27 Comments

1. PaulJC:

At least the Blogosphere and even the Old Media has names and brands attached to particular views and information. People are perfectly capable of assesing through a reputation system, should it be possible/allowed.

Dec 6, 2005 - 6:02 pm 2. Doug S.:

Dr. Johnson actually wrote a Dictionary of the English language, not an Encyclopedia. But be that as it may, Roger, I have always shared your distrust of Wikipedia and have no idea why anyone puts much faith in it. I want to know who is purporting to tell me the truth, and I feel I have a right to know.

I consider the set of Encyclopedia Brittanica that I used to use as a kid (still on the shelf at my mother’s house, which is why it comes to mind) to be infinitely more useful ó and it’s 30 years out of date by now. There, at least, they identified the authors of their longer articles, and gave fairly detailed bibliographies.

Dec 6, 2005 - 6:02 pm 3. Roger:

Oops, good point, Doug S. Noted. I guess I’ll have to turn in my copy of Rasselas.

Dec 6, 2005 - 6:21 pm 4. Chad:

I hereby propose a corollary to Godwin’s Law.

Whoever quotes Wikipedia as a source in an argument automatically loses the argument.

I’ll call it Chad’s law. And I copywrite it now! mhuah hahah

Dec 6, 2005 - 7:04 pm 5. PC14:

The first time I referenced Wiki was when someone told me to look up something about the Swiftvets. I looked up “Swiftboating” and nearly had a stroke. I mean, I actually thought it was supposed to be a digital encyclopedia. My dumb, as they say.

Dec 6, 2005 - 7:49 pm 6. Jonathan Hawkins:

The trick with Wikipedia is that it can’t be trusted to not be messed with by partisans. They’re struggling with that right now.

However, try something non-political you know about already and see what you think.

Dec 6, 2005 - 8:05 pm 7. Rick Ballard:

This article covers legal issues relating to blogger liability regarding defamation. The piece refers to the Wikipedia matter as well as the Barrett case that is wending ever closer to an important decision.

Dec 6, 2005 - 8:06 pm 8. AndyRoark:

You know what I did tonight?

I typed a twenty page lab report due in my Control Systems class, an Electrical Engineering Senior level class. I did this the week before finals because my professor is sadistic.

Why does this matter? Because I suddenly came up needing the general formulas for the representations of sawtooth and triangle wave forms. Halfway down the page Wikipedia was listed as a source on the Sawtooth search on Google. I jumped on it.

Quickly, without having to pour through pages of some Math grad student’s rambling summary of the importance of Sawtooth waves in relation to Dark Matter, I found the simple, basic general form of a Sawtooth wave. I didn’t even have to scroll down. I used the formula in the Mathcad page I was working on, finished the report and moved on.

The point of this diatribe? You folks are missing the forest for the trees. Politics tends to narrow the view of everything down to slinging mud based on giblets of over-hyped, selected information. Wikipedia is an invaluable tool and, despite everyone’s constant protestations about “validity” “fact checking” and “accountability” has provided the quickest, easiest and simple way for most people to find the needed information in the shortest time possible.

There is more to life than politics – and going after Wikipedia because some people have too much time on their hands and other people have too much time on their hands to complain about the first group is moronic. No disrespect intended, Mr. Simon.

Dec 6, 2005 - 8:14 pm 9. Patrick Tyson:

Wikipedia is an invaluable tool…

Amen.

Dec 6, 2005 - 9:08 pm 10. Doug S.:

On the other hand, Andy Roark, this isn’t just about partisan politics.

A friend of mine recently went to Wikipedia to check out the entry on George Washington. He reported (through a post on a web forum that he runs) that the entry described Washington as the greatest general in history, after the Duke of Wellington. He reported this with a question mark, as in, “Is this really true?”

As someone who is better read in military history than my friend, I would say that it is certainly an unconventional judgment (Alexander, anyone? Napoleon? Genghis Khan?). I don’t call it wrong, or stupid, or crazy. But it is unconventional. It certainly makes me wonder (as it made him wonder) about the identity, background and expertise of whoever wrote the entry. It’s not a judgment that I think ought to be accepted uncritically by someone who is not a student of military history.

My point about our old Encyclopedia Britannica is this, and it also has to do (by pure coincidence) with the Duke of Wellington. If you look at their extended entry on the Iron Duke, it presents a revisionist view of his political career ó certainly rather unconventional. But Britannica also tells you who wrote the entry: Elizabeth Longford, who wrote what is probably the standard Wellington biography of the last 50 years. If you wanted a fuller explanation of her views on her subject, you could read her work. That is transparency ó a virtue that Roger, among other champions of blogging, like about internet-based communication. Wikipedia, because of its insistence on hiding its authors, is not transparent and is, in this regard, strangely reactionary.

