Dear Mr. Fasoldt, dear Ms. Stagnitta,

I am writing in response to your article "Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard.

I.

I would like to strongly second what fellow Wikipedia contributor Mathias Schindler recently wrote to you (see his email below). Mathias observed that the Wikipedia is not alone in having a disclaimer as regards the accuracy and validity of our content. He pointed out that the Encyclopaedia Britannica also has a legal disclaimer. To that I would also like to add what fellow contributor Pcb21 has found: Practically ALL encyclopaedias have such disclaimers:

...

Columbia : http://www.bartleby.com/sv/terms.html , section 3 Encarta : http://privacy.msn.com/tou/ , section 9 Encyclopedia.com : http://www.encyclopedia.com/terms.asp, section 5

II.

You wrote that there was no editorial review at the Wikipedia.

This is incorrect. Our articles DO undergo substantial editorial review. However, contrary to how paper-based encyclopedias operate, editorial review at the Wikipedia takes place AFTER publication.

Our system works as follows:

- A user makes a submission, for instance he or she edits an article or creates a new one. - EVERY submission (to any article) automatically causes the article in question to be added to this machine-generated list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges - EVERY article change is tracked in the article's history. - By clicking an article's "diff" link on the Recent changes page, it can be seen precisely WHAT was changed. - A large number of users regularly patrol the Recent changes page. Considering the 24/7, worldwide nature of our encyclopedia, there is hardly ever an article that would pass through Recent changes unchecked. If there is a mistake, it is very likely to get spotted and it can be changed instantly once spotted (our readers don't have to write a letter to the publisher).

There also is a separate page for newly created articles (also auto-generated): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages

These are not the only tools we use for editorial review of our articles: This template (which is included in many of our procedural and administrative pages) lists but a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Resources_for_collaboration

As you can see, there are a large number of ways in which we conduct editorial review, even if errors get past Recent changes.

III.

You also questioned the authority of our site and whether our content is well-researched. I am going to tell you something I am not really supposed to:

If you doubt the standards of our editorial review mechanisms, go try and introduce some decidedly un-encyclopaedic (unproven, contentious and/or unacademic, etc.) information into an article of your choice. Then check back and see how long your contribution will remain in the article. My confidence is high that -- depending on how much this contribution falls short of encyclopedic standards -- you will find your contribution challenged on the respective article's discussion page (where you will likely be asked to provide references for your claims) or outright removed.

Your concerns over the quality of our content are however justified in one respect: At any given point in time, it is possible that a mistake (or vandalism) has just been introduced to an article you're retrieving. Users are thus encouraged to check any article's history -- a tremendous tool for readers and contributors alike:

As an example, let's look at the CGA article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Graphics_Adapter You will note the "history" tab. Clicking it takes you to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Color_Graphics_Adapter&action=history On this page, you can see and compare every previous version of the article. You can compare these versions and easily see precisely WHAT was changed. As an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Color_Graphics_Adapter&diff=5388826&oldid=5388760

If someone eg. vandalizes an article, it will almost certainly be quickly caught and reverted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert). Especially popular and contentious articles do regularly get vandalized. But never for long. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush&action=history or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry&action=history Note how little time typically elapses until vandalism is corrected.

IV.

Many of us believe that it is beneficial to make it as EASY as possible to contribute to our encyclopedia.

The traditional approach to writing encyclopedias, to aggregating human knowledge, has been to make it as DIFFICULT as possible to contribute. You have to obtain formal certifications and undergo formal training to be even allowed to contribute. This is done in the hope of reaching and maintaining high standards.

Many of us believe that this however stifles progress as it excludes all knowledge and knowledge-based skills obtained in any other way (than formal accreditation).

We put a process in place that will accept all comers in the first instance -- and combine and distill these collective contributions to reach high standards. Our daily growth and quality improvement shows that the traditional approach -- only allowing very few select individuals to contribute -- wastes enormous talent, potential and opportunity for progress in all fields of human knowledge. Thus, one of our core operating principles is to lower any bars to entry as much as possible, if not to outright abolish them. Anyone can contribute. You don't need to provide certifications. You don't need to show ID or a credit card. You don't need to give an email address. You don't even need to log in or create an account. You can edit. Because you have UNIQUE knowledge skills. Dr. Pyotr Anokhin calculated that the number of possible combinations in the human brain was 10 to the power of 799 (seven hundred ninety nine). In short, NO ONE on this planet will ever have the same thoughts as you. It thus makes sense for us to be as inclusive as possible. We would be honored to welcome your contribution to our modest but growing record of human knowledge.

