Is Wikipedia more reliable ...?

[TSBG]

Originally Posted by Powers

As you point out, though, there are thousands of versions available. The history is freely accessible to anyone who wants to look at it. That makes it possible (though not simple) to figure out who added a particular statement.


Powers &8^]

Yes, but that defeats the utility of Wikipedia as a work of reference. If I need to quickly get some facts about, let's say, Scientology, I emphatically do not want to sort through thousands of versions and try to decipher who's who in a long-running debate.

[engjs]

Originally Posted by Powers

As you point out, though, there are thousands of versions available. The history is freely accessible to anyone who wants to look at it. That makes it possible (though not simple) to figure out who added a particular statement.

Well, firstly very few people understand Wikipedia well enough to look at the history or the talk page and check out where stuff comes from. They see an article in Wikipedia, they think it's the only version.

But more importantly, if I see something in Wikipedia that was written by SplodgeWins, who the * is SplodgeWins and what qualifies him to comment? If I see something in someone's blog, I can judge it in terms of the prejudices of the person who writes the blog and thus assign a level of credibility to it. If I see something in Wikipedia I have no idea who wrote it or why, and so how can I give it any credibility? A blog is more reliable than Wikipedia.

[engjs]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Isn't this the case for every form of media?

Yes. But with most media you can look at who wrote it and figure out where they are coming from. Even when you don't know the actual authors you can look at the source of the material or for themes in the material and get some idea of what biases to expect. If I see a story about a local historical figure in a brochure put out by some town's tourist board I know there will be some level of exaggeration involved. If I see the same story in EB, I would give a lot more credence to it. If I see it in Wikipedia, how can I tell whether it is fact, exaggeration, or pure fantasy?

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

But there was no punishment for not acting according to the guidelines. So what was their incentive to stop?

One often needs to report such editors to the Wikipedia Admins for punishment to be issued. Found that out after one persistent vandal had received multiple warnings but was never blocked from editing. Now I know where to report vandals and suspected socks.

ETA: if you spot a vandal, you can issue a warning on their talk page yourself. Start at level 1 and and progress if they don't get the message; if their behavior continues after level 4, report that vandal.

[Lute Skywatcher]

If the vandalism continues after the editor is unblocked? Report 'em again! They'll be re-blocked for a longer duration. Here's one for six months and one for a year.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher

One often needs to report such editors to the Wikipedia Admins for punishment to be issued. Found that out after one persistent vandal had received multiple warnings but was never blocked from editing. Now I know where to report vandals and suspected socks.

ETA: if you spot a vandal, you can issue a warning on their talk page yourself. Start at level 1 and and progress if they don't get the message; if their behavior continues after level 4, report that vandal.

If the vandalism continues after the editor is unblocked? Report 'em again! They'll be re-blocked for a longer duration. Here's one for six months and one for a year.

So for Wikipedia to remain reliable, the experts not only know about their field, they have to be expert at negotiating the arcane processes of reporting troublemakers, and be prepared to persist for months while the same user gets repeatedly investigated and warned and banned and investigated and warned. There's no simple and obvious way to actually report someone and have the admins take a look at it like the "report" button on this message board.

The dispute resolution process is frankly one of Wikipedia's biggest flaws. There are Admins/Mods, so the project isn't truly open slather,. But exactly how the Admins function, what they are supposed to do and even the rules are incredibly complex and difficult to negotiate. Wikipedia experts know the rules comprehensively and can post cute little hotlinks to every single obscure policy and standard. Experts in actual subjects on Wikipedia don't, and so end up having no chance of comng out ahead in disputes.

I remember back when I first started posting to Wikipedia, I got into a dispute with someone who reverted my edits. I read the rules, which say that you can revert something twice in a day. I did so an reported the other poster when they made three reverts. We were then both suspended for a couple of days. When i queried the suspension, I was told by another admin, not the one who suspended me, that although the main rule was two reverts, that was just a guideline and it was considered against the rules to revert even twice. On later occasions I reported the other poster after two reverts, and not a damn thing happened. No reply form the admins, and teh vandals kept reverting.

This is precisely the type of crap that I have seen several times drive off expert contributors. There is a labyrinth of rules that nobody who hasn't spent years learning the gazillion pages could ever hope to comprehend. There is no feedback from the admins, no way to discuss a decision and no hard and fast rules.

Needless to say, actual experts have better things to do with their time, and Wikipedia ends up being overwhelmed by people whose primary expertise in in gaming Wikipedia.

[Deeg]

Originally Posted by Blake

Needless to say, actual experts have better things to do with their time, and Wikipedia ends up being overwhelmed by people whose primary expertise in in gaming Wikipedia.

