On hating Wack-o-pedia, again...

[FXMastermind]

@Amateur_Barbarian

WPee-ers need to Get. A. Fucking. Life.

Not going to happen.

Long ago I realized there is no way to change the minds of idiots, actual real idiots (as defined by Wikipedia). If someone can learn new shit, change the way they are, they wouldn’t be an idiot. By definition. Wasting time trying to change an idiots mind, by any means, is a complete waste of your time, and it might anger you, which makes you the idiot at some point.

It’s like that old saying, never argue with an idiot, people might not be able to tell the difference. This means, for you idiots out there, that at some point, if you are in an edit war, or still trying to change some idiot on Wikipedia, fighting the good fight by arguing, with facts and reason, there will be little difference between you and the idiots you are up against.

See “wikigroaning” for one way to enjoy an Encyclopedia sabotaged by idiots. And yes, there is no article for it.

A brief “discussion” of it does appear, but note that the “defense” of this obvious problem cites this opinion piece as evidence of why it doesn’t matter.

It’s the great oracle of after-dinner arguments, the arbiter of factual disagreements. It’s more than a joke: It’s an indispensable and rather fantastic tool that also happens to be ridiculous.

Here’s the sentence that came from the article.

That Wikipedia is chock full of useless arcana (and did you know, by the way, that the article on “Debate” is shorter than the piece that weighs the relative merits of the 1978 and 2003 versions of Battlestar Galactica?) isn’t a knock against it: Since it can grow infinitely, the silly articles aren’t depriving the serious ones of space.[114]

It illustrates, with brevity and pith, how Wikipedia can never be a real encyclopedia, but it’s fantastic for a lot of things, especially useless knowledge.

You can discover that “lob” is an ancient term for spider, because a fictional spider named Shelob has an entire article about it. But you won’t find the hairstyle called “the lob” mentioned on Wikipedia. Much less any information about it there.

So a fictional spider has an extensive article, but a hairstyle actually being worn at this moment is not found on Wikipedia.

Once you learn to laugh about it, it’s all fun and games. You can’t take Wikipedia seriously,that way lies madness.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Amateur_Barbarian

If qualified expertise is not a valid basis for adding material to a “reference,” and only nonexpert accretion of info from elsewhere is allowed, the result is a self-limited imitation of what a “reference” is supposed to be.

So how do you propose that Wikipedia should decide that someone is a qualified expert versus a non-expert?

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@FXMastermind

Once you learn to laugh about it, it’s all fun and games. You can’t take Wikipedia seriously,that way lies madness.

I’d be absolutely delighted to regard Whippy as the peer of, say, TV Tropes or even IMDb. What bothers me is the steadily rising tide, now extending into “news” media and the shallows of academia, that consider it to be on the level of real references.

Now *that *way lies madness… or something much, much worse.

[romansperson]

@Anaamika

I thought I read something somewhere that the people editing Wiki were like, 85% young white males. Is that still the case? How do you get the demographics on editors, anyway?

I don’t know what the latest figures might be, but an actual research paper was done which cited a survey done by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2009 which found only 13% of Wikipedia’s editors were female. Wiki itself says the gender gap has not been getting better - another survey in 2011 showed the gap getting wider.

Wikipedia seems to attract that certain subset of men who love to argue and are spoiling for a fight, I suppose because it’s a place where they can do it with minimal negative consequences. It can be like a virtual Lord of the Flies. Hella annoying, and damaging to the project as a whole.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Dewey_Finn

So how do you propose that Wikipedia should decide that someone is a qualified expert versus a non-expert?

That you can even frame that question is its own Q.E.D. to my entire contention.

And really, I shouldn’t have to explain that any further. But let’s put it this way: If WP is going to set itself up as the Encyclopedia For The Digital Age, it can’t just dismiss the components that made real encyclopedias trustworthy, valid, useful and reliable. It can’t straddle the Limbaugh Line and say that it’s just a pop reference for entertainment purposes only, then sit there in a suit and tie and demand donations and support to continue Its Important Mission.

Either it’s a real reference - which means it needs something a lot like traditional editorial and validation processes, extended and adapted to allow trivialities like Brady Bunch entries alongside serious stuff, and an end to this self-appointed, basement-troll, Proud 2BN Aspie “editorial” structure - or it needs to admit it’s just an intellectual junkheap, and distance itself from any claim, its own or third-party, that it’s a “reference” above any level but a fan-published Brady Bunch episode guide.

Since Whippy has no mechanism for validating expertise, ‘cites’ are its only tool, reinforcing the basic flaw of the Googleverse that if it isn’t already listed somewhere, it doesn’t/can’t exist. Even Google works to improve that situation; Whippy simply sits smugly on its own shitpile and calls it genius.

[FXMastermind]

@Amateur_Barbarian

What bothers me is the steadily rising tide, now extending into “news” media and the shallows of academia, that consider it to be on the level of real references.

Now *that *way lies madness… or something much, much worse.

Oh yes, and it’s so much worse than anyone can even know.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Amateur_Barbarian

If qualified expertise

How are you a “qualified expert”?

