I hesitate to even post this, because it's virtual flame-bait. :) But with all the accolades Wikipedia receives in the press, you have to take the knocks too.
This from the Syracuse Post-Standard and comes up with a very weak and uninformed criticism of Wikipedia. I'm sure one of Jimbo's wonderful standard letters will set this writer straight.
Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado) andrew.lih@gmail.com
---- http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/10933389721...
Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source Wednesday, August 25, 2004 AL FASOLDT STAFF WRITER
In a column published a few weeks ago by my companion Dr. Gizmo, readers were urged to go to the Wikipedia Web site at www.wikipedia. org/wiki/Main Page , an online encyclopedia, for more information on computer history. The doctor and I had figured Wikipedia was a good independent source.
Not so, wrote a school librarian who read that article. Susan Stagnitta, of the Liverpool High School library, explained that Wikipedia is not what many casual Web surfers think it is.
It's not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials.
"As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills," Stagnitta wrote. "One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site."
Wikipedia, she explains, takes the idea of open source one step too far for most of us.
"Anyone can change the content of an article in the Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content. I use this Web site as a learning experience for my students. Many of them have used it in the past for research and were very surprised when we investigated the authority of the site."
Stagnitta gives two quotes from the Wikipedia site that illustrate the problem.
From the home page:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by its readers. The site is a Wiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can also edit any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that appears at the top of every Wikipedia article."
From the disclaimer page:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
"Wikipedia is an online open-content encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. Its structure allows any individual with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter the content found here.
"Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information about any subject in Wikipedia."
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.
The best thing about the Web is also the worst thing: Information is all over the place. You need to be careful about trusting what you read.
I'll also use this to reiterate my nit about the Main Page -
Having a link to the FAQ on the front page might have helped this situation.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:06:56 +0800, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I hesitate to even post this, because it's virtual flame-bait. :) But with all the accolades Wikipedia receives in the press, you have to take the knocks too.
This from the Syracuse Post-Standard and comes up with a very weak and uninformed criticism of Wikipedia. I'm sure one of Jimbo's wonderful standard letters will set this writer straight.
Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado) andrew.lih@gmail.com
http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-0/10933389721...
Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source Wednesday, August 25, 2004 AL FASOLDT STAFF WRITER
In a column published a few weeks ago by my companion Dr. Gizmo, readers were urged to go to the Wikipedia Web site at www.wikipedia. org/wiki/Main Page , an online encyclopedia, for more information on computer history. The doctor and I had figured Wikipedia was a good independent source.
Not so, wrote a school librarian who read that article. Susan Stagnitta, of the Liverpool High School library, explained that Wikipedia is not what many casual Web surfers think it is.
It's not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials.
"As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills," Stagnitta wrote. "One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site."
Wikipedia, she explains, takes the idea of open source one step too far for most of us.
"Anyone can change the content of an article in the Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content. I use this Web site as a learning experience for my students. Many of them have used it in the past for research and were very surprised when we investigated the authority of the site."
Stagnitta gives two quotes from the Wikipedia site that illustrate the problem.
From the home page:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by its readers. The site is a Wiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can also edit any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that appears at the top of every Wikipedia article."
From the disclaimer page:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
"Wikipedia is an online open-content encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. Its structure allows any individual with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter the content found here.
"Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information about any subject in Wikipedia."
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.
The best thing about the Web is also the worst thing: Information is all over the place. You need to be careful about trusting what you read.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:06:56AM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
I hesitate to even post this, because it's virtual flame-bait. :) But with all the accolades Wikipedia receives in the press, you have to take the knocks too.
Why, this article is pretty fair. It states only the truth: * Wikipedia is not reviewed by the academics * Wikipedia does not guarantee validity or accuracy * The author of the article is dumb enough not to notice the disclaimers, the first paragraph of the main page, and to completely missing the point about [[what Wikipedia is]].
I see no bait. :-)
Peter
It seems the blogosphere has taken it up and identified it for what it is: http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=wikipedia
The only real offense is the way the writer said "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."
Makes Wikipedia sound like a shady used car dealership exposed by the local evening news. :)
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:46:32 +0200, Peter Gervai grin@tolna.net wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:06:56AM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
I hesitate to even post this, because it's virtual flame-bait. :) But with all the accolades Wikipedia receives in the press, you have to take the knocks too.
Why, this article is pretty fair. It states only the truth:
- Wikipedia is not reviewed by the academics
- Wikipedia does not guarantee validity or accuracy
- The author of the article is dumb enough not to notice the disclaimers,
the first paragraph of the main page, and to completely missing the point about [[what Wikipedia is]].
I see no bait. :-)
Peter
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
"EBay.com - Save Money and Buy Wikipedia On Ebay!"
