Using, trusting and citing Wikipedia

[scotandrsn]

[QUOTE=Garfield226]

Also, I get the “but it isn’t attributed to anyone” deal. How do you know if an anonymous contributor knows what he’s talking about? How do you know if a reporter knows what she’s talking about? You don’t – you trust that if they screw up enough, they won’t be allowed to contribute anymore. If a reporter screws up enough, he or she gets fired. If a Wikipedia contributor screws up enough, he or she gets banned. And it’s a whole lot easier to see what any particular Wikipedia editor has edited (particulary what they edited recently) than it is to see a reporter’s portfolio (particularly if their paper isn’t a major one with a big online presence).
[/QUOTE]

A paper that is concerned with its reputation for reliability has recourse to a standard set of journalistic standards. A common journalistic standard for information-gathering is “don’t print it as fact unless it is corroborated by two independent sources.” A particular editor may or may not strive to adhere to that standard, but it’s there.

Wikipedia has no such standard. The standard for information-gathering on Wikipedia is “look what I just pulled out of my ass”. For every article there that has a list of linked references (and I have already acknowledged that number is growing), there are three that will have at least one outlandish line of bullshit followed by “[citation needed]”, that stays that way forever. A real standard for Wiki would be to immediately delete any article that lacked citations, but they don’t roll that way.

[QUOTE=Garfield226]
Finally, I’m not sure if you realize how easy it would be for a determined person to screw up a newspaper, and how much less detectable to the reader it would be to do in print than on Wikipedia. It’s extremely easy for anyone from the reporter to the photographer to the editor to the designer to the copy editor to the graphics person to intentionally put an error in print. It would then be much harder for the end user to determine where that error was introduced and by whom, and it would likely be nearly impossible for the average reader to determine what the correct information was before the error was introduced. With Wikipedia, you click on the “History” tab and the “Compare selected versions” button, and then working your way back you can see exactly what was added or removed, when, and by whom.
[/QUOTE]

There’s not foolproof system. But even in the world of journalism, an editor has a reputation to uphold, his good name to defend. When Blair ws fired from the times, others lost their jobs as well, because it was their duty to make sure Blair couldn’t screw up the system, purposefully or inadvertently.

On Wikipedia, if a particular article is messed up by 185.34.237.6, then automatically reverted to a previous edit by VandalBot, then later amended by user SpazChow, no one has any particular stake in the accuracy of the outcome. If SpazChow was shown repeatedly to fuck with Wiki’s standards, they could just create a different username and keep screwing around. A newspaper editor can’t do the same thing if exposed.

[Thrasymachus]

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]

Wikipedia has no such standard. The standard for information-gathering on Wikipedia is “look what I just pulled out of my ass”. For every article there that has a list of linked references (and I have already acknowledged that number is growing), there are three that will have at least one outlandish line of bullshit followed by “[citation needed]”, that stays that way forever. A real standard for Wiki would be to immediately delete any article that lacked citations, but they don’t roll that way.
[/QUOTE]

Well, actually there are standards for WP as have been noted by others in this thread, and it is not “I pulled it out of my ass”, which is why the “citation needed” tag is so prevalent in many of the articles . And as you have suggested yourself, the WP is always growing so it goes something like this:

User A creates an article about something and adds it. There is no way of knowing if they are correct, and even so, this individual may be a terrible writer so the article is not really useful yet. It might also be redundant to other sections of the wiki. There’s a term for this, called a “stub”.

User B sees this article and tags it for needing references, cleanup, etc., and so on… With time, the articles get much better, but for obscure or esoteric things it can take a good while. The popular stuff has a lot more eyes on it, which is generally a plus for accuracy; but can invite vandalism as well.

At any point in the history of the article, random user C can swing by and look. Generally the older articles that have been edited for a few rounds are much better than new ones.

This is true for anything that is under constant improvement! All other media puts out new editions that have changed material, new sections, deleted old stuff, etc…, and at any time you can expect to find flaws in any copy of it.

Why?

• Because the world this media describes is always changing and by definition must change first to be documented, so any fact repository is always incomplete.

• The process is done by humans, ergo there are errors.

• With many humans checking each other these errors can be minimized.

• However, the errors can never be zero.

