WikiMedia isn't only WikiPedia. I'm on wikibreak in anothers wikis and now
edit only in Wikisource. I can't find any problem with encyclopedic articles
because my home wiki is intended to host only primary sources.
English Wikipedia have your on mailing list and wikipedia-l is intended to
be a mailing list for global issues on Wikipedia projects. The
question of credibility
is relevant to all Wikimedia projects, but attempts in talk about
encyclopedia credibility is not relevant to all Wikimedia projects.
[[:m:User:555]]
On 10/1/06, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
While I generally agree with Birgitte, I have to take exception here.
Porchesia appeared on one of our projects for ten months. It was caught
quite by
accident, when someone pointed it out to me. This raises an important
issue,
relevant to all major languages and projects--what are we doing to ensure
the
veracity of the information we provide. This is especially relevant, given
the
other discussion about spamming, which Brad raised. If we can have a fake
island with 300,000 imaginary people get through for ten months, we can
certainly have a fake company get through for 10 months. This company can
even get
people to read up on them and take their money. And if you look the
company up,
it is on Wikipedia, Answers, and any other mirror. This is a serious
problem. Wikipedia provides credibility.
There are two problems with this. Both are, in my mind, serious ethical
issues.
1. Given our size and reputation, we are in the process of
transforming from
a medium that reports fact to a medium that can, potentially, create fact.
Colbert and the elephants is symptomatic of that (for people who don't
know the
reference, see Jimmy's opening remarks at Wikimania). In the particular
case
of Porchesia, someone has just argued on the mailing list that it should
be
kept because it is now an internet meme. The fact that it has been on
Wikipedia for ten months ensures that
(
_http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054735.html_
(
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054735.html)
). This is worrying. Are we now reporting on what we
report? Where do we draw the line between reporting information and
creating
information? I believe that this issue is sufficiently serious to warrant
discussion among all Wikimedia participants, not just the people on
WP:EN.
2. The second issue is more sinister. Several months ago we received a
call
in the office from a major police agency. Someone created a false identity
and used it to extract money from unsuspecting victims. When
people questioned
how important he was, they were told, "Just look me up on
Wikipedia." Were
the people who gave him money stupid? Yes. So are the people who
answer tragic
emails telling them that their long lost but fabulously wealthy relatives
were killed in car crash in Togo. And yet, people continue to
answer those
emails. The article on EN was quietly deleted, the man was
likely arrested, but
the problem remains. Given our position and the respect we receive,
Wikipedia
in all languages is an open target for spammers and con artists. I
believe
that this is also an issue that should be addressed by the larger
community, and
not just limited to WP:EN.
There is a tension between accuracy and openness. Citizendium and
Everything2 are two extreme answers to that tension. If, however, we are
to maintain
both, we must address the tension when it occurs. We must come up
with creative
solutions. And that is something that involves more than just the English
Wikipedia.
Danny
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l