Wikipedia in context

Everyone is taking shots at Wikipedia, most of which are undeserved. For example,

Dave offers a critique that demonstrates the problem.

First, Wikipedia is just one source out of many, and a relatively new one at that. There isn't a "golden" version of history. Wikipedia is just one of many snapshots of a discussion in progress. Second, he isn't willing to make a change to something that he has first hand knowledge about. I am pretty sure 'unconferences' aren't a contentious topic and his update to the page will be acceptable. A failure to engage undercuts any critique. Third, the fact that there is a discussion (even at time contentious) over a Wikipedia entry is goodness. With its system, there is a least a potential for resolution. With big media, there typically isn't.

Comments

[phil jones]

Yeah, I'm inclined to think that people who complain about wikipedia but don't correct the mistakes they find are a bit like people who complain about government but don't vote.

Wikipedia gives you rights and responsibilities. The two go together.

I'm also a bit bored with people coming along and saying "guess what kids, wikipedia isn't 'authoritative' and you shouldn't trust it".

Anyone got reason to believe that wikipedia *is* being taken as authoritative? Isn't the name "wiki"pedia sufficient warning?

(OK, so kids copy it for their homework, but doesn't that just tell kids are lazy rather than insufficiently skeptical?)

[mark safranski]

Wiki actually is in the same accuracy ballpark on hard science issues as Encyclopedia Britannica according to a peer-reviewed study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Some validation for the wisdom of crowds

[tim fong]

That's what irked me about the Siegenthaler dust-up. The barrier to entry was so low, yet he couldn't be bothered to spend fifteen or twenty minutes to figure it out. I'd take Phil's point about voting even farther. Unlike in voting, one person editing a Wikipedia page can actually see the direct result of his/her actions. At least until someone else changes it =)

I think the reason we see such a violent reaction to Wikipedia in the traditional print journalism world is because it is yet another threat to hierarchal power and gatekeepers.

[Wikipedia]

"I think the reason we see such a violent reaction to Wikipedia in the traditional print journalism world is because it is yet another threat to hierarchal power and gatekeepers."

Yep, that is the reason and it was a bad move because the press is good for Wikipedia... By the way, Wikipedia started on under another name as a open source version of authoritative references - they moved on to the wiki, because the author didn't want to give up power over "their" content to editors...

[Anonymoose]

I love wikipedia, even when it's wrong.

Check out this joint wikipedia/google search thingy I made for a home page: www.blinkpop.com

[David Gammel]

I'll plead guilty to getting the attribution wrong on the coining of the term when I started the entry. Glad to see a couple of people have already been in updating the entry to get it right.

[Dave Winer]

I don't think it's ethical for me to modify a page that is at least in part about me.

Also, Wikipedia deserves special scrutiny because of its high page rank. Its page on unconference ranks higher than any I have put up.

One more thing -- when I write about something on Scripting News it tends to get fixed, but there's no telling how long that fix will last. And then there are things no one writes about that Wikipedia gets wrong.

I wouldn't care so much if it didn't have so much authority and also if its branding didn't imply that it's an encyclopedia.

[Dave Winer]

Also, you say my critique is undeserved. That's your opinion and that's fine. But when Wikipedia expresses an opinion, I can't tell whose it is (unless they tell me, good luck with that). A great example was the bit about the Tet Offensive being the turning point in the Vietnam War. Look it up. Last time I looked they said it was not the turning point. But historians seem to think it was. We could debate it, I suppose, but an encyclopedia is not supposed to take sides.

And I think my critiques are totally deserved. I want Wikipedia to either be better, or for people to stop considering it authoritative. I'd like the web to have a chance to present multiple points of views. Because Wikipedia is generally so highly ranked, I'm concerned it's going to drown out what's good about the web.

[mark safranski]

"A great example was the bit about the Tet Offensive being the turning point in the Vietnam War"

Having been involved in more than my share of such discussions on H-Diplo with historians who care very passionately about the subject of the Vietnam War - I can't think of any other war on which the academic community has the most violent disagreements about the smallest points. Much less the large ones like Tet

[Dave Winer]

If so, then the Wikipedia page should reflect that disagreement, right?