Dec 6, 2005 - 9:12 pm 11. Patrick Tyson:

I’m reminded of this:

Perhaps only another soldier, and that the greatest, could truly gauge the fortitude it took to weather the military extremity of the bad years. At any rate, when Washington died and the word got to Europe, Napoleon himself was seen to bow his head. In the English Channel, the British fleet fired a salute of twenty guns.

—Alstair Cooke, Alstair Cooke’s America

…

I checked out the Wikipedia entries on the Crips and the Bloods after reading “Hang ‘Em High – Death Penalty Revisited” and the associated commentary last Thursday night. A Williams debriefing, it appears, could answer a lot of questions including a few of my own. As to this…

http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/crip.htm

it’s a stylized form of bragging about the gang’s penchant for crippling opponents is the explanation I first heard early in 1972 or thereabouts from someone who should have known. Interestingly enough, I also remember the canes, but I don’t remember ever associating them with the name. Is this useful information?

Dec 6, 2005 - 9:52 pm 12. Patrick Tyson:

Make that Alistair. Sigh.

Dec 6, 2005 - 9:54 pm 13. Patrick Tyson:

One more thing…

This is part of the Wikipedia entry for USC Trojans Football:

Seven USC players have won the prestigious Heisman Trophy award, equalled only by the University of Notre Dame, which also has had seven Heisman Trophy winners. USC’s Heisman Trophy winners include:

Reggie Bush (2005)

Matt Leinart (2004)

Carson Palmer (2002)

Marcus Allen (1981)

Charles White (1979)

O.J. Simpson (1968)

Mike Garrett (1965)

As yet no one has added that they won the Rose Bowl and another National Championship by beating Texas on January 4, 2006 but I expect that will occur any day now…and it will be just as true if even more premature.

Dec 6, 2005 - 10:08 pm 14. Ed Poinsett:

As Andy Roark says Wiki can be very useful. It is what it is. It’s not promoted as the end all for information. However, it can be a good source. Caveat Emptor should always be invoked when using the internet for research. If you don’t trust it don’t use it or, at least multi source the verification. Not a hand wringer for me.

Dec 7, 2005 - 6:08 am 15. AndyRoark:

Doug,

History is the battlefield on which the fallout of partisian politics is cleaned up.

I’ll concede that any entry on Wikipedia involving any political or historical topic would need to be viewed with a grain of salt if you’ll concede that the treasured Dead Tree Encyclopedia is just as biased, only with a paper trail.

In the end it comes down to critical thinking. I’ve known hundreds of people who will believe anything they see in print, no matter where it is printed – Online, old books, the New York Times. Personally I understand that every word written down was written by someone else and it is very possible I will disagree with them.

In today’s political world the first knee-jerk response to everything is to attack the messenger. Sure, a Wikipedia entry by “AngryLeftist” that denouces the parentage of George W. Bush would be easily ignored – but wouldn’t it anyway?

Maybe it is just the irony of the bloggers attacking Wikipedia for a lack of credibility, after they endured years of the same attacks from the MSM, that makes this even mildly interesting for me. In the last week these bloggers seem to have drastically misunderstood their own readers and are engaging in the same sort of “single example” hyperbole in relation to Wikipedia. One guy accused another of being involved in the Kennedy assassination, so all of Wikipedia is untrusthworthy! Reminds me alot of the comment that gave Mr. Simon’s new venture its name.

Dec 7, 2005 - 6:42 am 16. Steven Mitchell:

The problem with Wikipedia is also its strength. They cannot fix the problem without squashing what it is. The reputation it builds on non-partisan matters is precisely what is used by partisans to appeal to authority–even when the cited Wiki entry is obviously crap.

Since the partisan stuff is totally leftist, and kept that way by the closed clique that has ultimate delete capability–it is effectively just another form of academica/MSM, but with a better reputation.

I see it as a response to the way that Americans have gradually come to accept that the MSM is biased. A leftist with no ability to get from A to B (much less a conclusion) no longer can cite a Time mag article as a definitive argument winner. He needs an alternate source. Wikipedia citing the same Time mag article seems to be more readily accepted right now.

Dec 7, 2005 - 10:18 am 17. Steven Mitchell:

Andy Roark, go read the entries on Bush and Kerry. Then come back here and tell us with a straight face, “single example.” If that is not enough for your, keep reading their stuff on current politics.

