The Register Takes Aim at Wikipedia Again 630
Syberghost writes "The Register has fired off another salvo in their long-running war of words with Wikipedia, in the form of an article about the lack of "moral responsibility" from the operators of Wikipedia. Wikipedia users fired back less than an hour later, making the Register headline obsolete."
Pot.. Kettle.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Any intelligent netizen takes a variety of sources (e.g. Wikipedia, El Reg, Slashdot, Digg, the BBC etc) and forms their own opinions.
Yes, Wikipedia has grown up, and I think it needs to tighten up procedures. But The Register's bizarre vendetta against what the term "wiki fiddlers" is annoying. Perhaps The Register needs to grow up a little too?
What's up with with the Reg these days? (Score:5, Interesting)
The blog attacks were kind of amusing last year, when the blogging hype was at it's most ridiculous, the snarky Wikipedia articles were occasionally entertaining, though I've never really understood the motivation in attacking that project (unless you happen to be an encyclopedia publisher). But it now just seems to be axe-grinding for no obvious reason than to bait various predictably-easy-to-bait groups of people, and the writing itself is less subtle and much less entertaining.
How long can you keep generating sparks from that axe you're grinding when there's no axe left?
Re:Moral Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia is a wiki - quite obviously, the system is not perfect and it has its benefits and its downfalls. They are not claiming otherwise, either.
Now, what is the Register's alternative? Rather, what's Andy Orlowsku's alternative? That dude seems to rate a classic
Wikipedia isn't perfect, and there are always morons out there who'd do some nasty things. If you're using Wikipedia for your research, you must be nuts. However, it is a starting point.
In fact, in some domains (e.g. Physics), Wikipedia has oodles of good information that it becomes an excellent reference. Is it a 100% reliable reference? No. But it is a reference, and like anything else, it has its pros and cons.
These guys sound like little whiners - who just know a wee little and go on and on about something. Reminds me of the case with Al Fasoldt who kept doing the exact same thing.
Wikipedia is a dynamic, free, open encyclopedia that is more sophisticated and more comprehensive than a lot of encyclopedias out there. And this dynamicism brings with it a small price - brainless morons and vandals who, like in every other system, have no moral scruples or accountability.
That does not mean the system is flawed - that means some of the people are.
They are not the only one.. seen this? (Score:1, Interesting)
They sent me this email after I asked why they where doing this:
Hello,
You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you to
sit this one out on the side.
Why must I become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there is
offending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family, why
should I be required to become a user and edit the content?
I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your
comments.
Regards,
--
http://52reasons.ath.cx/ [52reasons.ath.cx]
They may have missed moral responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. Try this experiment. (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. Here's an experiment: Go to Wikipedia, click on "Random article". Look at the history for that page, and determine how long it has existed, and how many edits it has had. Now, compare to the Seigenthaler article:
1st edit: 13:53, 15 September 2004. Created with only the contents, "John Seigenthaler SR"
2nd edit: 08:29, 26 May 2005. False biography added.
3rd edit: 15:52, 29 May 2005. Minor spelling correction.
4th edit: 05:06, 23 September 2005. False info deleted, replaced with correct info.
So, the article lasted for 9 months with only his name. Now, any average Wikipedian who came across this article would have marked it for "speedy deletion" immediately, since there is no content/context. In the span of over 1 year, the article had 4 edits. How does your random article compare? How about 10 random articles, or 100?
Re:Pot.. Kettle.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I go with honesty
Re:Speed of Response (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr. Seigenthaler's page's problem is that it is relatively obscure. He isn't a guy anyone outside of 1960s politics or the newspaper industry would know about, if I understand correctly. Wikipedia tends to be better at articles that receive more traffic and where the information is more widely known.
Re:Moral Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
support-wikipedia.com (Score:2, Interesting)
I came home today and turned on the evening news, and saw nothing but one news show after the other bashing Wikipedia, and displaying complete ignorance towards both the technology and the purpose of the site.
I literally am left with a sick feeling in my stomach over some of the things I have seen. I have a hard time believing that most of the wikipedia hatred is related to any libel, but instead believe that there are many people who are horrified of the idea that information is being made available without any government censorship.
I feel so strongly that wikipedia, and the entire notion of community knowledge, is an important thing. I am trying to find anyway I can to help the cause.
I have registered www.support-wikipedia.com, although there is no content there yet. I have a hosting service available to host the site on as well. If there is anyone who feels they would like to join me in this effort, or contribute in any way, please contact me and let me know how you can help. I do not have an enormous amount of free time so any group effort will be appreciated.
I envision the site can contain facts and information to fight the effect of techno-ignorance, as well as information on the importance of freely available information. Maybe I can even setup a cafe-press account to sell "Support Wikipedia" t-shirt, with all proceeds donated to wikimedia.
To avoid posting my email publicly, please contact me via slashdot, or the feedback form on my personal website: http://www.xmilk.com/ [xmilk.com]
Re:Moral Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
Then down the bottom of that article, there's a list of reference books and external sites, which I can then go and check out. At this point, I can make the transfer between the "unreliable" Wikipedia into the "reliable" medium of published literature. But using Wikipedia, I now have a good idea of just which books to look up, and a basic understanding of some of the things I'm likely to encounter.
Now, this example is probably not the best, as Edgar Allen Poe will probably be listed in most print encyclopedias. But say I wanted to find out about some wierd race from Babylon 5 [wikipedia.org]. Good luck finding that in a print encyclopedia. But if I check Wikipedia, I can get the basic facts, and some links to more authoritive sources.
Re:Moral Victory (Score:3, Interesting)
Though there is quite a bit of unpolished stuff, there is also a surprising amount of good ideas. Anarchy? I would say not, though perhaps not as organized as some might like. Makes for an interesting read in any case, especially given your post.
Re:flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been trying to figure out why this issue is getting people so worked up (myself included), because it's all about some random website claiming to be a sort of encyclopedia. People claim to be experts all the time, and they lie or misinform out of ignorance; it's not a new phenomenon. Why then, do we have articles written like the one at the register, urging a call to arms over "moral responsibility?
It's all over one word: Encyclopedia. If wikipedia called itself the "Unreliable Encyclopedia", would this article have been written? I suppose the author would have had a hernia over what he considered the contradiction in terms. And yet, there do exist unreliable encyclopedias I suspect: those published in the 1950s do not contain up-to-date political and scientific information. They are unreliable, although I would not like to try and guess if they are more or less reliable than wikipedia.
I think you have hit the nail on the head dead-on in terms of the "Encyclopedia" distinction. I teach a Research Methods class for a small liberal arts college in the U.S. and the frustration that occurs from students citing wikipedia as an authoritative source can be overwhelming. It is difficult enough to teach students that the first source they find on the web is not the best source - you would be stunned by how many papers I receive (and correct, and correct again in subsequent revisions) where students cite unaccredited geocities websites, bulletin board posts, etc. in their papers. Wikipedia presents a whole new onion to peel - students see the word "Encyclopedia" and associate it with what they've been taught in primary and high school education systems: The information you find in an Encyclopedia is valid.
That being said, sure, other Encyclopedias become dated or contain inaccuracies, but the fundamental difference is that someone is accountable and culpable for correcting those mistakes or lack of updates. When information in Encyclopedia Brittanica goes out of date, someone corrects the information. With Wikipedia, there's no accountability. There's no impetus for someone to go back and fact check. Wikipedia relies on other users to "pipe up" when they feel its necessary to - and even then those who pipe up may or may not be a qualified source on a particular issue.
Granted, not every article on Wikipedia suffers from these problems, and not every article needs a "qualified source," (for instance, what are the necessary qualifications for an article outlining the history of the Smurfs?) but the "encyclopedia" distinction is one that almost implies that the information contained within is credible, reliable, and subject to qualified review. Wikipedia is just as flawed as slashdot.
Hell, it's only a matter of time before I'm referring to Wikipedia articles written by **Beatles-Beatles** with edits and updates from Scuttlemonkey.
Re:Two-word response (Score:3, Interesting)
At any rate, if an organization seeks to establish legitimacy as a source of information, then it must take responsibility for all content, or make it clear either explicitly (disclaimer) or implicitly (the ridiculous nature of The Onion) that the content should not be regarded as authoritative. I think Wikipedia has done a mediocre job of that -- clearly because it's founders want it to be considered authoritative -- but sites like Answers.com which incorporate Wikipedia's content are even worse.
If you don't like it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that the battle over Wikipedia is really a debate over the future of cognitive authority in general. All of the publishing industry has a vested interest in making sure that they stay authoritative. This is combined with the fact that many publishers (disclaimer: I work for a publisher) gear the material around what's marketable. This practice is so entrenched in publishing now, I don't think publishers even see what's wrong with it. I think in a battle between truth and money, money wins.
Wikipedia may have some unique challenges, but at least they are free from this problem.
Not to sound like a broken record... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to be trite, but how much can you really complain about a free resource? You get what you pay for. I use Wikipedia all the time to research things and learn about new areas of interest, but I know full well both its provenance and its accuracy.
If you want accuracy, either pay for a resource you trust or do the research yourself. If you want unbiased facts, it solely depends on what you think unbiased means. Everything from the Encyclopedia Brittanica to the Oxford English dictionary has been accused of bias. Why would you think that something that is maintained by volunteers on the internet wouldn't be subject to abuse, scandal, spam, and outrage?
You can go anywhere on the internet for your information. Why do you keep going back to Wikipedia? Becuase it fills a need. If you don't like, vote with your "feet" and go somewhwere else. Wikipedia has exactly the authority you imbue it with.
Re:Pot.. Kettle.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Research (Score:3, Interesting)
But wikipedia is an encyclopedia going by all definitions of the word I could find. People trust untrustable sources all the time (e.g, newpapers, teachers, salesmen). That does not make the source worthless.
If you are a teacher in research, I surely hope that you teach them that any encyclopedia is worthless as a source to cite. Though I do realize that "research" means altogether different things in the "hard" sciences and the "soft" sciences, I know that encycleopedias are at best untrustworthy source for any specialized information. Wikipedia actually has a better track record with me there, going by my occasional look up in some area of my own expertise (General Topology, you can search for my master degree if you care, though it is in Danish).
I doubt anyone is culpable for making a mistake while writing any encyclopedia or other material. At worst, they might loose their job, I suppose. As for incentive, the incentive for correcting the wiki is the same as writing it in the first place. I am not sure what the incentive for updating a written encycleopedia is, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen, but I do know that such updates would seldom or never make it out to the shelves, and even if it did make it, would probably be lost as an appendix or similar. As for qualified --- who knows who gets the best qualified person(s) to write the article? As I said, in my (very small) area, wikipedia is more accurate and a lot more comprehensive than the printed encycleopedias I have seen. I do realize that my area is hardly controversial with personal attacks etc.
I can hardly believe a person with an acedemical background would resort to that sort of argument. Not every? I would be extremely surprised if 10% of the non-stub articles are more inaccurate than they printed brethren. I recall seeing some numbers on this, but I can't recall them offhand. And what is that "wikipedia is just as flawed as slashdot"? That sort of argument should be below one such as yourself. If you have issues with wikipedia or slashdot, point to concrete errors with either instead of making cheap retorics.
I won't even quote the last line.