• The above are true whether the endpoint for the media in question is a website or a printing press or a TV documentary.

[Menocchio]

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
One major difference: articles in all those other media have authors. If I read an op-ed piece by someone who’s not a name columnist, there’s a description of who they are and where they work. There’s far greater transparency in a peer-reviewed journal, where not just open identities but statements of possible conflicts of interest and funding sources are aired. If (as happened recently in the New York Times Book Review section) John Dean pans a book co-written by Mark “Deep Throat” Felt, at least we know where the reviewer is coming from and potential bias can be openly debated.
[/QUOTE]

That’s only useful if you’ve heard of the source. The majority of writers in all genres and fields are so obscure that they might as well be anonymous.

[Pushkin]

I prefer to look on Wikipedia as a gateway for technical subjects, that can be trumped by individual websites/publications on specific subjects.

When I looked up information on the Apple Mac (as a simple example) for an assignment, much of what I found on separate websites was all together on the Wikipedia article. In this case it saved time to use Wikipedia, but I wouldn’t have been so sure had I not referenced other sources at the same time.

[Jackmannii]

@Jackmannii

One major difference: articles in all those other media have authors. If I read an op-ed piece by someone who’s not a name columnist, there’s a description of who they are and where they work. There’s far greater transparency in a peer-reviewed journal, where not just open identities but statements of possible conflicts of interest and funding sources are aired. If (as happened recently in the New York Times Book Review section) John Dean pans a book co-written by Mark “Deep Throat” Felt, at least we know where the reviewer is coming from and potential bias can be openly debated.

@Menocchio

That’s only useful if you’ve heard of the source. The majority of writers in all genres and fields are so obscure that they might as well be anonymous.

And as soon as they advance novel and controversial ideas that bring them to public attention, their “anonymity” has ended. Their qualifications and background can be investigated.

If a writer claims that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS, it is relatively easy to check on him/her, and if the closest the writer ever got to a virology lab was emptying its trash, then we have a pretty good handle on how seriously those opinions should be treated. If on the other hand a Wikipedia article confidently announced that “Some people think that the HIV/AIDS connection has not been sufficiently proven” and supplied an equal number of references for both sides of the argument, some users would be deceived into thinking it was a debatable issue.

(Note that I am not referring to a specific Wikipedia article here. But I’ve seen this ploy (“Some people think that…”) used to advance a pseudoscientific proposition or personal attack in a Wikipedia article, when the line should read “I and a small coterie of Froot Loops think that…”)

[scotandrsn]

[QUOTE=Thrasymachus]
Well, actually there are standards for WP as have been noted by others in this thread, and it is not “I pulled it out of my ass”, which is why the “citation needed” tag is so prevalent in many of the articles .
[/QUOTE]

When a newspaper publishes “facts” in such a manner, making spurious claims and worrying about substantiating it later, if ever, it earns the name “tabloid” or “rag”.

You are placing Wikipedia’s credibility at the same level as the Weekly World News. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
When a newspaper publishes “facts” in such a manner, making spurious claims and worrying about substantiating it later, if ever, it earns the name “tabloid” or “rag”.

You are placing Wikipedia’s credibility at the same level as the Weekly World News. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, at the Weekly World News level is Uncyclopedia.

The day I see the WWN putting a corrections page is the day one could just barely consider they could get to the level of Wikipedia.

As I said before in a different thread, a Wikipedia cite is good only if the writer did support their entry, it is IMO good enough to be used for a cite in the SDMB with the understanding that further info is needed, it has to be noticed that in academia using even the Encyclopedia Britannica as the only cite is discouraged too, point being that the student then is not doing any research whatsoever.

So no, Wikipedia should not be the end itself; however, as many mentioned before, it is a wonderful tool once one is aware of what to look for. One can miss lots of current info in traditional references, Wikipedia has the advantage in that it can lead one to a better current source for a topic.

[dropzone]

[QUOTE=saoirse]
Yes, they do. Go to your library. Look up the New York Times. You will see one (1) copy of each day’s edition preserved there.
[/QUOTE]
And if you use that edition as your reference and I have a later one that corrects the story I get to laugh at you. Which brings us back to the folly of using a single source as your reference, be it the NYT or WP.

