[Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

[Andrew Gray]

On 14 February 2012 06:02, David Richfield <davidrichfield at gmail.com> wrote:
> Relevant:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#.22No_Evidence.22
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#Dubious

As with so many cases, causing a stink gets the giant searchlight
directed on the article, and things get worked out... it's just a pity
it doesn't scale well!

This followup may be of some interest:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/does-wikipedia-have-an-accuracy-problem/253216/

I particularly liked this comment:

"Digging into Wikipedia's logs on the changes, it's clear that the
entry's gatekeepers did not handle the situation optimally, chiding
Messer-Kruse for his manners and not incorporating the new research
into the article, even as a minority viewpoint. But it's also worth
noting that the expectation that Wikipedia would quickly reflect such
a dramatic change in a well-known historical narrative is a very, very
high bar. (...)  we hold this massive experiment in collaborative
knowledge to a standard that is higher than any other source. We don't
want Wikipedia to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica:
We want it to have 55 times as many entries, present contentious
debates fairly, and reflect brand new scholarly research, all while
being edited and overseen primarily by volunteers."

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk