(Page 3 of 3)
TR: How will Wikipedia overcome its biases: toward science over the humanities, the present over the past, Western over global issues?
JW: We have a variety of systemic biases, not in the sense of one-sided articles, but in that we write about what interests us. We have a fantastic article about the USB standard, but not much about the Congo Wars -- because we're Internet geeks. That problem has gotten better as we've grown and become better known. We've come out of the core free software movement and now have diverse contributors. In order to improve, we'll make the software easier to use. We also have projects within the community that identify the systematic biases and look for people to help. There's no magic answer. We have to find the right people to help us.
TR: Why do you think that some people don't trust Wikipedia, and what will you do to convince them?
JW: There are two kinds of people who don't trust Wikipedia: the reasonable and the unreasonable. Time makes more converts than reason, so the unreasonable will come around eventually. The reasonable people use Wikipedia and find it useful and valuable, but are cautious about what they're looking at. If anything seems strange or has a neutrality notice [a tag on an article indicating it is written from a non-neutral point of view], they're very cautious. That's perfectly reasonable. Anyone who says they don't use Wikipedia because it's written on the Internet is making a mistake.
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