[Garfield226]

[QUOTE=saoirse]
Yes, they do. Go to your library. Look up the New York Times. You will see one (1) copy of each day’s edition preserved there.
[/QUOTE]

Like these are finished?

[JohnT]

I went to look up Diamond. Here’s the entirety of today’s Wiki entry on “Diamond”:

Diamond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

lkjjk

Retrieved from “Diamond - Wikipedia”

In bold is the text of the article, in full.

So, let’s look at the “Edit History”

(cur) (last) 15:48, 28 January 2007 Delldot (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted vandalism by 64.246.196.144 to last version by Vsmith.)

:rolleyes:

That 64.246.196.144 - I’ll never believe a word he says again!

Looking further, since January 18th, there has been 6 attempts to “vandalize” the article on diamonds.

Diamonds. Rocks. Hunks of carbon, and people are “vandalizing” an article about it.

What was all that about Wiki being really trustworthy in articles dealing with the sciences? Never saw an entry like that in my World Book!

[JohnT]

Part A) A major newspaper which I’m familiar with prints at least three editions EVERY DAY, and at least four editions for the Sunday paper. Each of those three (or four) editions is usually zoned at least three ways. Frequently, and perhaps even more often than not, a later paper will have an article that wasn’t even in the first edition. Less frequently, a later edition will not have a story that was in the first edition. Nearly always there will be changes between the stories in each edition, sometimes very significant changes. Nearly always, each zone will get certain stories specific to that zone, and will not get stories specific to other zones.

You’re purposely ignoring the point.

Just because a paper prints different editions is irrelevant when the question regards post-publication editing. It’s impossible to edit a newspaper (any edition) after the thing is printed, but completely possible to do the same to a Wiki article. See the above post regarding “Diamonds”.

Two people comparing the May 4th 2005, afternoon edition of your local paper will read the exact same thing. Therefore, the article is citable and the information within, unchanging.

Citing the changes is possible in Wiki, true, but given the sort of things people do with Wiki (again, reference the above post regarding Wiki’s article on diamonds) I cannot see how anybody can call the thing “trustworthy.”

[Garfield226]

[QUOTE=JohnT]
You’re purposely ignoring the point.

Just because a paper prints different editions is irrelevant when the question regards post-publication editing. It’s impossible to edit a newspaper (any edition) after the thing is printed, but completely possible to do the same to a Wiki article. See the above post regarding “Diamonds”.

Two people comparing the May 4th 2005, afternoon edition of your local paper will read the exact same thing. Therefore, the article is citable and the information within, unchanging.
[/QUOTE]
And you’re deliberately ignoring my point. It is exceedingly simple to link to a permanent copy of any version of any given article on Wikipedia, with the exceptions of articles that are deleted (which usually aren’t worth citing anyhow).

Here is the current version of the page on “Diamond.” That link leads you to the page as I saw it, no matter who edits it in the future. It always will. It’s a PERMANENT link. This is provided by the “permanent link” link on the sidebar to the article.

Two people reading this link will read the exact same thing. Therefore, the article is citable and the infomation within, unchanging.

[Shagnasty]

[QUOTE=JohnT]
You’re purposely ignoring the point.

Just because a paper prints different editions is irrelevant when the question regards post-publication editing. It’s impossible to edit a newspaper (any edition) after the thing is printed, but completely possible to do the same to a Wiki article. See the above post regarding “Diamonds”.

Two people comparing the May 4th 2005, afternoon edition of your local paper will read the exact same thing. Therefore, the article is citable and the information within, unchanging.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see the point except in a Cover Your Ass kind of way. An incorrect fact like the NYT generates every day is still as wrong as a Wikipedia article that someone cites that has the same error. The conclusions that one draws off of them are still tainted by the error and that is the main thing that is important. It is probably worse with the NYT because it is a trusted sources and citing an error allows it to filterl down and contaminate other sources over and over again.

The major point still stands that no one can trust any source indiscriminately and the mark of any good researcher is to make that call regardless of the cite comes from Wikipedia or the most elite newspapers.

[Garfield226]

And regarding your little “experiment,” it seems awfully odd to me that you saw the vandalized article when you looked up “Diamond” but saw that someone had ALREADY corrected the vandalism when you looked at the edit history. Considering that the vandalism existed for all of one minute, that must be quite the coincidence.

