I just replaced the content of my user page with the following. I thought I would mention this on the list, also, as the resulting discussion might be useful.
I find the arguments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman to be disturbing, sensible, and very worrying. I encourage everyone who reads this to go read them, and think about them. As I understand them, the central point is that Wikipedia, along with many other cultural forces, are encouraging convenience over correctness, i.e. it's more important to find an answer than the best answer. The specifics, which are as important as the general issues, are that, even as the absolute number of excellent article revisions stored on Wikipedia increases, the percentage of non-misleading article revisions is decreasing; i.e. people who want to use Wikipedia to mislead others are having more and more sucess. This also is very disturbing to me, and causes me to strongly reconsider my participation in Wikipedia - it is not good work to do your part in polishing a building which is being increasingly taken over by filth. I would be better off submitting corrections to resources which are not suffering from this maledy. This is saddening. I would love to hear any rebuttals, or even mere comments of sympathy, on my talk page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Jesse Weinstein
On Jul 27, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Jesse W wrote:
I just replaced the content of my user page with the following. I thought I would mention this on the list, also, as the resulting discussion might be useful.
I find the arguments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman to be disturbing, sensible, and very worrying. I encourage everyone who reads this to go read them, and think about them. As I understand them, the central point is that Wikipedia, along with many other cultural forces, are encouraging convenience over correctness, i.e. it's more important to find an answer than the best answer. The specifics, which are as important as the general issues, are that, even as the absolute number of excellent article revisions stored on Wikipedia increases, the percentage of non-misleading article revisions is decreasing; i.e. people who want to use Wikipedia to mislead others are having more and more success. This also is very disturbing to me, and causes me to strongly reconsider my participation in Wikipedia - it is not good work to do your part in polishing a building which is being increasingly taken over by filth. I would be better off submitting corrections to resources which are not suffering from this malady. This is saddening. I would love to hear any rebuttals, or even mere comments of sympathy, on my talk page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Jesse Weinstein
There is a profound contradiction between knowledge and the social construction of knowledge. Wikipedia is about knowledge in all its flavors, Fox News, Democracy Now, or the People's Daily are about social construction of knowledge, advancing one point of view for the good of society.
I do agree that in medical articles it might be best to emphasis the mainstream view. Sometimes it is wise to not confuse folks.
But I note you discuss filth. What in your opinion constitutes "filth"? Could you also give a few examples of misleading information?
Fred
On 7/27/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
I just replaced the content of my user page with the following. I thought I would mention this on the list, also, as the resulting discussion might be useful.
I find the arguments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman to be disturbing, sensible, and very worrying. I encourage everyone who reads this to go read them, and think about them. As I understand them, the central point is that Wikipedia, along with many other cultural forces, are encouraging convenience over correctness, i.e. it's more important to find an answer than the best answer. The specifics, which are as important as the general issues, are that, even as the absolute number of excellent article revisions stored on Wikipedia increases, the percentage of non-misleading article revisions is decreasing; i.e. people who want to use Wikipedia to mislead others are having more and more sucess. This also is very disturbing to me, and causes me to strongly reconsider my participation in Wikipedia - it is not good work to do your part in polishing a building which is being increasingly taken over by filth. I would be better off submitting corrections to resources which are not suffering from this maledy. This is saddening. I would love to hear any rebuttals, or even mere comments of sympathy, on my talk page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The flaw of this argument is that it projects the ails of a small number of articles -- primarily topics of current political and social interest -- onto an overwhelming majority of articles that don't suffer from them. Our coverage of the Cassowary is not given (purposeful) misinformation, our article on the Siege of Florence doesn't really resemble a blog, and so forth.
In other words: alarm is not called for at this point. Despite the failings of a (relatively) miniscule number of articles, the vast underbelly of historical, scientific, and literary topics that includes most of our coverage is steadily moving forward with "proper" encyclopedic work.
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 7/27/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
...the central point is that Wikipedia, along with many other cultural forces, are encouraging convenience over correctness,
This is indeed a widespread and discouraging trend.
people who want to use Wikipedia to mislead others are having more and more sucess.
...alarm is not called for at this point. Despite the failings of a (relatively) miniscule number of articles, the vast underbelly of historical, scientific, and literary topics that includes most of our coverage is steadily moving forward with "proper" encyclopedic work.