Dec 7, 2005 - 10:20 am 18. DanHaigh:

Andy Roark said: “Maybe it is just the irony of the bloggers attacking Wikipedia for a lack of credibility, after they endured years of the same attacks from the MSM, that makes this even mildly interesting for me.”

I think a deeper investigation of that comparison reveals the undermining flaw of Wikipedia. Bloggers have long (and correctly) defended blogging for being a self-correcting format. Rapid cross-checking and frequent challenges by other bloggers inflict a certain standard of accuracy even when the original entry was not vigorously validated. The blogger’s reputation, if not identity, is visible to all. And so are all the challenges, refutations and counter-points by others.

None of this is true of Wikipedia. Wikipedia borrows too heavily from the wrong parent: its entries are edited to resemble encyclopedia entries and not wiki discussions. The cogent defense of contrary positions is not part of the primary content.

Anecdotes of research successes are not a compelling defense of the product. If 10% of the entries are grievously wrong, that’s clearly an unacceptable level of accuracy, yet 90% of the users would still report a positive experience. Anecdotes of error are not similarly irrelevant.

Dec 7, 2005 - 11:02 am 19. lrhaughton:

Dan

You make a good point when you write “Wikipedia borrows too heavily from the wrong parent: its entries are edited to resemble encyclopedia entries.”

But when you write, “If 10% of the entries are grievously wrong, that’s clearly an unacceptable level of accuracy…” I have to ask, “Says who?”

Obviously you can play with the word “grievously” but in general who meets this 90/10 standard? (And please provide links to their measurement methods.)

I agree with the others who have suggested that we should trust no source implictly if we want to know the truth. Hidden agendas, self-serving fact twisting, ignorant pontification, and outright lying has been a part of the official and unofficial narrative since the first historians and journalists.

IMHO all the problems starts with the fact that intelligent people, people who do know better, keep quiet when any distortions (by others) work for them and their narrow interests.

We all need to up our willingness to promote the truth and call out those who screw with the truth, whoever and whatever party or agenda they serve.

That’s better IMHO that annointing our “betters” to filter all that we see and hear. That said I do agree that the look and feel should not make anything look overly authoritiative. I like the idea of real time comments and periodic clean-ups.

Dec 7, 2005 - 1:27 pm 20. Pixy Misa:

But when you write, “If 10% of the entries are grievously wrong, that’s clearly an unacceptable level of accuracy…” I have to ask, “Says who?”

You’re kidding, right?

As another commentator pointed out, “If you stir a teaspoon of shit into a gallon of icecream, you end up with a gallon of shit.” If 10% – or even 1% – of the articles are grievously wrong, and you don’t know which ones – then the entire exercise is worthless.

Fortunately there is a useful rule of thumb for identifying which articles are wrong. Anything purely technical is likely to be accurate. Anything touching on politics, even indirectly, is likely to be hopelessly skewed by leftist revisionism. (And it is almost always leftist revisionism.)

One of the things bloggers have is transparency. Wikipedia doesn’t. At all.

Dec 7, 2005 - 3:46 pm 21. lrhaughton:

No I’m not kidding. So name your 100% pure sources of information.

(And while your analogy is very vivid I don’t get it. I understand unwholesome food and the propagation of bacteria. But if I’m not swallowing every inaccurate line (or as you suggest not using the product at all for political research) how do I end up being hurt by some crap among the good data?)

Transparancy would be a good addition to the project. So who are you, mate?

Dec 7, 2005 - 4:27 pm 22. AndyRoark:

::Shrug::

I really didn’t intend to argue, I was just trying to point to some of the stronger points of Wikipedia. Those strong points will remain, as will Wikipedia. Requiring contributors to register will do nothing but deter additions to the general knowledge base and will do nothing to stop politically charged half-fact from being added. Want proof? Go look at the registered user book reviews on Amazon under Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. People who registered spew their partisian garbage all over books neither of them have read – just for the sake of internet activism.

Most of the folks here seem to only be using Wikipedia in relation to their politican/current event/historical activities. Because of the lack of user identity, you guys want to toss the baby out with the bathwater or burn the witch because she turned you into a newt. The fact is that most people who use internet encyclopdias are savy enough to know that any entry marginally related to politics and/or history will be heavily tinged with personal viewpoints. But tell me again how that is any different than any other source available anywhere? So what if I know the name of the guy with a personal axe to grind? The burden of proof is on the reader in this day and time. Anyone expecting anything less is living in fantasy land.

