[WikiEN-l] In 2006, Wikipedia started to exist (according to the world of Britannica)

[Fastfission]

The author of the EB article (Michael Aaron Dennis) is a very sharp
guy, and a very sensitive thinker, I know of his work (he is a
historian of science, or sociologist of science, or some combination
of the two). He is currently an independent scholar; I have
corresponded with him a few times on issues unrelated to Wikipedia,
and the work of his I know is really quite excellent. So there's my
bias on the table.

I think the article is pretty fair on the whole. I think describing
"open source" as the management style and Wiki as the way of
facilitating it is not entirely inaccurate, at least along the lines
of "open source" as described by someone like Eric Raymond, which is
not dependent on any particular technology but rather on an adherance
to certain authorship principles and copyright practices.

He takes the time to get the core aspects of Wikipedia correct, I
think. For example, how many other articles on Wikipedia have bothered
to outline something like this in the very beginning of the article
(third paragraph, following the lead and the brief "history of
nupedia"):

"In some respects, Wikipedia's open-source production model is the
epitome of the so-called Web 2.0, an egalitarian environment where the
web of social software enmeshes users in both their real and
virtual-reality workplaces. The Wikipedia community is based on a
limited number of standard principles. One important principle is
neutrality; another is the faith that contributors are participating
in a sincere and deliberate fashion. Readers can correct what they
perceive to be errors, and disputes over facts and possible bias are
conducted through contributor discussions, with Wales remaining as the
final arbiter. Three other "pillars of wisdom" are not to use
copyrighted material, not to contribute original research, and not to
have any other rules. The last pillar reinforces the project's belief
that the open-source process will make Wikipedia into the best product
available, given its community of users."

Now this doesn't actually mirror the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]
perfectly, but it covers most of the bases (NOR, NPOV, free content,
code of conduct, no firm rules).  He follows it by a paragraph
describing the fact that some users don't gives sources, but that all
users are expected to be able to monitor articles for problems and
hopefully catch them.

He has one paragraph on the Seigenthaler incident, citing it as a
highly-publicized *example* of some of the difficulties related to
content problems. I don't think that's a bad approach. Some of the
computing details are a little fuzzy -- I don't know how big proxy
servers generate IPs but it is definitely not random, and in any case
the contributor was indeed eventually identified through his IP
address. He also says that Wikipedia in 2006 has the power to block IP
addresses, but that power has been around for a long time. Regardless,
despite being incorrect, the conclusion of the paragraph is ultimately
in favor of Wikipedia, saying essentially that Wikipedia has developed
better methods of content verification and control in the wake of the
incident. I don't think this is entirely incorrect. He ends the
paragraph with somewhat of a neutral non-sequitur, "Articles on
political subjects have become the greatest test of Wikipedia's
principle of neutrality."

The final paragraph is ultimately a fairly balanced view:

"For many observers of these controversies, a troubling difference
between Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias lies in the absence of
editors and authors who will accept responsibility for the accuracy
and quality of their articles. These observers point out that
identifiable individuals are far easier to hold accountable for
mistakes, bias, and bad writing than is a community of anonymous
volunteers, but other observers respond that it is not entirely clear
if there is a substantial difference. Regardless of such
controversies—perhaps in part because of them—Wikipedia has become a
model of what the collaborative Internet community can and cannot do."

I think that's a pretty fair assessment, if one is willing to step
outside of the "Wikipedia is great and will eventually work
perfectly!" boosterism that is naturally part of one's enthusiasm to
work on such a project, and instead look at it from the point of view
as a scholar attempting to situate Wikipedia within the history of
publishing, authorship, and computers.

I think most of us on the list have somewhat too high expectations
about how Wikipedia is covered elsewhere. On the list we are happy to
go back and forth about the problems and possible changes and so
forth. But we expect everyone else to look at it only in the most
positive of lights. This is not an unexpected phenomena -- most
members of organizations will happily take part in
intra-organizational dispute but will unite against perceived threats
from outside.

I don't think this is a threat. For something published by
they-who-feel-most-threatened-by-us (EB), it is remarkably balanced,
and attempts to highlight the positive aspects of Wikipedia as well as
pointing out the common criticisms. It is much shorter than anything
which would exist on Wikipedia itself, which limits its scope and
scale. As a concise summary of What-Wikipedia-Is and
What-People-Think-About-It, I don't think it's far off the mark.

Nevertheless, if there was an "edit this page" option (or even a
"submit a bug report") we could fix up a few of the simple errors on
it. Despite being from an identifiable, respected professional, and
despite going through the seive of professional editors, it still
contains errors, and, perhaps worse than Wikipedia itself, it gives no
citations for further follow-up or critical evaluation. This is a
problem with the content model, though. Encyclopedia Brittancia has
become a model of what exclusive and controlled editorship can and
cannot do.

FF

On 8/6/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I just came across http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9433599, which
> is the lead section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about
> wikipedia. There is also one about wikis in general:
> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9404276.
>
> These articles appear to be taken from the current revision of the EB
> itself, not the yearbook or any other of these sources (on this web
> site, you can never be sure).
>
> EB is now the second (or third, depending on how you count)
> encyclopedia to mention wikipedia. The Columbia Encyclopedia has one
> and the 21st edition of the Brockhaus encyclopedia (in German).
>
> I don't have full access to the EB article from here and I am very
> curious about its accuracy :)
>
> Fun fact: Last time I checked, Brockhaus refused to call Wikipedia an
> encyclopedia.
>
> Mathias
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>