If you have any remaining doubts about our potential to deliver the the most comprehensive, comprehensible and correct encyclopedia on the planet, please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#lang

The irony of course is that you will probably now find yourself doing the exact same thing we do all of the time: Review and correct your Post-Standard article AFTER publication. That doesn't necessarily make your publication a worse information source -- as long as you DO correct inaccuracies where found.

Yours sincerely,

-- Jens Ropers Wikipedia contributor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ropers www.ropersonline.com

PS: Oh, and as for "accredited scientists", "academics" and "intellectuals"? We're "building it" -- and they are coming.

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:14:24 +0200 From: Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de Subject: [WikiEN-l] another supposedly authoritative web sites To: technology@syracuse.com Cc: wikien-l@wikipedia.org, wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org, sue_stagnitta@liverpool.k12.ny.us Message-ID: 412D9BE0.6010902@presroi.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Dear Mr. Fasoldt, Dear Ms Stagnitta,

I read your article in the Post-Standard "Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source" at http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/ 1093338972139211.xml, where you wrote: I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia. If you know of other supposedly authoritative Web sites that are untrustworthy, send a note to technology@syracuse.com and let me know about them.

Have you visited britannica.com?

http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html

...

Disclaimer of Warranties

Neither Britannica, its affiliates, nor any third-party content providers or licensors makes any warranty whatsoever, including without limitation: that the operation of the Site will be uninterrupted or error-free; that defects will be corrected; that this Site, including the server that makes it available, is free of infection, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses, or other harmful components or other code that manifest contaminating or destructive properties; as to the results that may be obtained from use of the materials on the Site; or as to the accuracy, reliability, availability, suitability, quality, or operation of any information, software, or service provided on or accessible from the Site or as to any information, products, or services on the Internet in any way. In addition, Britannica does not assume any responsibility or risk for your use of the Internet.

...

THE SITE AND ALL INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND OTHER CONTENT (INCLUDING THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND CONTENT) INCLUDED IN OR ACCESSIBLE FROM THIS SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AND STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF TITLE AND NONINFRINGEMENT AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), ALL OF WHICH BRITANNICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK.

Information at britannica.com can be edited by anyone who was given permission from the company. It might be a PhD who hasn't done anything else than writing about this specific topic. It might be someone else who feels competent. You never know.

Just compare http://www.britannica.com/eb/dailycontent?eu=422756#e%0Avent " Haile Selassie" with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie

At wikipedia, you can see a) who wrote b) when c) which part of the text, who changed it, who altered the order who removed parts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Haile+Selassie+of+Ethiopia&action=history&limit=500&offset=0

The authors, such as David Parker can be emailed or asked for clearification in doubt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Parker

You and Susan Stagnitta are perfectly right to advise people never to "trust" unreliable sources but I can't see a difference in this case between a "black box" company and a group of academics and skilled laymen who make the process of encyclopedic writing transparent.

Several wikipedians have created a document called "Making fun of Britannica" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Making_fun_of_Britannica, which contains a list of "errors" (in a broader sense). This does not change the level of trust towards Britannica.

If you spot a mistake in Britannica, what are the consequences? If it was in a book, there is no chance to correct it and the risk might be that a student relies on wrong information. She/He will not be able to get a refund from Britannica or even a discount on the new and (hopefully) corrected version.

Ms. Stagnitta said "Anyone can change the content of an article in the Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content." Even if the first part of that sentence is correct, the second part does not describe the reality.

Just have a look at the procedures at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. It might be hard to get used to the fact that editorial review might be ad-hoc or it might be a constant effort. If an article was found fit for being a "Featured article", the process of improving that article does not stop.

I would like you to encourage you to ask Britannica if they feel that their content is "authoritative" in a sense that they will guarantee any given fact in their Encyclopedia. Ask them if they are able to attribute every sense to a specific author who can be contacted. Ask them if they will make their decision transparent, which lemma does get into the EB and which lemma does not get into it.

Yours, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de

Ringelstr.50 60385 Frankfurt am Main Germany