---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Keith Old keithold@gmail.com Date: Mar 16, 2007 7:24 AM Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Oops (or, be careful when quoting Wikipedia in your newspaper, part 2) To: "unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org" unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org Date: Mar 16, 2007 7:10 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Oops (or, be careful when quoting Wikipedia in your newspaper, part 2) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
London has a free daily newspaper called [[thelondonpaper]]. Every day, on the puzzles page, there's a little factoid at the top of the page. Today it said:
[in Big Type:] 670.6 The number of miles per hour at which light travels. source: en.wikipedia.org
Oh dear. I think the word "million" went missing somewhere. From [[speed of light]]:
"Converted to imperial units, the speed of light is approximately... 670,616,629.384 miles per hour, or almost one foot per nanosecond."
I just hope that people realise the error was on their part, not ours. (Probably, considering that they also had a story today titled "Jolie Adopts Fourth Child", which began "Angelina Jolie today adopted a third child...")
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day folks,
The Register which has never published anything positive about Wikipedia in its life published an interesting piece by Tom Melly (Username Tomandlu) about The Times allegedly using Wikipedia as a source for an article on his father George Melly.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/15/tom_melly_wikipedia_comment/
Wikipedia comes in for a fair amount of criticism these days from *El Reg*and other publications, but I can't help wondering if we're missing the real point regarding its status as an encyclopedia. Most of the arguments hinge on its accuracy, or lack of it. But if our criteria for an encyclopedia is a guarantee of 100 per cent accuracy, then there are no encyclopaedias now, and there never have been. So is Wikipedia an encylopedia, and, if not, can it ever be one? Reluctantly, I think the answer is a resounding 'no', and here's why.
This is a tale of personal experience, so a bit of background is needed. In the first place, I am a casual editor on Wikipedia under the username Tomandlu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tomandlu. I've contributed to articles on various novels, historical events, and so on (including, for reasons I fail to recall, the tuberculate pelagic octopus – don't you hate it when that happens?). So, I like Wikipedia, I really do. Besides, any resource that has anything as bizarre as the Death Star talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_Star gets my vote.
My father is George Melly, the British jazz-singer and writer. Needless to say, I keep an eye on Wikipedia's article on himhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Melly. I try to avoid any bias, although I did once suggest that a particular anecdote wasn't really noteworthy or accurate. (It was a trout not a salmon, and he didn't wank on it, just near it; besides, if a wank-adote is really required, then there's a far better one involving cat impressions and a plate.)
The closest I've come to censorship was when I removed "incontinence" from a list of his health problems. I didn't lose much sleep over it - it's your standard, old-man, incontinence, so, once again, not very noteworthy. I'd have removed "has wrinkles" or "thinks modern music is too loud and repetitive" on the same basis. However, lung cancer (an early member of the list), and emphysema (a later addition) were retained.
I had some concerns about this. Nevertheless, the information was accurate – albeit unreferenced – so I let it stand. At least no one else seemed to have heard that he had also been diagnosed with early vascular dementia, and that stayed off the list – I certainly wasn't going to add it in.
We can now fast-forward to earlier this year, when my father came out, so to speak, as a sufferer. I duly added "vascular dementia" to Wikipedia, and settled down to following the various news coverage and articles on my father's condition – for the most part sympathetic and accurate pieces, and often based around interviews…and then I came across an article in the Timeshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1453037.eceby a Dr Thomas Stuttaford.
Now, you can take my word for it, or you can take a look at the article and compare it with the entry on Wikipedia, but large sections of it are obviously sourced from there and I was rather shocked. This wasn't, as far as I knew, what Wikipedia was for. Wikipedia was for... well what exactly? Or more accurately, who? More in story.