Agreed. However: it's worth noting that Wikipedia is now *BIG*. Whereas once we had only to worry about high school kids inserting misinformation for fun, and later about individual POV warriors and fanatics who couldn't change their mind and wouldn't change the subject, now we're subject to organized propaganda campaigns of arbitrary sophistication. The antivandalism efforts that have worked for us in the past may not always be up to the task of defending against powerful interests who've realized that Wikipedia is becoming a one-stop shopping center for information and is therefore a "must have" venue for their particular misinformation.
On 7/27/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
The flaw of this argument is that it projects the ails of a small number of articles -- primarily topics of current political and social interest -- onto an overwhelming majority of articles that don't suffer from them. Our coverage of the Cassowary is not given (purposeful) misinformation, our article on the Siege of Florence doesn't really resemble a blog, and so forth.
In other words: alarm is not called for at this point. Despite the failings of a (relatively) miniscule number of articles, the vast underbelly of historical, scientific, and literary topics that includes most of our coverage is steadily moving forward with "proper" encyclopedic work.
Now, what's interesting is to think about where most of the "deliberate POV" problems in our encyclopaedia reside:
- Currently trading companies - Political parties, governments etc - Other living people - Religions - Certain highly emotive debates (abortion, circumcision, neurolinguistic programming - for reasons beyond my comprehension)
It's interesting to note that most traditional encyclopaedias have steered clear of these areas to a certain extent.
Seems like the POVs fall into three categories: 1) I think X is a god, and I need to fix this bias against him/her/it 2) I think X is evil, and I want everyone to know it 3) I work for/represent X, and it is in my interests to improve his/her/it's image on Wikipedia
1) isn't too scary, it just takes a fair bit of work to control 2) is what's going to get us sued 3) is the scariest, and the hardest to detect (hamfisted Congress staffers aside)
Does this analysis help anything?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Now, what's interesting is to think about where most of the "deliberate POV" problems in our encyclopaedia reside:
- Currently trading companies
- Political parties, governments etc
- Other living people
- Religions
- Certain highly emotive debates (abortion, circumcision,
neurolinguistic programming - for reasons beyond my comprehension)
Add crackpot science as the next down in frequency - Hillman has mostly had to contend with freaky ideas about general relativity and the like. Although these are usually individuals rather than interest groups, they often have sufficient energy to sweep through a whole bunch of articles, and they are clever enough to use multiple sockpuppets to cover their tracks. These kinds of additions tend to be well-referenced, and only an expert would recognize that the references are either bogus or irrelevant.
Stan
Jesse W wrote:
I just replaced the content of my user page with the following. I thought I would mention this on the list, also, as the resulting discussion might be useful.
Hmm, didn't you just a couple days ago dismiss my observations in the same vein with a "go make your own fork"?
To some extent, Hillman is overreacting; out of curiosity I spot-checked some of his articles, and other people's edits I saw since he stopped working on them a year ago were to fix typos, update template usage, and the like, the text itself being carefully preserved. It seems that even the vandals are intimidated by his contributions. :-)
Even so, many of his observations are spot on, and we always need to be thinking about whether our social structure is actually serving the overall goal, or just keeping us busy.
Stan
On 7/27/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
I just replaced the content of my user page with the following. I thought I would mention this on the list, also, as the resulting discussion might be useful.
Hmm, didn't you just a couple days ago dismiss my observations in the same vein with a "go make your own fork"?
To some extent, Hillman is overreacting; out of curiosity I spot-checked some of his articles, and other people's edits I saw since he stopped working on them a year ago were to fix typos, update template usage, and the like, the text itself being carefully preserved. It seems that even the vandals are intimidated by his contributions. :-)
Even so, many of his observations are spot on, and we always need to be thinking about whether our social structure is actually serving the overall goal, or just keeping us busy.
I think he's become an important and effective critic, but his criticisms have the overgeneralization flaw.
One of the overgeneralizations is failure to separate Wikipedia article evolution from Wikipedia's evolution and status as a whole, including the organizational and social aspects. There is nothing contradictory in having a social group organized in any particular manner, whose fundamental common goal is to write neutral, encyclopedic, fact-based and referenced encyclopedia articles. The social group organization being chatty won't necessarily change typical article tone or writing standards.
If there is a linkage there, then it needs to be documented and argued for, rather than just asserted.