Wikipedia As a "War Zone," Rather Than a Collaboration 194
horselight writes "A new study by sociologists studying social networking has determined that Wikipedia is not an intellectual project based on mutual collaboration, but a war zone. The study finds that although the content does end up being accurate as a rule, it's anything but neutral or unbiased. The study includes extensive data on access and editing patterns of users related to major events, such as the death of Michael Jackson and the edit storms that ensued." The article explains that the research (here's the paper at PLoS One) looked in particular at controversial entries, not ones about obscure duck-hunting equipment or long-settled standards.
Bullshit summary that mischaracterizes the article (Score:5, Insightful)
While the so called summary claims that wikipedia is supposed to be this "war zone", the article's fucking summary states that they have concluded that "edit wars are mainly fought by few editors only." The article then proceeds with statements such as:
and even
So, fuck you slashdot for posting a story with such an inflamatory, patently wrong and misleading pile of crap which was supposed to be the summary. If you have to lie to desperately generate page hits then it's a clear sign that you are dead as a communications medium.
Re:major events, such as the death of Michael Jack (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny, cause I thought Michael Jackson was well known as the best selling artist of a number of studio albums, as well as a performing artist whose concerts have touched millions across the globe. (As evidenced by the loud outpouring of grief from all over the planet when he died.)
What planet do YOU live in where the death of Michael Jackson is not a major event?
URL representing a given subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for search engines, which work just as well as a "starting point."
Wikipedia is good for use as a URL representing a given real-world subject. For example, an article about graphics in Linux could refer to "this DRM [wikipedia.org], not that other DRM [wikipedia.org]". And I haven't yet found a search engine that presents a single page summarizing the consensus of how reliable sources view a subject.
Or Google Scholar, which also works well as a starting point, for those who want the scientific angle.
Not everybody wants to get on a bus and go to a local campus university every time he or she runs into a paywalled article.
Is any of this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is a great resource for getting a basic overview of topics that are essentially settled.
The problem comes in with new stories, whose only sources tend to be news articles that are written to evoke controversy. This is despite the fact that most articles don't really need any more information than is given in the headline, or because there is essentially no factual information available, so the "controversy" is just pure speculation.
The same thing happens with /. articles.
Just looking at recent ones, "Intel Releases Ivy Bridge Programming Docs Under CC License," really doesn't need any more information, unless you don't know what those words mean. And actually, this is a good time to check Wikipedia, because "Intel," "Ivy Bridge," and "CC License," are all fairly settled topics.
On the other hand, "SOPA Protests 'Poisoned the Well,' Says Congressional Staffer," is taking the personal opinion of someone who is employed by someone who was elected to congress, adding the statement that "the internet is at risk," to drum up controversy, and intentionally trying to split people into "us and them."
Re:commercial vs volunteer free (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Wikipedia is not for-profit doesn't mean the same rules don't apply.
If a commercial encyclopedia is not good enough (what you describe as "accuracy and reliability reputation"), it means people won't buy it and so the publishing company will go bankrupt.
If an open encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not good enough, it means people won't visit it. And that means nobody will edit it and nobody will donate to it and so the publishing organization will have to close down. And even if it would technically keep running, no visitors and no editors means it's a dead project anyway.
Either way, if an encyclopedia is not good enough, it will eventually go down. It doesn't matter whether it's made for profit or not.
Re:why i no longer contribute (Score:1, Insightful)
2) The copyleft allows *for profit* webpages to use my work. I find this intolerable; my hard work is used to make some loathsome 1%er rich? I don't mind if non profits do it, but I will be Dam*** if i contribute to something that can be ripped off by for profits.
Get over yourself.
harshing the honey bee (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, but do you really think that's easy to pull off? Can they really charge more than their middle-man repackaging justifies? Repacking is a value add if done to high standards.
The mandate is to spread knowledge to the whole of the world's population. If middle-men can't make engage in any kind of fee-based recovery concerning editorial costs, you're not going to attract much participation with the dissemination task. I don't see many flowering plants harshing honey bees. I think you've got the wrong picture of the ecosystem.
I learned that lesson early. It's a huge mistake to take pride in bunny-suited textual purity. Wikipedia is a pig farm. Even the most conscientious farmer gets shit on his boots. Also, Wikipedia doesn't exactly encourage subject matter experts to take on leading editorial roles. It's more into the kind of loose accuracy obtained at arm's length remove. I would almost say that Wikipedia actively resists excellence. This is hard concept for many people to comprehend. The highly cultivated "feature articles" are a bit of a Potemkin village. Featureness degrades rapidly after the parade moves on.
My sense is that you'd have been happier contributing to uberpedia. "wiki" is German for "I wouldn't go so far as to call the brother fat. He's got a weight problem. What's the nigger gonna do? He's Samoan." For all its warts, the constructive sentiment is loud and clear.
Re:That's excellent! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why i no longer contribute (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a PhD in molecular biology ... I find this intolerable; my hard work is used to make some loathsome 1%er rich?
You're telling me you have a PhD in molecular bio and you aren't near that top 1% of income? 5%er perhaps? I agree with the notion of not working for free, but I think you're overselling the class-baiting angle.
Re:why i no longer contribute (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound quite arrogant, and my guess is that you grossly overvalue your own work and opinion.
Do you really think that your scrawlings on Wikipedia (which other editors constantly have to fix) are being used by millionaires to make even more millions?
You call people "loathsome" because they have more money than you? Are you delusional? You, along with many other PhDs are giving "academics" a bad name.
I put it to you that you only did a PhD because you are socially, financially and intellectually unable to achieve in life - and there's no problem with this - it takes all types to make a world. But my main problem with you is your hatred and inability to work with other people. I don't use Wikipedia much anymore, but on behalf of them: Good riddance, Wikipedia is better off without you.
Re:It's a start (Score:5, Insightful)
It's important to think about the likely motivations of writers when reading Wikipedia. It is important to be aware that occasionally vandals insert wrong information. You can always check the sources, and check the recent changes to the article when you suspect the information is simply wrong. When you suspect bias it is good to check the discussion history too so you can get an idea of what biases the different editors are trying to deal with. ~~~~
Re:Whua! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia was one of the last places to report that Michael Jackson had died "Last"? By how long? A few hours maybe.
Wikipedia isn't a breaking news site, its an encyclopedia.
If you want news, go to Wikinews [wikinews.org].
"X has died" is one of the most common form of vandalism. It has to be verified. Better to wait a few hours and be sure.
Re:why i no longer contribute (Score:4, Insightful)
Ph.D.s, M.D.s, D.O.s, D.V.M.s and even J.D.s have earned the right to be arrogant.
No offense, but it is this kind of attitude that turns a lot of people off about (at least the popular image of) academics.
I would suggest that "arrogance" is not a "right" of anyone, but a character flaw. Your particular set of academic credentials does not give you "the right to be arrogant" any more than someone else's job title, athletic prowess, degree of popular fame or any other achievement gives them the same right.