Do me a favor. Go look at the entry for a “Sawtooth Wave” on Wikipedia. Find any other webpage on the internet with the basic facts presented in as clear, concise and basic manner. Now do the same for an “8051 Microcontroller”. I bet you a wooden nickel the “other” pages you find won’t be on the same server, with a quick cross search available.

Wikipedia wins.

Dec 7, 2005 - 5:52 pm 23. WAmom:

Some “editor” made my friend “dead” by filling in (1926 – __) with the year 2001. His wife received a condolence.

Still, I have to say that Wikipedia is more accurate than most newspapers.

Dec 8, 2005 - 7:04 am 24. Steven Mitchell:

“Still, I have to say that Wikipedia is more accurate than most newspapers. ”

Talk about damning with faint praise!

Andy Roark, I notice you didn’t actually answer the points made.

“The fact is that most people who use internet encyclopdias are savy enough to know that any entry marginally related to politics and/or history will be heavily tinged with personal viewpoints.”

And this is patently false if you have ever spent any time in a forum with plenty of leftists. Besides, by your argument, Wikipedia should simply exclude all such entries. Then they will get, by your lights, fairly close to 99% accuracy, with a good chance of nailing down that last 1% over time.

When they do, I might care what they have to say. Until such time, I treat them the same way as I would any news magazine. Any time they write on a subject where I have some knowledge, they are invariably simple-minded or outright incorrect. Therefore, when reading their output on a subject where I have relatively little knowledge, I must assume equal accuracy, until vouched by some authority that I trust more, or I find the time to study the issue myself. (There are plenty of technical issues with political implications. I don’t pretend to know all of them.)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a relatively trusted authority. If it cannot fill that role, it is nigh worthless.

Dec 8, 2005 - 9:37 am 25. Steven Mitchell:

If it were the “WikiCliffNotes”, I’d say it works as advertised. You can get a “C” on an essay with that level of accuracy and insight.

Dec 8, 2005 - 9:38 am 26. LairdDrambeg:

Well Andy Roark I sure hope you did a backup check of Wikipedia’s write-up on sawtooth waves. Have you turned in that paper yet?:-) It’s a good thing your paper was not on Gaussian Elimination because Wikipedia’s example on that is just plain wrong – a fundamental of matrix calculation, which was laid down >150 years ago, should be correct you’d think but no.

Anonymous, unrefereed content seems like a bad idea.

Dec 10, 2005 - 3:09 am 27. AndyRoark:

“Anonymous, unrefereed content seems like a bad idea.”

In my case, the equation I used was plugged into Mathcad as part of a larger experiment. I needed the native, general form which I then altered with the specific variables in question and the output was generated and compared to the rest of the experiment.

Not only did I turn the lab report (what people with science degrees call “papers”), but I got it back with a 98 on the top of it. I lost two points because I have continually lost two points all semester because I disagree with my professor on how to handle one specific right calculation and I do it the right way.

I hesitated to post again because I have entered a foreign world. Most of you folks seem rather well versed in the world of debate – and I am not. As an aside, to the guy that posted I avoided his points earlier I would submit that when I didn’t argue with your points it was most likely because I agreed with them. In many ways I recognize the problems with Wikipedia, but I view them as being largely an issue of political bias on topics dealing with personal politics / history / religion /etc.

“It’s a good thing your paper was not on Gaussian Elimination because Wikipedia’s example on that is just plain wrong – a fundamental of matrix calculation, which was laid down >150 years ago, should be correct you’d think but no.”

And here is the thing … did you fix it? Because you can.

I’m afraid that in many ways this comes down to a difference in basic viewpoints. Knowledge is only valid as long as it fits with the rest of everything else. I didn’t use Wikipedia as a single source on which I hinged everything – it was used as a tool from which I quickly acquired a single equation on a project that involved the heavy use of additional texts, research and practical experimentation. The data was valid because it fit.

You guys seem hellbent to dismiss Wikipedia and I doubt I’ll change your minds about that. In reality, however, I think this debate is about something much larger. He who controls the information controls the world. In the same way the MSM reacted against the blogs, the blogs are now reacting against Wikipedia. In each case, the motivation was the same. Self appointed protectors of “the truth” determine that some other method (different than their own) of passing information is inferior – mostly because it is a threat to their own power.

Of course, the greatest debate settling point is on the page for John Seigenthaler Sr. The controversy that started this discussion has been documented there now. Why? Because it happened and someone felt it was worth including. And it was.

Dec 10, 2005 - 10:20 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: