Dear Mathew and others,

As a co-subscriber of this mailing list, let me thank you for being a regular reader of this mail list as well as for the courtesy to send in your valuable feedback and impression.


I agree that to a significant extend, your opinion and experience are well-found. Even while spending many hours of my regular day, mostly as an avid reader and less often as a writer (editor), in Malayalam, English as well as many other branches of Wikipedia terrains, I too am convinced and concerned that the Wikipedia, as it seems TODAY, is not up to the mark as a SINGLE SOURCE AND REPOSITORY of any or all knowledge.

However, after several years of constant interaction with Wikipedia, I am now at a juncture where it has become an essential part and extension of my brain. These days, I tend to occupy my brain with only 'stuff that matter immediately', while also noting how and what further details can be fetched from which Wikipedia page, when needed.

In fact, it counts very well in match with my brain. Just as my brain keeps storing valuable and useless information, of short and long utility and consequence, mixed with concoctions of both authentic and legendary stories, often conflicting within its own circles, Wikipedia too behaves.


Philosophically confessing, I have started truly believeing that over the short many years, less than a decade so to say, Wikipedia has started emerging as an important stage in the very evolution of life forms. Just as we had started using pen and paper, then printed books, large shelves and libraries and so on at different times, as extensions of our own individual little brain, today Wikipedia seems to be the embodiment of all possible human generated knowledge, only in its making and rather at a very infantile stage.

Is Wikipedia reliable?

I have come across thousands of people asking this question. Indeed, it is a very critical and valid question.

But I should ask in contrary, What is there that is actually perfectly reliable?

During my career, I have seen a lot of  'reliable' works, whether it be advanced surgical techniques or sophisticated engineering solutions. Most of them were formed, developed and matured into their final form through well approved 'scientific methods'. But having kept the adventurous and risky interests to cross the set boundaries and venture deeply into to related 'other' faculties, I am now very disappointed to see that 'reliability' is a matter of mostly the circle within which one work. With lots of subject-matter expertize in their own circles, our specialists have developed very unreliable tunnel-visions.

Wikipedia actually gives you a chance to cross-check what is available as 'Reliable knowledge'.

Wikipedia may not be reliable enough. But by far, it is the single most largest collection of mostly reliable knowledge on earth, already as of now.

A typical example is the history of Kerala.

Let me elaborate on a personal story that you may bypass in want of time.

In a new curious attempt to set my own confidence on such 'out of syllabus' knowledge, and to answer a very simple question from my daughter, two months back I started to go through the 'REAL' history of the rulers of Kerala. Although I have studied science and engineering for most of my school and college days, please do understand that I have already been quite well and rather deeply conversant with the history, in particular that of Kerala.

To my surprise, there seems to be no RELIABLE account of many of the historic facts or timelines that are supposed to be the most essential framework of Kerala history. Even two very important such records, the lineages of rulers of Travancore and Cochin are not available (at least not easily) on the whole net! Most of the data available both within and outside Wikipedia are conflicting to themselves!

I have a few good printed books of Kerala History; that of William Logan, Shankoony Menon, A. Sreedhara Menon, Puthezhathu Raman Menon, Ilamkulam Kunjan Pillai, Ponnan etc. Also many Manorama year books. Besides, a lot of 18th,19th and 20 century books written by Europeans of those times are available on the net. But none of them seems to give a MUTUALLY CORROBORATIVE, FINAL and RELIABLE account!

The problem with the old writers were that they had little or few artifacts to study and refer to. History writing as a serious and responsible subject emerged only by the rise of 20th century. Writers like Shankoony Menon relied mostly on totally UNRELIABLE Keralolpathy, Kerala mahathmyam etc. It was only by the end of 20th century that we have the techniques and 'scientific' methods to explore, revise and re-study all the artifacts that were available (if not already destroyed by our great sense of history.) Despite the advances in such resources and methods, however, no serious works have come out  during past few decades rebuilding the existing stories of history and enriching them with reliability.


Desparately, these weeks I have been re-reading all these books as well as many personal accounts available on the net to mix my own cocktail and finally deduce my own 'reliable' knowledge! In the meanwhile, I have still not been able to RELIABLY answer the simple question my daughter asked me!


So, the point is that, Reliability is very very relative. In Wikipedia, it may be not enough or perfect too little for the time being.

But it is evolving. Like every alchemical experiment, it is only a matter of time that all else will burn off and there will be mostly only the pure gold that will remain in the crucible.

After all, it is the very principle of dynamic evolution. As long as the TRUTH and GOOD has a quest and pursuit to conquer, it indeed will survive as the fittest. The rest will perish into their own natural oblivion.


I humbly request you to continue reading, writing and simultaneously criticizing  Wikipedia. I can assure you that someday, may be too soon or may be a little too long away, these little actions of ours will matter a lot to the entire human race and to the fate of the little ball we are living upon.


Love,
Viswam






2012/5/30 N.M. Mathew <nmmat@hotmail.com>

I am a regular reader of Malayalam Wiki project e-mails.

Though I had begun contributing to Malayalam based articles, I stopped it long ago. Stories, fables, fairy tales, articles in newspapers, quotations, anecdotes and so on are available in hundreds of books and internet articles. I find that these are too often diluted to suit someone’s own goals and interest. Historical facts in Wikipedia, including Malayalam, are not reliable at all. In English Wiki, I have experienced, articles based on reliable sources have soon be deleted and replaced by stories  Majority of authors in Wikipedia are not showing courage to reveal their identity. How can you trust a document if the authors hide themselves under a Pseudo-name?