LOL
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
It seems the blogosphere has taken it up and identified it for what it is: http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=wikipedia
The only real offense is the way the writer said "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."
Makes Wikipedia sound like a shady used car dealership exposed by the local evening news. :)
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:46:32 +0200, Peter Gervai grin@tolna.net wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:06:56AM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
I hesitate to even post this, because it's virtual flame-bait. :) But with all the accolades Wikipedia receives in the press, you have to take the knocks too.
Why, this article is pretty fair. It states only the truth:
- Wikipedia is not reviewed by the academics
- Wikipedia does not guarantee validity or accuracy
- The author of the article is dumb enough not to notice the disclaimers,
the first paragraph of the main page, and to completely missing the point about [[what Wikipedia is]].
I see no bait. :-)
Peter
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:46:32AM +0200, Peter Gervai wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:06:56AM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
I hesitate to even post this, because it's virtual flame-bait. :) But with all the accolades Wikipedia receives in the press, you have to take the knocks too.
Why, this article is pretty fair. It states only the truth:
- Wikipedia is not reviewed by the academics
- Wikipedia does not guarantee validity or accuracy
Neither are paper encyclopedias, but somehow he didn't have any problems with them. This article is pure biased bullshit.
On Thursday 26 August 2004 12:16, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:46:32AM +0200, Peter Gervai wrote:
Why, this article is pretty fair. It states only the truth:
- Wikipedia is not reviewed by the academics
- Wikipedia does not guarantee validity or accuracy
Neither are paper encyclopedias, but somehow he didn't have any problems with them. This article is pure biased bullshit.
I haven't read the article, but AFAIK at least some parts of paper encyclopedias are reviewed. At the Brockhaus they claim that every article was at least reviewed three times. O.k. I can's validate this information neither can I proof that it was always reviewed by academics. Nevertheless Brockhaus lists >1000 external authors (many of have a PhD or higher degree) which helped with the new edition. The latter is at least some indication that their claims are not completely without base.
In contrast to that we can not even say if a part of an article was read more than once.
best regards, Marco
Marco Krohn wrote:
In contrast to that we can not even say if a part of an article was read more than once.
And that's why children should learn CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. :) If they're taking *any* encyclopedia at face value, they need to learn to check multiple sources.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Marco Krohn wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2004 12:16, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:46:32AM +0200, Peter Gervai wrote:
Why, this article is pretty fair. It states only the truth:
- Wikipedia is not reviewed by the academics
- Wikipedia does not guarantee validity or accuracy
Neither are paper encyclopedias, but somehow he didn't have any problems with them. This article is pure biased bullshit.
I haven't read the article, but AFAIK at least some parts of paper encyclopedias are reviewed. At the Brockhaus they claim that every article was at least reviewed three times. O.k. I can's validate this information neither can I proof that it was always reviewed by academics. Nevertheless Brockhaus lists >1000 external authors (many of have a PhD or higher degree) which helped with the new edition. The latter is at least some indication that their claims are not completely without base.
In contrast to that we can not even say if a part of an article was read more than once.
Although the wikievangelists will disagree with me, I do think this is somewhat of a problem. Given a random article from an encyclopedia, there is a higher probability that there are errors, even major ones, in a Wikipedia article. Of course, there are more Wikipedia articles, but this doesn't help in terms of "chance any given fact I look up is accurate." It makes it difficult, without some additional heuristics, to use Wikipedia articles as anything but a pointer to further reading.
Now there are, of course, additional heuristics. Articles which have many contributors, especially many well-respected contributors, have a much higher chance of being accurate, of having controversial material labeled as such (with all sides represented), and so on. Articles written by only one or two people, on the other hand, can have almost anything: urban legends someone heard from a friend or off google and repeated; biased takes on an issue from a particular point of view with no mention of controversy over those views; and so on. Those of us who are active Wikipedians have an easier time telling the two apart than a random person reading Wikipedia, who is not necessarily going to browse through the article's history and the contribution histories of the various contributors to the article.
So, as others have proposed, I do think we eventually need some sort of tagging system, so people know whether a particular article is a well-worked-over draft, or an initial draft that has undergone little to no review.
This is particularly important because one of Wikipedia's strengths is that we cover a lot of subjects that other encyclopedias do not cover _at all_. Unfortunately, it is these obscure subjects where the probability that there are erroneous or slanted articles is the highest, because there are not very many Wikipedians knowledgeable enough to review such articles. _But_, some of these articles do happen to be of very high quality, and these ought to somehow be marked. Otherwise, the heuristic a lot of people will end up using (based on some discussions with non-Wikipedians who use it) is "on famous stuff, like [[Israel]] or [[George Washington]], Wikipedia is pretty good, but on obscure stuff you can't trust it." We need to somehow indicate to people which of our obscure stuff they can put a higher degree of confidence in, since it's one of our strengths that we do have a lot of accurate, well-researched obscure stuff.
