Wikipedia is hardly authoritative on any subject

[Tux of Borg]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16353073.htm

 

Wikipedia is hardly authoritative on any subject

By DEREK DONOVAN

 

One of the most important tasks of a readers’ representative is to make sure the newspaper gets its facts straight. I’m gratified that readers never seem shy about pointing out errors in the The Kansas City Star.

 

I always try to verify information from independent, disinterested resources, as any journalist should. That’s why I’ve been chagrined lately to see more and more readers citing Wikipedia as proof of their assertions.

 

Wikipedia, which calls itself “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” is a Web site containing more than 1.5 million articles on a vast array of subjects, including current events. Created in 2001, it has rapidly become one of the key informational sources on the Internet, with heavy hitters like Google Earth referring to its content.

 

The concept seems interesting at first: Call upon everyone with Internet access to contribute, in the hopes of creating a constantly evolving, peer-reviewed body of knowledge that anyone can use for free.

 

In reality it’s an abject failure. I find it depressing that so many people, including many scientists, consider it authoritative.

 

Since anyone can instantly edit an article anonymously at any moment, there is an unceasing flow of vandalism to entries, especially on controversial topics. Plagiarism is widespread and difficult to identify.

 

Obviously, users can edit information pertaining to themselves. Early podcaster Adam Curry was famously caught altering an entry to omit references to his competitors — the very model of a conflict of interest.

 

People often engage in “edit wars,” in which opposing authors change details back and forth until one side wins through sheer tenacity. Entries are written by ardent fans and zealous foes, and dispassionate voices are rare.

 

The biggest problem with Wikipedia, though, is its utter lack of intellectual proportion. As of this writing, the entry on the purely fictional discipline of “lightsaber combat” from the Star Wars movies runs more than 14,000 words, while the real-life sport of fencing gets just over 9,000. Franz Schubert’s entry is 3,200 words vs. Britney Spears’ 5,200. You simply can’t parody something so ridiculous.

 

All you Wikipedians, please spare me the angry e-mail. Feel free to use the site all you want (though I certainly have sympathy for teachers who have to vet today’s Wikified term papers).

 

Just remember that being able to change a “fact” yourself doesn’t make it true. Wikipedia has no more credibility than any other anonymous source when it comes to ferreting out errors. It’s popular because it’s free, not because it’s good.

[Helmet_hair]

I edit Wikipedia

I memorized Holy Grail really well

I can recite it right now and have you R-O-T-F-L-O-L

I got a business doing websites

When my friends need some code, who do they call?

I do HTML for 'em all

Even made a homepage for my dog, yo

I got myself a fanny pack

They were havin' a sale down at The Gap

Spend my nights with a roll of bubble wrap

Pop, pop - hope no one sees me gettin' freaky

I'm nerdy in the extreme

Whiter than sour cream

I was in AV club and glee club

And even the chess team

Only question I ever thought was hard

Was "Do I like Kirk or do I like Picard?"

Spend every weekend at the Renaissance Faire

Got my name on my underwear

[RuntheDamnBall]

This is no news flash nor is it a really bad thing. A major library journal reviewed Wikipedia and gave it various grades on different topics. It was pretty interesting to see how it graded out (C- on history, B- on sciences, etc). In general, it was found that egregious errors in more serious topics of discussion were quickly fixed. So, in a sense, it works. And at its best it can be sort of like open source, in that this medium that is free to all to review and use and amend, with the eventual outcome of the best prevailing. As with this system, the work of a joker or a hacker can certainly permeate the system, but it's often remedied with better results.

 

Where caution should be taken is that students and serious educational authorities should take pains to make it clear that it's not a valid scholarly source subject to the kind of peer review standards required for serious educational research. But this goes more at the heart of how research is taught than it does to Wikipedia (and our search for quick and easy answers) itself. Wikipedia is just reflective of an Internet that was never a 100% reliable source of information anyway. It's a good pointer, and I really value the 'links' at the bottom to more credible sources.

 

At the same time, we need to think about how we conceive of knowledge as a saleable item. Do we have these problems if something like Britannica.com or an academic journal search is available to all? And if it is, how do the makers of it make a living?