While Reuters initially meant to report on [[Kenneth Lay]]'s article on enwp and the pace of the edits on that page, it gave a nice insight into the mechanisms of information delivery:
Version 1:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&story... Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia Wed Jul 5, 2006 8:53 PM BST167
Lay, 64, died of a heart attack early on Wednesday, a family spokeswoman said, just six weeks after a jury found him guilty of fraud in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history.
Version 2: http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&st... CORRECTED - Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia Thu Jul 6, 2006 3:25 AM IST166
Lay, 64, died of an apparent heart attack, according to a pastor at the Lay family's church in Houston. It was six weeks after a jury found him guilty of fraud in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history. A family spokeswoman said that Lay passed away early on Wednesday morning in Aspen.
Version 2 contains a "sorry, we failed to make factchecking before sending it to the wires" header:
"(Corrects and recasts paragraph two to show that a spokeswoman for the Lay family did not give the cause of Lay's death. It was given by another source.)"
Now that's just plain funny (well, not the dying part). They report on the inaccuracies of some versions óf a wikipedia article (which we warned about, btw) and then make a mistake themselves, a mistake that could have easily been fixed had it been in wikinews.
People tend to complain when people misuse the word "irony". Honestly, I'm not sure about the exact definition (last time I checked the wikipedia article, it wasn't entirely clear), but this is it, right?
--Oskar
On 7/6/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
While Reuters initially meant to report on [[Kenneth Lay]]'s article on enwp and the pace of the edits on that page, it gave a nice insight into the mechanisms of information delivery:
Version 1:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&story... Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia Wed Jul 5, 2006 8:53 PM BST167
Lay, 64, died of a heart attack early on Wednesday, a family spokeswoman said, just six weeks after a jury found him guilty of fraud in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history.
Version 2: http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&st... CORRECTED - Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia Thu Jul 6, 2006 3:25 AM IST166
Lay, 64, died of an apparent heart attack, according to a pastor at the Lay family's church in Houston. It was six weeks after a jury found him guilty of fraud in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history. A family spokeswoman said that Lay passed away early on Wednesday morning in Aspen.
Version 2 contains a "sorry, we failed to make factchecking before sending it to the wires" header:
"(Corrects and recasts paragraph two to show that a spokeswoman for the Lay family did not give the cause of Lay's death. It was given by another source.)" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Mathias,
Using the same Reuters story, CNN downgraded Wikipedia from 'confusion' to 'reeling'. Oh CNN, how far you have strayed from your original standards...
Lay's death sends Wikipedia reeling Wednesday, July 5, 2006 Posted: 2246 GMT (0646 HKT) http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/07/05/lay.wikipedia.reut/
On 7/6/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
While Reuters initially meant to report on [[Kenneth Lay]]'s article on enwp and the pace of the edits on that page, it gave a nice insight into the mechanisms of information delivery:
Version 1:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&story... Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia Wed Jul 5, 2006 8:53 PM BST167
Lay, 64, died of a heart attack early on Wednesday, a family spokeswoman said, just six weeks after a jury found him guilty of fraud in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history.
Version 2: http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&st... CORRECTED - Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia Thu Jul 6, 2006 3:25 AM IST166
Lay, 64, died of an apparent heart attack, according to a pastor at the Lay family's church in Houston. It was six weeks after a jury found him guilty of fraud in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history. A family spokeswoman said that Lay passed away early on Wednesday morning in Aspen.
Version 2 contains a "sorry, we failed to make factchecking before sending it to the wires" header:
"(Corrects and recasts paragraph two to show that a spokeswoman for the Lay family did not give the cause of Lay's death. It was given by another source.)" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jul 5, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
Mathias,
Using the same Reuters story, CNN downgraded Wikipedia from 'confusion' to 'reeling'. Oh CNN, how far you have strayed from your original standards...