 

Even a primary source is reliable only if it has gone through various modern scientific processes.

 


Mathew

---------------------------------------
 

 


Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:43:25 +0530
From: shijualexonline@gmail.com
To: wikiml-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikiml-l] ശ്രദ്ദേയരായ വ്യക്തികള്‍ക്ക് വിക്കിപീഡിയ എഡിറ്റ് ചെയ്യാമോ?


ശ്രദ്ദേയരായ വ്യക്തികള്‍ക്ക് വിക്കിപീഡിയയില്‍ അവരുടെ ഇഷ്ട വിഷയങ്ങളില്‍ സംഭാവന ചെയ്യാമോ?  അവരുടെ പുസ്തകം  ആധികാരികതയുള്ളതാണെന്കിലും അത് അവലംബം  ആയി ഉപയോഗിക്കാമോ?   ഒരു ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ഭാഷാ വിക്കിയില്‍ ഇപ്പോള്‍ നടക്കുന്ന ഒരു പ്രശ്നവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട് പൊങ്ങി വന്നതാണ് ഈ ചോദ്യം . ചില വിക്കിപീഡിയരുടെ വാദം  അനുസരിച്ച്:
  • ശ്രദ്ധേയരായ വ്യക്തികള്‍ വിക്കിപീഡിയയില്‍ സംഭാവന ചെയ്യരുത് (ആര്‍ക്കും  എഡിറ്റ് ചെയ്യാം  എന്ന അടിസ്ഥാനനയത്തിനു തന്നെ എതിരാണ്് ഈ വാദം )
  • അവര്‍ അവരുടെ പ്രവര്‍ത്തനമേഖലകളില്‍ സംഭാവന ചെയ്യരുത് (താല്പര്യ വ്യതാസം  ആണ് അതിനായി പറയുന്ന ന്യായം)
  • അവര്‍ അവരുടെ പുസ്തകങ്ങള്‍ (അത് എത്ര ആധികാരികം  ആണെന്കിലും, വേറെ അവലംബം  ഒന്നും  ഇല്ലെന്കിലും ) അവലംബം   ആയി ഉപയോഗിക്കരുത്. പക്ഷെ മൂന്നാമതൊരു വിക്കിപീഡിയനു അതേ പുസ്തകങ്ങള്‍ തന്നെ അവലംബം  ആയി ഉപയോഗിക്കാം  
ഇതേ രീതിയില്‍ ശ്രദ്ധേയരായ വ്യക്തികളെ വിക്കി എഡിറ്റിങ്ങില്‍ നിന്ന് അകറ്റുന്ന ഒരു പ്രവണത പല ഇന്ത്യന്‍ വിക്കിപീഡിയരുടെ ഇടയില്‍ ഉണ്ട്. മലയാളത്തില്‍ ഇതു വരെ ശ്രദ്ധേയരായ ആളുകള്‍ വിക്കി എഡിറ്റിങ്ങ് തുടങ്ങാത്തതിനാല്‍ ആ പ്രശ്നം വന്നിട്ടില്ല. പക്ഷെ ഇത് മിക്കവാറും  വിക്കിപീഡിയര്‍ അഭിമുഖീകരിക്കുന്ന ചോദ്യം  ആവണം . ഇനി തുടങ്ങിയാല്‍ തന്നെ മുകളില്‍ സൂചിപ്പിച്ച പോലത്തെ ന്യായങ്ങള്‍ ആവണം  അവരും  നേരിടാന്‍ പോകുന്നത്. അതിനാല്‍ ഈ വിഷയങ്ങളില്‍ ഉള്ള സംശയങ്ങള്‍ ദുരീകരിക്കുവാന്‍ ഈ വിഷയം  റെ‌‌ഫറന്സ് ഡെസ്കില്‍ ചോദിച്ചു. ചോദ്യവും  മറുപടിയും  ഇവിടെ കാണാം  .

അവിടുത്തെ മറുപടി അനുസരിച്ച്
  • ആര്‍ക്കും  വിക്കിപീഡിയ എഡിറ്റ് ചെയ്യാം  (ശ്രദ്ധേയരായ വ്യക്തികള്‍ക്കും )
  • നിഷ്പക്ഷമായി സംഭാവന ചെയ്യുന്ന കാലത്തോളം  അവര്ക്ക് ഏത് ലേഖനത്തിലും  കൈ വെക്കാം  (അവരെ കുറിച്ചുള്ള ലേഖനത്തില്‍ അടക്കം )
  • നിഷപക്ഷമായി സംഭാവന ചെയ്യുന്നിടത്തോളം  അവര്ക്ക് അവരുടെ പുസ്തകങ്ങളും  (അത് ഒരു ആധികാരിക അവലംബം  ആണെന്കില്) അവലംബം  ആയി ചേര്ക്കാം 
  • അവര്‍ക്ക് മറ്റ് വിക്കിപീഡിയയില്‍ നിന്ന് പ്രത്യേക പദവി ഒന്നും  ഇല്ല. എല്ലാകാര്യത്തിലും  എല്ലാ നയങ്ങളും  അവര്ക്കും  ബാധകമാണ്്

ഈ വിഷയത്തില്‍ എല്ലാവരുടേയും  അഭിപ്രായം  അറിയാന്‍ ആഗ്രഹിക്കുന്നു.

ഷിജു

_______________________________________________ Wikiml-l is the mailing list for Malayalam Wikimedia Projects email: Wikiml-l@lists.wikimedia.org Website: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiml-l


_______________________________________________
Wikiml-l is the mailing list for Malayalam Wikimedia Projects
email: Wikiml-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Website: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiml-l