When people complain about inaccuracies in Wikipedia, the stock answers are that such complaints are invalid, or involve a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, because:
--It's a work in progress
--It's not an encyclopedia yet
--Every page has a wee little "disclaimers" link that potentially would display a huge bold all-caps "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" if you clicked on it.
But when we ask for money, do we say:
--"Give the gift of an open wiki-community?"
--"Give the gift of process, not product?"
--"Give the gift of a whipped-up blend of tasty knowledge spiced with a few foul nuggets of misinformation?"
We do not. We say "give the gift of knowledge."
Small wonder that we're starting to see some hostility from the outside. We're trying to have it both ways. We set expectations ("give the gift of knowledge") and then are surprised when people have the expections we set.
On 12/30/05, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
When people complain about inaccuracies in Wikipedia, the stock answers are that such complaints are invalid, or involve a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, because:
--It's a work in progress
--It's not an encyclopedia yet
--Every page has a wee little "disclaimers" link that potentially would display a huge bold all-caps "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" if you clicked on it.
But when we ask for money, do we say:
--"Give the gift of an open wiki-community?"
--"Give the gift of process, not product?"
--"Give the gift of a whipped-up blend of tasty knowledge spiced with a few foul nuggets of misinformation?"
We do not. We say "give the gift of knowledge."
Small wonder that we're starting to see some hostility from the outside. We're trying to have it both ways. We set expectations ("give the gift of knowledge") and then are surprised when people have the expections we set.
We should teach people to be critical. Far too often people take what they read for granted without any thought or double-checking. We should work to keep featured articles accurate (because they're supposed to be the best). To get rid of other inaccuracies we should look for sources. If we don't have any, people should be naturally untrusting and try to verify the info another way.
NO ONE can guarantee absolutely correct info. Look at Britannica.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
We should teach people to be critical. Far too often people take what they read for granted without any thought or double-checking. We should work to keep featured articles accurate (because they're supposed to be the best). To get rid of other inaccuracies we should look for sources. If we don't have any, people should be naturally untrusting and try to verify the info another way.
NO ONE can guarantee absolutely correct info. Look at Britannica.
Teaching people to be critical is itself a process. In all but the most advanced educational systems that is contrary to centuries of established habit. Before a person can be effectively critical he needs to believe that his opinions matter. If we see a person doing things which are "obviously wrong" we need to be open to the likelihood that that contributor does not see his work as wrong at all. Assuming good faith is important, and taking the time to develop a dialogue is the best evidence that good faith has been assumed. Impatience in purging Wikipedia of errors only angers people. You may have gone over the same problem again and again with many other users, but for the user with whom you are interacting now it may be his first time with the problem; your past baggage is of no concern to him.
I like to avoid punitive processes, though it is sometimes tempting to apply it to those who fail to assume good faith. Perhaps in the New Year we all sometimes need to pause to question our assumptions before being unfriendly.
Ec
We do not. We say "give the gift of knowledge."
Small wonder that we're starting to see some hostility from the outside. We're trying to have it both ways. We set expectations ("give the gift of knowledge") and then are surprised when people have the expections we set.
I agree with this. Similarly, we say "From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia", not "From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Why? Because the community (ok, a very small part of it) deemed that the latter was "ugly". Apparently it's ugly to state the fallibility of Wikipedia in a public way, but it's great to rely on it to avoid responsibility.
Ok, I'm being harsh. But WP really *does* present itself to the layman (ie, the casual websurfer) as being an authority, and it's only when you delve deeper, by reading this mailing list, reading interviews with Jimbo or clicking on the "disclaimer" link, does WP explicitly disclaim authoritativeness. This is, IMHO, a problem. One that would very easily be resolved with some sort of relatively prominent link labelled "Researchers: What you need to know about WP" or whatever.
Steve
(Happy new year here in 15 minutes btw :))