Lay's death sends Wikipedia reeling Wednesday, July 5, 2006 Posted: 2246 GMT (0646 HKT) http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/07/05/lay.wikipedia.reut/
Alexa shows CNN dropping like a lead balloon, No. 38 today (they are ranked 27). Perhaps they welcome a dig at the competition. BTW we are even with Amazon these days.
Fred
On 7/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Alexa shows CNN dropping like a lead balloon, No. 38 today (they are ranked 27). Perhaps they welcome a dig at the competition. BTW we are even with Amazon these days.
Alexa's numbers are inconsistent. Don't count on them for anything.
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Alexa shows CNN dropping like a lead balloon, No. 38 today (they are ranked 27). Perhaps they welcome a dig at the competition. BTW we are even with Amazon these days.
Alexa's numbers are inconsistent. Don't count on them for anything.
There certainly are some strange phenomena but there is a pattern. There is a generational change with canned goods going down and participatory sites going up.
Fred
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Alexa shows CNN dropping like a lead balloon, No. 38 today (they are ranked 27). Perhaps they welcome a dig at the competition. BTW we are even with Amazon these days.
Alexa's numbers are inconsistent. Don't count on them for anything.
There certainly are some strange phenomena but there is a pattern. There is a generational change with canned goods going down and participatory sites going up.
CNN *is not* our competition! Not even of Wikinews! We are *tertiary* sources, i.e. we summarize and coordinate what secondary sources make of actual facts on the ground (i.e. primary sources). We'd be impoverished and in trouble without CNN, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and all the rest of the "mainstream media" - We Don't Have The Money To Pay Reporters - and even if we did, that's not our purpose.
Jesse Weinstein
On Jul 5, 2006, at 10:06 PM, Jesse W wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Alexa shows CNN dropping like a lead balloon, No. 38 today (they are ranked 27). Perhaps they welcome a dig at the competition. BTW we are even with Amazon these days.
Alexa's numbers are inconsistent. Don't count on them for anything.
There certainly are some strange phenomena but there is a pattern. There is a generational change with canned goods going down and participatory sites going up.
CNN *is not* our competition! Not even of Wikinews! We are *tertiary* sources, i.e. we summarize and coordinate what secondary sources make of actual facts on the ground (i.e. primary sources). We'd be impoverished and in trouble without CNN, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and all the rest of the "mainstream media" - We Don't Have The Money To Pay Reporters - and even if we did, that's not our purpose.
Jesse Weinstein
We are, in a sense, parasitic on them and other original content providers. But they provide no significant opportunity for participatory input. Besides, they don't cover Pokeman nearly as well as we do.
Fred
On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 10:06 PM, Jesse W wrote:
CNN *is not* our competition! Not even of Wikinews! We are *tertiary* sources, i.e. we summarize and coordinate what secondary sources make of actual facts on the ground (i.e. primary sources). We'd be impoverished and in trouble without CNN, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and all the rest of the "mainstream media" - We Don't Have The Money To Pay Reporters - and even if we did, that's not our purpose.
We are, in a sense, parasitic on them and other original content providers.
Parasitic isn't the word I'd use... Dependent, maybe.
But they provide no significant opportunity for participatory input. Besides, they don't cover Pokeman nearly as well as we do.
Yes - those are benefits we provide, and they are important; but they also have benefits we lack- personal/institutional authority and money to hire investigators/reporters being big ones.
If you say that we should be aim to be a better first step in research than CNN, I might agree with you - I think we can get to that; but we certainly can't be a replacement.
We work best together.
Jesse Weinstein
On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Jesse W wrote:
If you say that we should be aim to be a better first step in research than CNN, I might agree with you - I think we can get to that;
CNN does news, not reference.
As does Wikinews; and if you wanted to research a current event, CNN might be a good first step in such research, making it a reference to that event.
I fail to see your point. ;-)
Jesse Weinstein
On Jul 5, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Jesse W wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Jesse W wrote:
If you say that we should be aim to be a better first step in research than CNN, I might agree with you - I think we can get to that;
CNN does news, not reference.
As does Wikinews; and if you wanted to research a current event, CNN might be a good first step in such research, making it a reference to that event.