[Cheesesteak]

@Amateur_Barbarian

If WP is going to set itself up as the Encyclopedia For The Digital Age, it can’t just dismiss the components that made real encyclopedias trustworthy, valid, useful and reliable.

Is there any evidence that, on the whole, WP is less trustworthy, valid, useful or reliable than “real encyclopedias”?

The reality is that putting “experts” through the wringer to prove their expertise (for no money, of course) is just going to make the experts go away. So, you have a much smaller number of experts, in a smaller number of fields, given more power to edit, and responsibility for more content outside their skillset. That’s not how to make your articles more accurate.

[Dewey_Finn]

The OP might prefer Scholarpedia, a peer-reviewed online encyclopedia.

[FXMastermind]

@Cheesesteak

Is there any evidence that, on the whole, WP is less trustworthy, valid, useful or reliable than “real encyclopedias”?

It depends.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Drunky_Smurf

How are you a “qualified expert”?

I am an acknowledged expert/authority on several topics. Most are fairly esoteric and niche, but I am the field- and peer-acknowledged dean of the subjects.

@Cheesesteak

Is there any evidence that, on the whole, WP is less trustworthy, valid, useful or reliable than “real encyclopedias”?

That misdirecting question has very little to do with WP’s place in things. For one thing, most studies of its accuracy confine themselves to hard-science nuggets like the chemical elements or mathematical constants, in which there is little if any room for variation from globally-established facts.

The reality is that putting “experts” through the wringer to prove their expertise (for no money, of course) is just going to make the experts go away. So, you have a much smaller number of experts, in a smaller number of fields, given more power to edit, and responsibility for more content outside their skillset. That’s not how to make your articles more accurate.

Oh, bullshit. You have no idea what constitutes a reference, an expert or accuracy. You have slurped up the “the interwebz is jest as smart as Steve-o Hawking” kool-aid in great quantity.

A reference that is subject to change by any visitor and votes on the truth (with utterly unqualified scorekeepers having veto power) is no better than its dumbest contributor. If WP stayed on that level, as a “people’s 'cyclopedia,” I wouldn’t have another word to say on the matter. It’s that it’s slowly displacing valid notions of what a reference is, what expertise consists of, and how accuracy is determined in the face of contrary popular vote/opinion/prejudice/fanwanking.

[Cheesesteak]

@Amateur_Barbarian

That misdirecting question has very little to do with WP’s place in things. For one thing, most studies of its accuracy confine themselves to hard-science nuggets like the chemical elements or mathematical constants, in which there is little if any room for variation from globally-established facts.

So, no, you don’t have any actual facts to support your claim that WP is a shitpile while “real” encyclopedias are trustworthy.

Oh, bullshit. You have no idea what constitutes a reference, an expert or accuracy.

I know what constitutes data. It’s that stuff that you don’t have supporting your claim that someone else’s work is a pile of shit.

I truly apologize for ‘misdirecting’ your rant by asking if any of your complaints have objective merit. No reason to allow facts and data to sully a discussion about the accuracy of encyclopedias.

[Steophan]

@Amateur_Barbarian

I am an acknowledged expert/authority on several topics. Most are fairly esoteric and niche, but I am the field- and peer-acknowledged dean of the subjects.

Then you’ll have no problem citing your publications that the field and your peers have read to form that opinion. Ideally, though, those peers should do the citing to avoid a conflict of interest.

I mean, it couldn’t possibly be that, despite your obvious expertise and renown, you haven’t actually got those publications, right?

[FXMastermind]

@Steophan

you haven’t actually got those publications, right?

It’s a trap!

[BigT]

Expecting verification of information is not a bad thing. Expecting an expert to be able to actually cite the relevant research is not a bad thing. Expecting that we should just take your word that you are an expert is a bad thing.

The problems with Wikipedia are all about fake experts OWNing articles. Instead of curating the articles by including anything with a proper citation from a proper source, they assert editorial control over the entire article. They actively discourage people from contributing.

That is what hurts Wikipedia. Not their perfectly rational idea that you should have to verify what you add.

[Penfeather]

@Amateur_Barbarian

I am an acknowledged expert/authority on several topics. Most are fairly esoteric and niche, but I am the field- and peer-acknowledged dean of the subjects.

Acknowledged by whom? Other fanboys?

[FXMastermind]

@BigT

Instead of curating the articles by including anything with a proper citation from a proper source, they assert editorial control over the entire article. They actively discourage people from contributing.

You got that right. But in Wikiality, the largest group of idiots determines what is true.

And since most people stop caring, they will always win.

[Joey_P]

@Amateur_Barbarian

I am an acknowledged expert/authority on several topics. Most are fairly esoteric and niche, but I am the field- and peer-acknowledged dean of the subjects.

Mind linking to them. You keep saying this, but never back it up.

[Knorf]

In other words, give up your anonymity! Give it up now!

[Penfeather]

@Joey_P

Mind linking to them. You keep saying this, but never back it up.

It’s either bronies or juggalos.