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

[Steve Bennett]

On 8/7/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Oh, it's not "inaccurate", it's just the biggest difference that would
have immediately come to mind for me.
> 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

IP addresses are, on a local scale, allocated by a process which might
as well be random. However, it's the scale that counts. Given some ISP
that gives out addresses like aa.bb.cc.dd, the dd may well be "random"
- but the aa.bb.cc is easily enough to identify the ISP, and in many
cases the local branch of the ISP, effectively narrowing the suspect
down to a few suburbs. To use the dd bit, you need to work with the
ISP, telling them the time and date that you're interested in, so they
can cross check their records. Not rocket science, it's just actually
getting them cooperative (and convincing them that you're not
breaching someone's privacy) that's a pain.

> 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

What methods do we have now that we didn't before? I think everyone is
more aware of the issues, but what has changed, formally? Did we
already have semi-protection? I seem to recall Seigenthaler being the
third or fourth in a series of steadily escalating incidents.
> "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

If I saw this text at Wikipedia, I'd be stamping {{citation needed}}
all over it ;) Those statements sound like common sense, but I don't
recall having read them anywhere.
> 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

I don't suffer from that ;) I love well-informed critiques that locate
our achille's heel and aim straight for them. This piece mostly seemed
a good, broad "encyclopaedic" coverage of us.

Just on a side note...Seriously, I would love to know how often EB
researchers start their research at WP.

> 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.

:D

Steve