I fail to see your point. ;-)
Jesse Weinstein
The point is that if you wish to research psychoanalysis, [[Psychoanalysis]] is always there (A article which needs work) while only if psychoanalysis is in the news, would you bother with CNN.
Fred
On 7/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Besides, they don't cover Pokeman nearly as well as we do.
Nor The Price is Right.
Jesse W wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Alexa shows CNN dropping like a lead balloon, No. 38 today (they are ranked 27). Perhaps they welcome a dig at the competition. BTW we are even with Amazon these days.
Alexa's numbers are inconsistent. Don't count on them for anything.
There certainly are some strange phenomena but there is a pattern. There is a generational change with canned goods going down and participatory sites going up.
CNN *is not* our competition! Not even of Wikinews! We are *tertiary* sources, i.e. we summarize and coordinate what secondary sources make of actual facts on the ground (i.e. primary sources). We'd be impoverished and in trouble without CNN, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and all the rest of the "mainstream media" - We Don't Have The Money To Pay Reporters - and even if we did, that's not our purpose.
Wikinews explicitly *does* permit, encourage, and conduct first-hand reporting, and doing that *is* part of its purpose. It's true that it doesn't *always* do this. Many of the articles are written by summarizing/distilling existing reports, but that's actually true of most organizations---a huge percentage of news articles even by traditional news organizations are either outright syndicated from, or at least based on reports from, major wire servies like the Associated Press and Reuters.
See: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting
-Mark
Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much trouble accepting legitimate criticism?
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Even now the [[Kenneth Lay]] article doesn't provide a reference next to the assertion that "Kenneth Lay died from coronary artery disease". This should be unacceptable.
Anthony
I don't think that's really possible unless we stop anon users from editing.
On 7/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much trouble accepting legitimate criticism?
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Even now the [[Kenneth Lay]] article doesn't provide a reference next to the assertion that "Kenneth Lay died from coronary artery disease". This should be unacceptable.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:51 PM, mboverload wrote:
I don't think that's really possible unless we stop anon users from editing.
/me does a double-take.
Someone using the name "mboverload", with a gmail address of the same form, is claiming that we shouldn't allow people to use pseudonyms to participate in Wikipedia?
This is a pot calling for the abolition of all kettles, yes?
(And don't try to claim that "mboverload" is your legal name...)
This is presuming, of course, that the OP didn't merely mean to propose we ban editing without an account (which is a common, although incorrect, use of the term "anon user"). If that is what was meant, I'd merely point out that *We* *Have* *about* *Nine* *Hundred* *Thousand* accounts that don't participate in the community, and making a new account takes less than a minute. Requiring accounts is a (small) speedbump, nothing more - it's not even close to sufficient to make Wikipedia editors non-anonymous, even to other community members.
mboverload, you've been asked before if you are merely a troll. Let this message be counted as another such query.
Jesse Weinstein
I am utterly shocked by your reply.
The only way to stop dubious edits by anon users is to not allow them to edit. I don't think that should be done. Newspapers don't care about how fast it was reverted, it's always in the edit history. Jesus christ.
I stated the obvious and you jump on me for being a troll. That's pretty hurtful.
On 7/8/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:51 PM, mboverload wrote:
I don't think that's really possible unless we stop anon users from editing.
/me does a double-take.
Someone using the name "mboverload", with a gmail address of the same form, is claiming that we shouldn't allow people to use pseudonyms to participate in Wikipedia?
This is a pot calling for the abolition of all kettles, yes?
(And don't try to claim that "mboverload" is your legal name...)
This is presuming, of course, that the OP didn't merely mean to propose we ban editing without an account (which is a common, although incorrect, use of the term "anon user"). If that is what was meant, I'd merely point out that *We* *Have* *about* *Nine* *Hundred* *Thousand* accounts that don't participate in the community, and making a new account takes less than a minute. Requiring accounts is a (small) speedbump, nothing more - it's not even close to sufficient to make Wikipedia editors non-anonymous, even to other community members.
mboverload, you've been asked before if you are merely a troll. Let this message be counted as another such query.
