Stan Shebs wrote:
Isn't it interesting how nobody ever complains about inaccuracies in articles other than the ones about themselves? Egos, geez...
Actually, people *do* complain about inaccuracies in other types of articles. Moreover, there are good reasons other than ego for people to notice the inaccuracies in articles about themselves. For one thing, we all know our own biographies in a lot more detail than other people. I'm willing to bet that no one on WikiEN-l other than myself knows off the top of their head what city I was born in or my date of birth. If someone other than myself were to read that I was born in 1961 in Toledo, Ohio, it's unlikely that they'd know it was incorrect, whereas I'd notice the error immediately.
In any case, the people who complain about inaccuracies in articles are doing Wikipedia a favor, not a disservice. Complaints help Wikipedia learn about errors and improve. It may be momentarily embarrassing for Jimbo to have an error pointed out to him during a TV interview, but that's a small price to pay for useful feedback.
Slim Virgin wrote:
The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of controlling.
Actually, hosting living bios probably helps improve fact-checking and accuracy more than publishing other types of articles. If there's an error in an article about some dead guy, he's NOT going to point out the error. Without the feedback from live people, Wikipedia would know less than it knows now about the accuracy of its articles and the validity of its editorial policies.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------
This is the best comment in this thread I read so far. :)
On 3/30/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Isn't it interesting how nobody ever complains about inaccuracies in articles other than the ones about themselves? Egos, geez...
Actually, people *do* complain about inaccuracies in other types of articles. Moreover, there are good reasons other than ego for people to notice the inaccuracies in articles about themselves. For one thing, we all know our own biographies in a lot more detail than other people. I'm willing to bet that no one on WikiEN-l other than myself knows off the top of their head what city I was born in or my date of birth. If someone other than myself were to read that I was born in 1961 in Toledo, Ohio, it's unlikely that they'd know it was incorrect, whereas I'd notice the error immediately.
In any case, the people who complain about inaccuracies in articles are doing Wikipedia a favor, not a disservice. Complaints help Wikipedia learn about errors and improve. It may be momentarily embarrassing for Jimbo to have an error pointed out to him during a TV interview, but that's a small price to pay for useful feedback.
Slim Virgin wrote:
The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of controlling.
Actually, hosting living bios probably helps improve fact-checking and accuracy more than publishing other types of articles. If there's an error in an article about some dead guy, he's NOT going to point out the error. Without the feedback from live people, Wikipedia would know less than it knows now about the accuracy of its articles and the validity of its editorial policies.
| Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Isn't it interesting how nobody ever complains about inaccuracies in articles other than the ones about themselves? Egos, geez...
Actually, people *do* complain about inaccuracies in other types of articles. Moreover, there are good reasons other than ego for people to notice the inaccuracies in articles about themselves. For one thing, we all know our own biographies in a lot more detail than other people. I'm willing to bet that no one on WikiEN-l other than myself knows off the top of their head what city I was born in or my date of birth. If someone other than myself were to read that I was born in 1961 in Toledo, Ohio, it's unlikely that they'd know it was incorrect, whereas I'd notice the error immediately.
It's conceivable that some subjects would be quite pleased with such misinformation about themselves. It would make them more difficult to track down, and offer some measure of protection for their privacy.
In any case, the people who complain about inaccuracies in articles are doing Wikipedia a favor, not a disservice. Complaints help Wikipedia learn about errors and improve. It may be momentarily embarrassing for Jimbo to have an error pointed out to him during a TV interview, but that's a small price to pay for useful feedback.
I must agree. The publicity from these events may not be as bad as some want to believe. Perhaps the public message should stress that we welcome such comments, because we fix them as soon as possible. Between the time that a problem is mentioned on TV or radio, and the time that the average user tries to look up the problem it will probably be fixed. That just leaves the user wondering what the person is complaining about. The average reader may not yet understand how the article history works.
It seems to me that the average citizen becomes most concerned when complaints about obvious problems in society encounter denials from those in a position to fix the problems.
Slim Virgin wrote:
The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of controlling.
Actually, hosting living bios probably helps improve fact-checking and accuracy more than publishing other types of articles. If there's an error in an article about some dead guy, he's NOT going to point out the error. Without the feedback from live people, Wikipedia would know less than it knows now about the accuracy of its articles and the validity of its editorial policies.
This would seem to support the view that article subjects should have the right to publicly comment on the article about them, and even to have their own words clearly identified. The implied message that comes out of this is. "We listen."
As Wikipedians we have some grasp about what it means to be collaborative. We can't assume that the public does. The public's respect for authority is stronger than many Wikipedians want to believe. That's been drummed into them throughout the course of their upbringing. We have a long time to wait before they realize that their opinion matters.
Ec