[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and content

[Robert]

Sheldon writes:
> A wiki is merely a technology. It is a means to an end,
> not an end in itself. The end goal here is to create a
> free, accurate, comprehensive encyclopedia. The wiki
> aspect of Wikipedia has enabled it to move rapidly in
> what is generally the right direction, but in the 
> process of doing so, the wiki notion that "anyone 
> can edit any article" has been adjusted already in
> various ways: sysops, soft and hard bans, arbitration,
> and so forth. If need be, the wiki rules could be
> adjusted further. For example, there is no reason in
> theory why ...
> ...the point is that the Wikipedia doesn't have to rely
> on "some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process" ....
> ...We can specify any process we want....


Very well said!

I think that for some time Wikipedia has been effectively
ruled by a clique that has some affinity for anarchy; they
have elevated the Wiki software to the level of an
ideology.  But all of the rules you mention are necessary
developments for Wikipedia to achieve its goal - being a
reliable and respected open-source encyclopedia.

Adding a level of peer-review, or having a subset of our
articles reviewed by people with academic degrees in the
field are also possibilities to add onto the system we
already have.

A note about the accuracy of our articles: Obviously, gross
errors and POV pushing usually get quickly fixed. 
Wikipedia's Achilles' heel is the minor error, which can
continue uncorrected for months or years.  If somone wrote
the wrong birth and death dates for various scientists, or
rabbis or singers, or if someone made a mistake in naming
the university they went to,how many people would spot the
error?  With the exception of articles on famous people,
darn few.

The probable existence of thousands of minor uncorrected
errors is one of the major arguments for a new level of
review by people with some sort of academic background in
the field, or by one who can be trusted to do some serious
research.  Such a level of review would not take away from
anyone's ability to contribute; it would only improve the
accuracy of articles we already have.


Robert (RK)



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com