Jesse Weinstein
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:51 PM, mboverload wrote:
I don't think that's really possible unless we stop anon users from editing.
So we ban users like 69.145.123.171, and only accept users who register, like Jason Gastrich? Um.... I'm thinking there is a word for this... oh, the word is NO. One puppy's opinion.... -kc-
I didn't say to block them!
The only POSSIBLE way to stop anon users from vandalizing is blocking all of them. Just like the only way to stop registered users from vandalizing is blocking all of them.
I stated the obvious.
On 7/8/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:51 PM, mboverload wrote:
I don't think that's really possible unless we stop anon users from editing.
So we ban users like 69.145.123.171, and only accept users who register, like Jason Gastrich? Um.... I'm thinking there is a word for this... oh, the word is NO. One puppy's opinion.... -kc- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
mboverload wrote:
I didn't say to block them!
The only POSSIBLE way to stop anon users from vandalizing is blocking all of them. Just like the only way to stop registered users from vandalizing is blocking all of them.
I stated the obvious.
On 7/8/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:51 PM, mboverload wrote:
I don't think that's really possible unless we stop anon users from editing.
So we ban users like 69.145.123.171, and only accept users who register, like Jason Gastrich? Um.... I'm thinking there is a word for this... oh, the word is NO. One puppy's opinion.... -kc-
Then perhaps you were unclear. I didn't say block them. I said "ban" them. Just as you did not say "vandals" you said "stop anon users from editing." You didn't say "vandalizing" you said "editing." You see my confusion. I appreciate you clarifying that you support the current methodology, which is to encourage and welcome any contributor, registered or not, and only block those who vandalize and disrupt.
-kc-
On 7/8/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say to block them!
The only POSSIBLE way to stop anon users from vandalizing is blocking all of them. Just like the only way to stop registered users from vandalizing is blocking all of them.
I stated the obvious.
Mboverload is right... Heck even forget vandalizing, just consider folks coming by to add their favorite idea or interpretation. Wikipedia tries to be on the average pretty good, but our model doesn't try to be good at every instant, in fact it fundamentally precludes being good at every instant.
Criticisms based on the purely on the churn of a article in the news are, well, not news. Look at the editing history of any hot subject (like [[hurricane Katrina]]) and you'll see the same pattern... good content and bad content are both added, and the bad content tends to be removed faster than the good content. The behavior is expected. Our users should be aware of it (If they aren't, we need to improve our education)... and it simply isn't going away unless we make a fundamental change.
On Jul 8, 2006, at 4:01 PM, mboverload wrote:
I am utterly shocked by your reply.
I'm sorry, but I'm also unsurprised.
The only way to stop dubious edits by anon users is to not allow them to edit.
Again, you don't clarify whether you mean: 1) Wikipedia editors who do not associate their editing with their legal name, or 2) Wikipedia editors editing without logging in.
Further, "stop" is not entirely clear - edits are atomic transactions - either they have not yet happened, or they have already happened - it's not possible to "stop" them.
It is possible to prevent a given user account and/or IP address from making future edits, for specified lengths of time. This does not directly translate to the ability to stop actual *people* from making future edits.
In nearly all cases, we can make it harder for people to make future edits, and we can remove all traces of past edits they have made, but we can't entirely prevent them from making any edits. There are too many public computers out there. So, your statement is a non-starter - we can't do that. However, luckily, as I said, we have a large number of measures to make it *harder* for a given person to make future edits, and/or to cause their past edits to be more or less hidden, and most people who make bad edits can be successfully persuaded, by means of these measures, to give up on making future edits, at least for a while. That's the nature of Wikipedia (and the world at large).
I don't think that should be done.
Well, since it's impossible, I suppose it's good you don't think we should do it.
Newspapers don't care about how fast it was reverted, it's always in the edit history.
Not always. It can be removed from public view by deletion, and removed from the view of those with the sysop flag by use of the Oversight feature. But, most of the time, we don't do either of those things.