-Mark
A "score" for an article could be developed from number of edits, number of users who have edited the article, and number of times a reader has looked at the page.
Number of times someone has looked at the page tells you the number of times anyone has had an opporunity to edit, number of edits and number of users who have edited shows how much the article has been worked over.
Fred
From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:36:13 -0400 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] some thoughts on peer-review and obscure subjects
So, as others have proposed, I do think we eventually need some sort of tagging system, so people know whether a particular article is a well-worked-over draft, or an initial draft that has undergone little to no review.
Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source AL FASOLDT
Not so, wrote a school librarian who read that article. Susan Stagnitta, of the Liverpool High School library, explained that Wikipedia is not what many casual Web surfers think it is.
It's not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials.
"As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills," Stagnitta wrote. "One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site."
Perhaps she should be directed to [[Appeal to authority]]
""Critical thinking" is a term we hear frequently these days as a form of training which will herald a new day in mass schooling. It certainly will, if it ever happens. No common school that actually dared teach the use of dialectic, heuristic, and other tools of free minds could last a year without being torn to pieces." - John Taylor Gatto (1991)
Wikipedia, she explains, takes the idea of open source one step too far for most of us.
"Anyone can change the content of an article in the Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content. I use this Web site as a learning experience for my students. Many of them have used it in the past for research and were very surprised when we investigated the authority of the site."
A better exercise mighr be to compare the content of these pages with what is said in "authoritative" sources about the same subject. If the student finds the Wikipedia article to be in error, he is welcome to change it.
Stagnitta gives two quotes from the Wikipedia site that illustrate the problem.
From the home page:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by its readers. The site is a Wiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can also edit any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that appears at the top of every Wikipedia article."
From the disclaimer page:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
"Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information about any subject in Wikipedia."
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.
What's most amazing is the blindness applied when one believes that the source is authoritative. Authority becomes an excuse for shutting off the thinking apparatus.
The best thing about the Web is also the worst thing: Information is all over the place. You need to be careful about trusting what you read.
Children are trained to react positively when a parent or teacher says, "Trust me." When that lesson carries on into subsequent life the consequences can be disastrous. The patina of authority based on the credentials of an encyclopedia's authors can be deceptive. When we accept that the peer review process has diminished the level of error in such a publication, we still need to protect ourselves from falling into a false sense of security. The student who relies on any single source for his information unduly restricts his ability for critical evaluation.
Ray
I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify."
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:55 PM To: Andrew Lih; wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Cc: technology@syracuse.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Article - Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source
Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source AL FASOLDT
Not so, wrote a school librarian who read that article. Susan Stagnitta, of the Liverpool High School library, explained that Wikipedia is not what many casual Web surfers think it is.
It's not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials.
"As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills," Stagnitta wrote. "One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site."
Perhaps she should be directed to [[Appeal to authority]]
""Critical thinking" is a term we hear frequently these days as a form of training which will herald a new day in mass schooling. It certainly will, if it ever happens. No common school that actually dared teach the use of dialectic, heuristic, and other tools of free minds could last a year without being torn to pieces." - John Taylor Gatto (1991)
Wikipedia, she explains, takes the idea of open source one step too far for most of us.
"Anyone can change the content of an article in the Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content. I use this Web site as a learning experience for my students. Many of them have used it in the past for research and were very surprised when we investigated the authority of the site."
A better exercise mighr be to compare the content of these pages with what is said in "authoritative" sources about the same subject. If the student finds the Wikipedia article to be in error, he is welcome to change it.
Stagnitta gives two quotes from the Wikipedia site that illustrate the
problem.
From the home page:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by its readers. The site is a Wiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can also edit any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that appears at the top of every Wikipedia article."
From the disclaimer page:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
"Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information about any subject in Wikipedia."
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.
What's most amazing is the blindness applied when one believes that the source is authoritative. Authority becomes an excuse for shutting off the thinking apparatus.
The best thing about the Web is also the worst thing: Information is all over the place. You need to be careful about trusting what you read.
Children are trained to react positively when a parent or teacher says, "Trust me." When that lesson carries on into subsequent life the consequences can be disastrous. The patina of authority based on the credentials of an encyclopedia's authors can be deceptive. When we accept that the peer review process has diminished the level of error in such a publication, we still need to protect ourselves from falling into a false sense of security. The student who relies on any single source for his information unduly restricts his ability for critical evaluation.
Ray
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org