Physicain, heal thyself. 
Sorry. This coupon good for one free insult to Carnivorousplant.
What you never heard of the word Chage?
BTW check my bolding for you.
Jim (Professional poor speller)
Here’s the link for Chage 
After all, it was you and me!
I caught mine, but thought it funnier to leave it.
My mistkae on the Linux thing.
:smack:
Damn, that was hilarious! Poor Ric Romero. It doesn’t help his case that he looks disturbingly like the Will Ferrell character in anchorman.
I don’t know, reading that article is like reading a tirade by someone who is deeply troubled by what the internet represents. Information is distributed quickly and without centralized accountability… the horror!
There are a lot of people like him. I worked in the online newspaper industry (such as it was) briefly and there are a lot of people just like him out there, terrified that the old media model might become obsolete (never mind that this is far from the case) and unsure of how society might function without it. The fact that I, or anyone, can post information easily and have just about anyone read it, without it being distributed through a major media outlet, is extremely offensive to a certain viewpoint.
The fact that he didn’t fix the article himself just further indicates how little he “gets” the concept of what wikipedia (or indeed the internet) is about.
This reminds me of a radio show I used to listen to on NPR, featuring a local radio personality/political pundit and former NY state governor Mario Cuomo, discussing political issues (Mario and Me for WAMC listeners or anywhere it was syndicated). During the “mail bag” segment of one show, Alan (the host) read a letter asking if the show was going to be syndicated in a certain market, because they currently couldn’t listen to the show and really wanted to. Just as Alan began to answer, Mario interrrupts (reconstructed from my shoddy memory here):
Mario: “Wait, how does she know about this show, if it’s not broadcast in her area?”
Alan: “…uh, she probably looked it up on the internet. Anyway, to answer your question…”
Mario: “Now just hold on a minute, you mean I can go on this internet, right now, and if I just type in ‘Mario and Me’ I’ll get something that tells me what radio station it’s on?”
somewhat awkward pause
Alan: “yes, it’s listed quite clearly on our website. ANYWAYS, to address your…”
Mario: “So what you’re saying is, if I go right now and look up the name of this show, I can find out if it’s playing somewhere?”
Alan: “YES. In fact, you can listen to the show online.”
I don’t think he’d ever seen the internet before, and I daresay he sounded outraged at the idea of it.
Wikipedia is good for what it is: good quick and dirty information. But it’s not authoritative and that’s the tradeoff. It’s good enough for some things, but it’s clearly not the right tool for other research.
What is wikipdeia all about, ed? Certainly not reliable information.
This is not true.
I used Wikipedia for quite a while before I realized that its articles might just as well have been written by a monkey as by an expert.
[ul]
[li]There should be a big, flashing disclaimer at the top of every page.[/li][li]You should have to sign in to edit an article.[/li][li]Your articles should be subject to ratings by other signed in members, like ebay.[/li][li]Your ratings should be publicly visible.[/li][/ul]
Excluding some controversial topics where everyone is pushing an agenda, Wikipedia is certainly reliable. I’ve looked up many things in my areas of expertise and rarely could add anything, nor could I ever find anything clearly wrong. The most I could see was that some things were left out. I’ve also never found anything there that could not be confirmed by outside sources. Granted, I’m not using it that much, and I’m not looking up politically charged areas, but it’s overall a good source of information, especially on topics that are too obscure for the print dictionaries. (And I went into it being very skeptical of its value.)
It occurs to me that there’s another issue with Sigenthaler that I’ve seen with others: Internet newbies are very thin-skinned. Once you’ve been online for awhile, you don’t get upset over being flamed – it goes with the territory. But those who are new to the culture find flames upsetting.
Oh, I readily admit to a certain amount of outdated, wrong, or otherwise misleading information that exists in wikipedia. I also think it should most definitely not be treated as an authoritative source on anything, particularly disputed or controversial information. I think wikipedia’s greatest fault is the use of the suffix “edia”. It implies something that it’s not really supposed to be, in my opinion.