Jesus christ.
Well, we do have an article (or 5) on [[Jesus Christ|Him]], but I'm not sure of the relevance.
I stated the obvious
I hope readers of this thread will note that, contrary to being "obvious", what you stated is not even "possible".
and you jump on me for being a troll.
I viewed you as acting like one; it was not meant as a comment on your person, merely on your posts to this list. Nevertheless, on reflection, you do seem to be posting in good faith; I am less certain of my view at this point.
That's pretty hurtful.
As I said above, I'm sorry, but unsurprised.
Jesse Weinstein
Jesse W wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 4:01 PM, mboverload wrote:
The only way to stop dubious edits by anon users is to not allow them to edit.
Again, you don't clarify whether you mean: 1) Wikipedia editors who do not associate their editing with their legal name, or 2) Wikipedia editors editing without logging in.
[snip]
I'm sorry, but I think you missed mboverload's point. I suppose the reference to "anon users" was an unfortunate red herring. Let me restate the point without it:
"The only way to stop dubious edits is to not allow people to edit."
On Jul 9, 2006, at 5:17 AM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 4:01 PM, mboverload wrote:
The only way to stop dubious edits by anon users is to not allow them to edit.
Again, you don't clarify whether you mean: 1) Wikipedia editors who do not associate their editing with their legal name, or 2) Wikipedia editors editing without logging in.
[snip]
I'm sorry, but I think you missed mboverload's point. I suppose the reference to "anon users" was an unfortunate red herring. Let me restate the point without it:
"The only way to stop dubious edits is to not allow people to edit."
I did suspect that might have been his "point", but if so, it's effectively a tautology - neither obvious, nor interesting, nor meaningful. One might as well say - "The only way to stop stop people from being Jews is to cause there to be no people-who-are-Jews." This doesn't really address any particular point.
In any case, considering the metaphor I used above - I call [[Godwin's Law]] on myself. I think this dead horse has been beaten into the ground. I'm going to stop, now.
Jesse Weinstein
On 7/8/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that's really possible unless we stop anon users from editing.
What do you not think is possible? That Wikipedia remain 100% error free?
If so, you are correct. But a lot can be done to make the version of the article which is presented to the public much more accurate.
Anthony
On 7/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much trouble accepting legitimate criticism?
Legitimate criticism should be welcomed, but when the headline says "Wikipedia" as a whole has "confusion" and was "reeling," then that's sensational.
Academics and reporters who know that I've published about Wikipedia ask me - "So, how is that crisis on Wikipedia on Ken Lay?" One even requested to do a TV interview about it.
I've written a response on my blog to these folks, explaining the lifescycle of a Wikipedia article: http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Since Wikipedia depends on the first-hand reporting from news outlets, it can only be as good as the ability of human editors to converge on the best version of "the truth" using those sources.
-Andrew
On 7/8/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much trouble accepting legitimate criticism?
Legitimate criticism should be welcomed, but when the headline says "Wikipedia" as a whole has "confusion" and was "reeling," then that's sensational.
Sensationalism is what US newspapers (generally) do. Of course, I think the headline that "Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia" is perfectly accurate. The headline doesn't even say that Wikipedia is confused - it says that there was confusion "on Wikipedia".
Academics and reporters who know that I've published about Wikipedia ask me - "So, how is that crisis on Wikipedia on Ken Lay?" One even requested to do a TV interview about it.
I've written a response on my blog to these folks, explaining the lifescycle of a Wikipedia article: http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/
Criticising the news media has its place. But I think there's a lot more to learn from this than that the news media engages in sensationalism.
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Since Wikipedia depends on the first-hand reporting from news outlets, it can only be as good as the ability of human editors to converge on the best version of "the truth" using those sources.
And if those sources aren't rock solid, they should be cited and attributed. Even to this day I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that "Kenneth Lay died from coronary artery disease" without attributing that fact to the coroner.