This conclusion, however, contradicts Nature's conclusion. In the end I think Wikipedia ends up being as good a general resource as there is, including EB. It definitely has its problems (as Una described) but unlike traditional resources like EB it also has a way to determine what some of the problems are.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Deeg

This conclusion, however, contradicts Nature's conclusion. In the end I think Wikipedia ends up being as good a general resource as there is, including EB. It definitely has its problems (as Una described) but unlike traditional resources like EB it also has a way to determine what some of the problems are.

I think about it another way: Wikipedia is pretty reliable when you want information about totally non-controversial topics, like the properties of vanadium, or the Toronto subway system. But I would never trust it for information about anything remotely controversial, such as anything political, or anything currently in the news.

[Deeg]

I disagree to a point. One must tread carefully with controversial topics but Wikipedia (often) allows the reader to understand the controversies in a way that traditional references don't. For example, a while ago I was reading Abraham Lincoln's page and there was controvery regarding his legacy: the economist Thomas DiLorenzo wrote a biography of Lincoln that was cited by some wikipedians to criticize Lincoln's presidency. I was able to read about the controversy on the "talk" page and came to the conclusion that DiLorenzo was a hack historian with an economic axe to grind. I therefore ignored anything based on his book. This kind of research process is not possible with traditional references.

I note that today DiLorenzo is no longer cited on the main Lincoln page.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by engjs

A blog is more reliable than Wikipedia.

No it is not. A blog might be easier to evaluate for prejudices of the author, but that does not have any effect on the reliability of the material or on blogs in general.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Blake

I remember back when I first started posting to Wikipedia, I got into a dispute with someone who reverted my edits. I read the rules, which say that you can revert something twice in a day. I did so an reported the other poster when they made three reverts. We were then both suspended for a couple of days. When i queried the suspension, I was told by another admin, not the one who suspended me, that although the main rule was two reverts, that was just a guideline and it was considered against the rules to revert even twice. On later occasions I reported the other poster after two reverts, and not a damn thing happened. No reply form the admins, and teh vandals kept reverting.

After nothing was done about the vandals, I would have filed a request for page protection.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by engjs

Well, firstly very few people understand Wikipedia well enough to look at the history or the talk page and check out where stuff comes from. They see an article in Wikipedia, they think it's the only version.

I don't know of anyone for whom that is the immediate assumption.

Originally Posted by engjs

But more importantly, if I see something in Wikipedia that was written by SplodgeWins, who the * is SplodgeWins and what qualifies him to comment?

This is an appeal to authority.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher

After nothing was done about the vandals, I would have filed a request for page protection.

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I don't know of anyone for whom that is the immediate assumption.
This is an appeal to authority.

Both of you are seem to be living in a perfect world. The truth is that 99% of the rest of the world don't have time for this BS.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Bolding mine.

Originally Posted by srzss05

The truth is that 99% of the rest of the world don't have time for this BS.

And people wonder why Wikipedia has such a bad rep.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher

Bolding mine.And people wonder why Wikipedia has such a bad rep.

No, we know why it has such a bad rep. We've outlined those reasons in some detail.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Blake

No, we know why it has such a bad rep. We've outlined those reasons in some detail.

Pardon me, but your sarcasmeter needs to be recalibrated.

[Blake]

What was that whooshing sound?

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

But there was no punishment for not acting according to the guidelines. So what was their incentive to stop?

And, honestly, that's the entire problem. I've noticed it, too. They've taken their "assume good faith" to absurd levels. The same person has to make tons of mistakes before they get in any real trouble.

Part of it is that there are way too many admins, and they don't want to give them that much power. But they need it, badly.

It is true that you probably could have gotten resolution, but it would have involved finding an admin, and then proving to him that you were who you said you were. Otherwise, despite the flagrant rules violations that they announced ahead of time, they would have given them the assumption of good faith.

It sucks, because I so wanted to like the place. Now I only fix their files, because the changes I make are pretty uncontroversial.

BTW, I know from comments I've read that a lot of Wikipedians just don't like experts. They think everyone should be equal, and that the only thing that counts is sources. There was a push a little while back to get experts to verify things, but the core of Wikipedia seemed to hate it.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by srzss05

Both of you are seem to be living in a perfect world. The truth is that 99% of the rest of the world don't have time for this BS.

On the other hand, I say that, if you don't have time to even bother to try to follow the basic rules, then you have no right to complain. Now, if you tried to figure it out, but didn't, that's fine. But to just not do it because you don't have time? That's just your own fault.

Because that means that, even if they did make it easy to figure out what you're supposed to do, you still wouldn't do it. And if you care so little, why contribute at all?

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by BigT

On the other hand, I say that, if you don't have time to even bother to try to follow the basic rules, then you have no right to complain. Now, if you tried to figure it out, but didn't, that's fine. But to just not do it because you don't have time? That's just your own fault.

Because that means that, even if they did make it easy to figure out what you're supposed to do, you still wouldn't do it. And if you care so little, why contribute at all?

Hey, some of us have a life away from the computer too, you know.