I could go on about the pros and cons of the wiki concept for a long time, but I can boil it down a bit: wikis are good for having a lot of information that is mostly accurate, but potentially suspect. The amount that it’s suspect is going to vary based on how controversial the subject is, among other things. As others have said, it’s a good starting point, not a good ending point. In this way it’s really a subset of the internet overall: it’s hard to verify anything thoroughly without digging deeper on your own, but as a generalized repository it has impressive power.
Of course, sometimes there are places where the information is wrong, or someone vandalizes an article. My point about him not “getting” it was that if he noticed it was wrong, he could have corrected it extremely easily. By not doing so, he’s missed the point, because the whole concept is based on the idea that someone in his situation would take a minute to correct it. In a way, it’s sort of silly for him to not bother to change it, but then to complain vociferously about it not being changed.
In my personal experience, wikipedia has been an invaluable resource for learning about topics that “get me where I need to go”. For example, if I need an explanation of a term that I see somewhere, or if I’d like a brief overview of some technical process I’ve never looked into. It’s also fantastic for less-than-serious subjects, such as getting explanations for entertainment topics or slang, or various other fads and things that mystify me as I get older. Overall, topics that don’t have a lot of controversy tend to be pretty reliable, although I would never use wikipedia as a cite (here or in any sort of academic endeavor).
I will also state that in my profession, almost everything I’ve read is incredibly reliable. I’m not sure what that’s worth, but it’s true.
This is not true.
That’s the entire idea of the thing. It’s supposed to be drawing on the knowledge of its users and readership. While there are plenty of mistakes and other things, self-correction is also part of its process.
For accuracy, I consider Wikipedia to be intermediate between a real encyclopedia and a random, unfamiliar website. It is less accurate than the former, but more accurate than the latter because the material is reviewed by unrelated people who don’t share an interest. If you are willing to use Google to find information, there is no reason you shouldn’t use Wikipedia as well. Obviously it should not be a serious research tool, but no one, as far as I know, is claiming that it should be.
One other thing. Some have said that Wikipedia is least reliable for controversial subjects, but I think that an article’s popularity is a more important factor. An article about a more popular subject will be reviewed by more people and their collective input is more likely to converge to a neutral point of view. Vandalism aside, even controversial subjects are generally well-represented, provided they are popular enough, because the various opinions tend to be represented in proportion to the number of contributors that hold them. A typical opinion paragraph reads, "Opponents point out that . . . but supporters counter that . . . while still others think that . . . " and so on. Thus, when only one opinion is being expressed, it is easy to tell.
Yes, it is true. I used to do this (before I moved on into dispute resolution), and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of editors doing it every day.
Just a note: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, will be appearing on CNN soon to discuss this incident. I don’t have exact date or time yet.
Edit warring is bad. We (the Arbitration Committee, of which I am a member) routinely restrict the editing rights of people who engage in edit warring, including restricting the ability of such editors to revert, banning them from the articles where they edit war, or banning them from Wikipedia entirely. In addition, anyone who reverts four times in 24 hours is subject to a one-day block by any administrator.
I should ask Brion what the proportion of edits by non-logged-on users is at the moment. Last time I asked, it was around 60%.
The information on Wikipedia could be true, and there could be a lot of people reviewing articles that were posted. That doesn’t mean it’s reliable. And I’m not saying Wikipedia isn’t useful. Just that it isn’t reliable.
If I read a book, or an article, or something like that, I have ways of judging the reliablity of what’s presented. If I read a biography of George Washington, for example, I cas say, “Ok, this author has a doctorate in history from the University of Richmond. He’s written three books and five articles, all well acclaimed, on Virginia plantation life in the 18th century, and two on the Revolutionary War. He was scholar in residence at Mount Vernon for six years. He’s therefore probably a trustworthy source for information on the topic.” Alternately, I could pick up one and say “Ok. This was written by a 13 year old middle school student for his American history class. It’s probably not the best source for information on Washington’s life.”
With Wikipedia, I don’t have any way to judge. I don’t know if the people writing the Washington article were historians or middle school students. If there’s incorrect information in an article will it be spotted and corrected? Maybe. Maybe not, depending on who reads the article and how well known the facts are. You know, if I were to post something saying that Denver is the capital of the US, I’m sure that will be corrected, but a technical detail on some less well known subject? Maybe not.