What can be done about this? Well, as was pointed out by mboverload, one possible thing is to "stop anons from editing". But there are an infinite number of other, less harsh tweaks, both technical and policy based.
This assumes, of course, that there's a problem in the first place, other than the fact that newspapers sensationalize.
Anthony
On 7/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/8/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much trouble accepting legitimate criticism?
Legitimate criticism should be welcomed, but when the headline says "Wikipedia" as a whole has "confusion" and was "reeling," then that's sensational.
Sensationalism is what US newspapers (generally) do. Of course, I think the headline that "Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia" is perfectly accurate. The headline doesn't even say that Wikipedia is confused - it says that there was confusion "on Wikipedia".
Academics and reporters who know that I've published about Wikipedia ask me - "So, how is that crisis on Wikipedia on Ken Lay?" One even requested to do a TV interview about it.
I've written a response on my blog to these folks, explaining the lifescycle of a Wikipedia article: http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/
Criticising the news media has its place. But I think there's a lot more to learn from this than that the news media engages in sensationalism.
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Since Wikipedia depends on the first-hand reporting from news outlets, it can only be as good as the ability of human editors to converge on the best version of "the truth" using those sources.
And if those sources aren't rock solid, they should be cited and attributed. Even to this day I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that "Kenneth Lay died from coronary artery disease" without attributing that fact to the coroner.
In the last year, I have seen Wikipedia articles use much higher standards in attribution and referencing, so at least it's moving in the right direction. I encourage folks to use {{citeneeded}} liberally.
What can be done about this? Well, as was pointed out by mboverload, one possible thing is to "stop anons from editing". But there are an infinite number of other, less harsh tweaks, both technical and policy based.
This assumes, of course, that there's a problem in the first place, other than the fact that newspapers sensationalize.
Garbage in, garbage out? :)
-Andrew
On 7/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Nah, we don't do news. Getting breaking news right in the first twenty four hours is not in our mission.
Steve
We certainly do do news in the sense that we have articles on current events.
On 18/07/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Nah, we don't do news. Getting breaking news right in the first twenty four hours is not in our mission.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
We certainly do do news in the sense that we have articles on current events.
Hehe... you said do do. </childish> </obvious> --LV
On 7/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact.
Nah, we don't do news. Getting breaking news right in the first twenty four hours is not in our mission.
True, but not getting breaking news wrong in the first twenty four hours should be.
Maybe a guideline that new information shouldn't be added for a week or two unless it is necessary to correct something old (adding in a date of death, for instance). The guideline could be part of a template, which includes a link to the wikinews story, for those who want to participate in such things.
It'd be a win-win for Wikipedia and Wikinews.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
Maybe a guideline that new information shouldn't be added for a week or two unless it is necessary to correct something old (adding in a date of death, for instance). The guideline could be part of a template, which includes a link to the wikinews story, for those who want to participate in such things.
It'd be a win-win for Wikipedia and Wikinews.
Hmm... "This article is related to a current event. The information given here may be outdated. For up-to-date information, see [[SUBJECT]] on Wikinews."?
Sounds good to me.
There's some existing discussion about a similar proposal (sans actual guideline) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Current. Might not be a bad idea to revive it, though. Do we actually _have_ a policy/guideline on current events? All I can find is links to the portal.
On 7/18/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
True, but not getting breaking news wrong in the first twenty four hours should be.
We allow people to add whatever information they want, whenever they want. Any problems arising from people finding incorrect information on Wikipedia in the minutes after a major event are really a question of PR: people should not be expecting accurate information at Wikipedia so soon.
Maybe a guideline that new information shouldn't be added for a week or two unless it is necessary to correct something old (adding in a date of death, for instance). The guideline could be part of a template, which includes a link to the wikinews story, for those who want to participate in such things.
I dunno. Reporting Ken Lay's death immediately seems right to me. But readers should be warned that it could be inaccurate. Our goal is an accurate encyclopaedia long term. Putting information that is half-accurate *now* is working towards that goal. Refraining from adding the information is not.
Steve