Regards
Keith Old
On 15/03/07, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Keith Old keithold@gmail.com Date: Mar 16, 2007 7:24 AM Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Oops (or, be careful when quoting Wikipedia in your newspaper, part 2) To: "unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org" unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org
G'day folks,
The Register which has never published anything positive about Wikipedia in its life published an interesting piece by Tom Melly (Username Tomandlu) about The Times allegedly using Wikipedia as a source for an article on his father George Melly.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/15/tom_melly_wikipedia_comment/
snip
Regards
Keith Old
Whether it is Wikipedia's responsibility to do something about it or not, the project is undisputably spreading disinformation not only across the Internet, but into printed media. The mirroring of old (but also some relatively stable) Wikipedia versions means that incorrect information can be visible for an unlimited amount of time. Undoubtedly elements of this are not Wikipedia's responsibility, for example those mirroring need to take responsibility, and arguably Google has such a presence and air of respectability that they should be more responsible about the fact that searches can easily throw up disinformation in spades well before anything sensible. You can't just hand wave and say "it's just technology" - people are responsible for running public services (in the case of Google, making a lot of money from it).
I don't think Wikipedia can absolve itself of all responsibility though. There needs to be clear acceptance that despite a drive towards improvement and "policies" re: verifiability, a lot of "facts" on Wikipedia are outright incorrect (and wrt. to bios for example, potentially libellious). And rather than just have stronger policies about what can be added to Wikipedia, there needs to be an official line of "don't believe us". And potentially stop calling ourselves an encyclopaedia, which gives a false sense of authority. Even if people should not act merely on authority, or use an encyclopaedia as primary reference, they do.
Zoney
On 3/16/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Whether it is Wikipedia's responsibility to do something about it or not, the project is undisputably spreading disinformation not only across the Internet, but into printed media. The mirroring of old (but also some relatively stable) Wikipedia versions means that incorrect information can be visible for an unlimited amount of time. Undoubtedly elements of this are not Wikipedia's responsibility, for example those mirroring need to take responsibility, and arguably Google has such a presence and air of respectability that they should be more responsible about the fact that searches can easily throw up disinformation in spades well before anything sensible. You can't just hand wave and say "it's just technology" - people are responsible for running public services (in the case of Google, making a lot of money from it).
I don't think Wikipedia can absolve itself of all responsibility though. There needs to be clear acceptance that despite a drive towards improvement and "policies" re: verifiability, a lot of "facts" on Wikipedia are outright incorrect (and wrt. to bios for example, potentially libellious). And rather than just have stronger policies about what can be added to Wikipedia, there needs to be an official line of "don't believe us". And potentially stop calling ourselves an encyclopaedia, which gives a false sense of authority. Even if people should not act merely on authority, or use an encyclopaedia as primary reference, they do.
Zoney
We already have a disclaimer saying we shouldn't be trusted and the top of every page has an edit button showing everyone can edit. If people choose to trust anything they read without checking there's really nothing we can do. I speak from experience when I say that blinking red banners on top of pages won't work. People will just ignore them just like they do with warnings on all other Wikipedia pages.
AFC: "Cite your sources" -> ignored HD: "Don't post your email address and don't ask homework questions" --> ignored. HD: "Place for questions about Wikipedia" --> How can I find DVD X? --> Ignored.
Sure, we need to warn people but we need to draw a line too.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
We already have a disclaimer saying we shouldn't be trusted and the top of every page has an edit button showing everyone can edit. If people choose to trust anything they read without checking there's really nothing we can do. I speak from experience when I say that blinking red banners on top of pages won't work. People will just ignore them just like they do with warnings on all other Wikipedia pages.
AFC: "Cite your sources" -> ignored HD: "Don't post your email address and don't ask homework questions" --> ignored. HD: "Place for questions about Wikipedia" --> How can I find DVD X? --> Ignored.
Sure, we need to warn people but we need to draw a line too.
Not long ago I bought a new stepladder manufactured in the United States. It is full of stuck on labels warning people about dangers of misusing the product. For a few of us it would seem sensible not to attempt to change the blade on a table saw while the motor is running, but there are people who would win handsomely in court because the manufacturer had failed to post a label warning them of an obvious danger. One can never underestimate the power of unfathomable stupidity.
Ec