(Page 2 of 3)
TR: What do you say to educators who tell students not to use Wikipedia for their papers because it isn't a reputable or reliable source?
JW: I say that in the 1950s, parents told their kids not to listen to Elvis Presley. It's ridiculous to tell college students not to use Wikipedia. They all use it. Educators shouldn't abandon their responsibility to help students cope with the world in an adult manner. They should teach students to critically judge sources. They should teach about how Wikipedia is created and its strengths and weaknesses. And they should tell students when to use an encyclopedia versus when to step into the primary literature.
Encyclopedias give you fast, accurate background information. If you're reading a novel and come across a term you don't know -- for example, a novel set in World War II mentions the Battle of the Bulge -- go to an encyclopedia to look it up. If you're writing a paper on the Battle of the Bulge, Britannica or Wikipedia is not what you should be using. Read the article to get your bearings, but then do your homework.
Rock and roll will never die. Wikipedia is not going away, so if you tell your students not to use it, you're being unhelpful to them.
TR: How will you change Wikipedia to ensure higher-quality articles?
JW: Very soon in the German Wikipedia, there's going to be an experiment with stable versions. Trusted contributors will be able to identify work as being accurate and peer-reviewed, then set aside those articles so they can't be edited. How it's going to be reviewed and the level of quality -- the community needs to figure that out. Other versions will still be available for editing.
The reason we're doing this is that, in some cases, particularly with articles that are frequently vandalized, there is a good version of the article that people keep messing up. By doing this, we can extract out our own peaks.
TR: Wikipedia erects a technological barrier between its information and its users. There are many people with expertise who don't contribute because they don't use computers, can't afford Internet access, or don't understand how to use your software; and there are also end-users who can't access Wikipedia for the same reasons. If your goal is a high-quality encyclopedia that's available to everyone, how will you overcome this problem?
JW: You're right. Our mission has always been to provide a freely licensed encyclopedia to every single person in their own language. If you have a broadband connection and you speak English or a whole host of European languages, we're doing a good job. If you don't have a computer or don't speak one of those languages, we haven't achieved anything.
There is a technical barrier -- plenty of people find the software intimidating. You click edit, and while most times you just see sentences, sometimes you see formatting codes.
Even outside of that, there's a techno-social barrier. For some people, the act of participating is a barrier. I've met people who say they think everyone on Wikipedia sounds smart. They want to add something, but feel they don't know enough. In some cases, they don't know enough, but in some cases, they really should contribute.
Google's Knol project aims to make online information easier to find and more authoritative.
Guest (Chris Bradley)
Have you had your head in the clouds for too long to realize that the blanket is about to be pulled out from under your entire profession? Imagine people gaining doctorates without attending classes and laughing as those who do cringe in the fire...
Muhahahhaaha!
Guest (Xsarthis)
Are you stupid? Medicine will always be years of study and hard work. My fiance is finishing up her studies as a Physician's Assist. and I couldn't possibly know what she does without an enormous amount of study or work.
The internet is good for reference, but hell, you need to go to school to get scholarly reference and guidance, especially, in the sciences.
-X-
Check out AZMD.net - Your Source in Subculture Popculture
Guest (Tysto)
Wikipedia's value is marred by vandalism, not inaccuracy
Wikipedia is a great place to start finding out about a subject (in no case should it or any other encyclopedia be the primary source for even a high school paper), but vandalism is a huge problem. I think they should raise the bar to entry, at least limiting edit rights on heavily-vandalized articles to members with 500+ edits (new users could still make suggestions on the article's talk page). That would greatly reduce the casual vandalism and willful ignorance edits. I think the German experiment is too restrictive.
Guest (BT)
A variant of this is already in effect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy. As a fairly regular editor, vandalism is not so much of a problem because it is normally quite obvious. If you are reading the biography of Isaac Newton and you come across the line "My gym teacher smells", you can be fairly certain that you've stumbled across some vandalism. Sneaky vandalism to little looked at pages is far more of a problem. For an example, see a recent article in Wikipedia's community newsletter at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-08-07/Baseball biographies. In any case, editors are seriously considering the German process of stable version if the test succeeds. See Wikipedia:Stable versions.
Guest (Bruce Hitchman)
I'd like to have an avenue available to direct comments or discussion to the 'peer reviewers' in some cases. A few articles treating subjects I know well are not only defective in detail, but are submitted in a form that makes a proper abstract impossible to achieve by sorting out the accuracy of the claims. Is there a method for submitting an entirely revised article for review?
Guest (llywrch)
There are two ways of contacting the editors if you want to submit a detailed rewrite:
1. E-mail one of the editors who has been working frequently or recently on the article, asking for help with this rewrite.
2. Propose it on the talk page.
Remember, you are addressing volunteers who, while usually very welcoming, often are a bit suspicious due to past experiences with troublemakers. Explain your qualifications, show a little good faith, & I'll be surprised if you aren't successful in helping us improve this free encyclopedia.
Geoff
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (C.N.Guerriere,M.D.)
Why Wikepedia
I'm not sure why people are so interested in Wiki;why would someone trust the internet for valid information when there are no qualifications for submitting information.We are constantly trying to educate patients who come in with false information tey have acquired on the net.For some reason,many believe info they have read on the net is gospel.Intelligent people will keep up with the flow of corrections on Wikepedia,but many willr read one entry and believe it as fact.
Reply
Guest (MDS)
Why Wikipedia?
Collective development is always exhilirating, especially when it has at its core an altruistic goal to present a free source of information. And really, are the errors from the internet due to visiting Wikipedia, or random websites, and *completely* unmonitored web forums or chatrooms? What about the ability of pharmaceutical companies to promote their products and encourage your patients to demand drugs that might not be the best option for them in your professional opinion? Do you have more people saying "Well Wikipedia said...?" or "I want that purple pill!"
And to be honest, stupid people are always going to read crap somewhere on the internet and believe it. The least we can do is *try* to make it correct.
Reply
Guest (glg3)
Wiki beats DTC
Patients are getting their "information/facts" from all sorts of sources. At this point, I'd rather have them reading up on diseases, remedies, etc. in the Wikipedia, than listening to the Direct to consumer advertising that is so prevelant. Canada and other more rational (read - unwilling to let big Pharma do what ever they like) countries don't allow DTC commercials about purple pills and other - "ask your physician" remedies. One possibility is to have MDs contribute and edit the Wikipedia - rather than whine and complain.... It wouldn't take much time if a good number of Docs got involved.
Reply
Guest (Proteus)
Why Wikipedia
Wikipedia information, specialy for technical articles is or should be written and updated by people with the degrees and knowledge on the matters described. But one sure thing is that Wiki is more often updated than many general physicians do update their personal knowledge.
Reply