The Danger of Wikipedia AKA "A false Wikipedia 'biography'

[carnivorousplant]

@Julius Henry

Author of false Wikipedia entry apologizes

As I recall, so did Ted Bundy.

[What_Exit]

Nature study covered side-by-side comparison of scientific topics
Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
Highlights:

Nature said in Wednesday’s article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three. Of eight “serious errors” the reviewers found – including misinterpretations of important concepts – four came from each source, the journal reported.

Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.

Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.

Jim

[Rini]

Here’s good criticism of Wikipedia: WikiWatch

[Kent_Clark]

@ed

And by the way, this little quote edit you made:

is really uncalled for. Snipping out the intervening bit about Cuomo to make it look like I was saying that about Seigenthaler is really pretty low. Thanks for that.

ed I was all set to apologize to you for taking your remark out of context.

So I went back and read the post I reacted to. Here it is, verbatim, no snipping or cutting:

*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.*

The comment that you say I took out of context was made before you brought Mario Cuomo into the conversation. If you meant it about Cuomo, I had no way of knowing that.

Of course, a good editor could have revised your original post to make it more clear that you were talking about Cuomo. But that would mean interposing a third-party authority figure between what you said and what I read.

And that’s so “old media.”

[Gary_Robson]

There are a lot of people in this thread who seem to have their information about Wikipedia about half right. I appreciate KellyM fixing some of the misconceptions. Let me fix a couple of others:

1. Lots of people are watching articles without being moderators or abitrators. I’ve contributed to about 50 of them. I have all of those articles on my watch list. Whenever anyone changes one of them, I go and read the change. Many are good. Some are vandalism. Some are misguided. We’ve only had an edit war on one of those, and we ended up resolving things on the talk page.

2. Lots of contributors are professionals. I’ve written for two different “real” paper encyclopedias, and I have written extensively on my areas of expertise. My credentials are posted on my user page, and all of my edits are done under my real name. I’ve encountered other experts that I recognize in Wikipedia, too, and I’ve been able to verify that it’s really them. I do wish more people would do that.

3. Some contributors are twits. I would love it if you had to be logged in to do any kind of editing (not just creating articles). I know it would reduce the number of people contributing, but hopefully it would weed out some of the turkeys, too.

4. The “official” Wikipedia crew is watching! I uploaded a photo and forgot to specify the ownership and copyright release. Someone spotted it and contacted me very quickly.

[ed]

@kunilou

The comment that you say I took out of context was made before you brought Mario Cuomo into the conversation. If you meant it about Cuomo, I had no way of knowing that.

No, you’re missing where you misquoted… you put a <snip> in place where you removed some text, and then later you leave out the bit between

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.

and (this part comes after my meant-to-be-funny anecdote):

I don’t think he’d ever seen the internet before, and I daresay he sounded outraged at the idea of it.

…which makes it sound like I’m making a rude joke about the wrong person. I’d think since I made that comment after my story it would have been clear, but once people go editing your quotes like that I guess the subtleties get lost.

If you’re trying to make a point it’s a pretty crappy way to do it. I’m not going to drag out this argument any further but I’ll say I’m glad the person who made this edit suffered repercussions, I’m glad it’s been fixed, and I hope we can find a way to resolve the different attitudes expressed by people in this thread, because there’s a lot of value in both ways of doing things. I don’t think that this is a sign that Wikipedia is useless, which I guess was all I was trying to say originally.