[JohnT]

[QUOTE=Garfield226]
And you’re deliberately ignoring my point. It is exceedingly simple to link to a permanent copy of any version of any given article on Wikipedia, with the exceptions of articles that are deleted (which usually aren’t worth citing anyhow).

Here is the current version of the page on “Diamond.” That link leads you to the page as I saw it, no matter who edits it in the future. It always will. It’s a PERMANENT link. This is provided by the “permanent link” link on the sidebar to the article.

Two people reading this link will read the exact same thing. Therefore, the article is citable and the infomation within, unchanging.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but when the article in question is apparently undergoing some sort of bizarre flame war available at the “home page” of Diamond - Wikipedia , what’s the worth of the cite in question?

Looking at the link, that is most definitely not the current article… or else why would the URL contain the phrasing “oldID=103949028”? What’s wrong with using Diamond - Wikipedia if this thing is as reliable as being claimed?

Because it’s not reliable and the topics “home page” has been screwed by flamers. As long as crap like this happens, is allowed to happen, Wiki will never be reliable or trustworthy.

[JohnT]

[QUOTE=Garfield226]
And regarding your little “experiment,” it seems awfully odd to me that you saw the vandalized article when you looked up “Diamond” but saw that someone had ALREADY corrected the vandalism when you looked at the edit history. Considering that the vandalism existed for all of one minute, that must be quite the coincidence.
[/QUOTE]

In case you’re calling me a liar, this post gives a timestamp as to when I had the impetus to look up “Diamond” at Wiki.

At that time, the above is what I saw.

Again, I never had a paper encyclopedia “vandalized”, nor did the editors have to warn me that such a thing was possible.

[Garfield226]

[QUOTE=JohnT]
Yeah, but when the article in question is apparently undergoing some sort of bizarre flame war available at the “home page” of Diamond - Wikipedia , what’s the worth of the cite in question?

Looking at the link, that is most definitely not the current article… or else why would the URL contain the phrasing “oldID=103949028”? What’s wrong with using Diamond - Wikipedia if this thing is as reliable as being claimed?

Because it’s not reliable and the topics “home page” has been screwed by flamers. As long as crap like this happens, is allowed to happen, Wiki will never be reliable or trustworthy.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it most certainly IS the current article as of this post. It was also the article as it was when I looked at it. The “oldID=” is Wikipedia’s coding. Go to any article and click “Permanent link.”

If the New York Times is such a reliable paper, surely I can just pick up any old one and find any information you’re citing, right? No. I have to find one from a particular date. What’s more, I might even need to find the CORRECT edition. Imagine that.

Anyway, you started out claiming that the ability to properly cite the revision the author viewed is gone, and I corrected you on the point. You then moved the goalposts. Then you were dishonest in your post on the vandalism in the diamonds article (I’m unaware of a universe in which 5:15 P.M. = 9:48 A.M., and you seem to be attracting coincidences what with that new Wikipedia user adding a paragraph about just the same thing your thread happened to be about).

You were wrong, I pointed it out, and now you’re weaseling. Even when citing paper encyclopedias, I’m pretty sure that most style guides ask for an edition. Although Wikipedia moves at a faster pace, there’s no reason the same practice isn’t adequate.

[Pushkin]

I don’t want to bump this thread unnecessarily, but I thought it useful to give more academic input. Not mine, but the meeting I just minuted at the university where I work.

According to one academic, “Wikipedia isn’t completely bollocks,” But seriously speaking, suggestions were made that wikipedia be ruled out completely, but it was also suggested that since there was a lot to be recommended on Wikipedia it be suggested as a starting point for other websites or study.

As an aside, I had to wince when I saw two essays with attached printouts from Wikipedia showing where whole paragraphs had been lifted and pasted into a students essay :o

[Odesio]

Isn’t Wikipedia rife with plagiarism? That would seem to be a valid reason to shun it.

Marc

[Evil_Captor]

If you want to see a hotly disputed page on Wikipedia, go to the page on Swiftboating. Conservatives would like it defined as “vigorously exposing a politician’s lies.” Others feel otherwise. If you look at the discussion tab you’ll see what I mean. I tend to be very wary of politically or culturally ‘hot’ topics. Otherwise, it seems on the whole to be accurate.