WP and add unpublished bits, I would expect those to get smacked down as quickly as the latest crackpot ranting. It's also a feature that we're not held hostage to (almost-)dead-white-guy viewpoints, which as we know sometimes lack, uh, "neutrality". :-)
The Britannica guy should read a little more Linux history, so he doesn't embarass himself by saying exactly the same things that Microsoft said about Linux years ago. Hundreds of professional programmers were working on GNU and Linux as part of their day jobs while most of the world still thought it was a "hobby operating system" - we didn't advertise it so much at the time, so as avoid getting squashed by MS while we were still vulnerable.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Jimbo is being a little too modest when he says that scholars haven't picked articles for fact-checking - we have a number of scholars and other authorities who are WPers, the articles in their areas get pretty thoroughly fact-checked, and they watch those articles closely to see that new errors don't get in. The only thing that hasn't happened yet is a large-scale systematic review.
Me? Modest? Never. ;-)
The actual question was about a systematic review; I did emphasize exactly what you did -- it's false to assume that Wikipedians aren't scholars and authorities, many of us are, and lots of quality review and comparisons to other reference works goes on all the time.
source, anybody can compare the two. I have no personal experience of aircraft carriers, but I can make sure a launching date matches what the Royal Navy says it is.
That's an excellent example.
The Britannica guy should read a little more Linux history, so he doesn't embarass himself by saying exactly the same things that Microsoft said about Linux years ago.
There's a huge difference, too, between Microsoft and Britannica. With software, there are network externalities and "lock-in", and it is taking time for free alternatives to overcome that. But Britannica enjoys no such natural advantages -- it's quite easy for anyone to "switch" which encyclopedia they use, as opposed to being a slight nuisance (or worse) to "switch" operating systems.
Of course, we, too, enjoy no such "lock-in" -- so if proprietary publishers figure out a way to produce content as comprehensive as ours, as accurate as ours, and at a lower cost, then they will outcompete us.
But, fat chance of that.
--Jimbo
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:11:29 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The actual question was about a systematic review; I did emphasize exactly what you did -- it's false to assume that Wikipedians aren't scholars and authorities, many of us are, and lots of quality review and comparisons to other reference works goes on all the time.
In a way it is Wikipedia's strength that we don't *depend* on scholars and experts. Everything is open to review including something that is added by an "expert". Articles written by experts only are more susceptible to lack of neutrality. Ofcourse we need expertise but we also need ordinary people who make articles written by experts still better. This is the only place where you can clean up an article written by an expert (assuming you are bettering it in ever so tiny a way).
Hemanshu
Hemanshu Desai wrote
In a way it is Wikipedia's strength that we don't *depend* on scholars and experts.
I think, in the longer term, the dependence will be seen to be greater. An interesting comparison is Murray's New English Dictionary, for which the basic material seems mostly to have come in over the first five years, submitted by many readers. Then bringing the entries to a polished state took much longer. That is, we do see a great enthusiasm for getting material onto WP.
Charles
It depends. In my opinion, Wikipedia compares well with traditional encyclopedias for several reasons:
it is far more up-to-date than encyclopedias on CD-ROM for example CD-ROMs would still show that Ronald Reagan was alive;
many of the articles are edited extensively and the reasons for inclusion of material is available on discussion pages - it is probable that articles are reviewed by several people with expertise in an area not just one;
there are topics covered extensively in WIkipedia ie computer science in far more depth than traditional encyclopedias;
we are far quicker to add encyclopedic topics as even the gentleman from the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledged - I have a a 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that doesn't even contain an article on the Beatles - in contrast, we have extensive articles on most aspects of popular culture; and
as an Australian, Wikipedia has a far more extensive coverage of Australian topics than other encyclopedias - for example, I looked up retiring Australian Environment Minister Dr David Kemp and cricketer Shane Warne who tied the world record for number of test wickets taken and both had good articles while other encyclopedias lack coverage.
If I was a high-school student, I wouldn't use the Wikipedia as the sole source of material for an assignment but I wouldn't use the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta as the sole source of material for an assignment either. Students should learn to use a wide variety of sources for assignments and, in general, I feel confident that they would find useful material in the Wikipedia for school projects or assignments. Also, a person in the public seeking useful reference material can generally find it in the Wikipedia although the same proviso about using a variety of sources should apply.
This isn't to say there aren't areas in the Wikipedia that need more comprehensive coverage or articles on Wikipedia that don't need a lot of care and attention. However, every day the Wikipedia is being improved both in quantity and quality of articles. For a project that is three and a half years old, it has come a long way
Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: Hemanshu Desai wrote
In a way it is Wikipedia's strength that we don't *depend* on scholars and experts.
I think, in the longer term, the dependence will be seen to be greater. An interesting comparison is Murray's New English Dictionary, for which the basic material seems mostly to have come in over the first five years, submitted by many readers. Then bringing the entries to a polished state took much longer. That is, we do see a great enthusiasm for getting material onto WP.
Charles
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:56:02 UTC, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
An accusation of failing to explain "Islamic terrorism" - http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/8148/
Yes, but so what? The article is nonsense from its first unattributed quote to its assertion that other groups' terror activities are never described with adjectives for their orgins, to whatever is said at the end of this worthless rant. Wikipedia has too many real problems to waste time on this stuff.