Discussions

[1] 2 3 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth.

• 
  walt
  

  Posts:
  29

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/20/2008 01:13 PM

  clumsy writing

  "I said, 'If it hasn't been vetted by the rele­vant experts, then basically we are setting ourselves up as a frontline source of new, original information, and we aren't set up to do that,' Sanger (who is himself, ironically or not, a former philosophy instructor and by training an epistemologist) recalls telling his fellow Nupedians." A guy who produces a clumsy construction like that needs an editor.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  thekohser
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/21/2008 12:02 AM

  Error rates on Wikipedia

  What articles like these by Garfinkel are always lacking is some statistically methodical assay of the frequency of error in Wikipedia.  We recently conducted a full audit of one calendar quarter's worth of edits to the 100 articles about the United States senators.
  
  We found: the average article about a US senator is wrong for 1.63 hours per day.  Or, the sample of 100 articles had gross inaccuracy in place about 6% of the time.  In one case, about 90,000 people viewed the article about John McCain and failed to correct that the Panama Canal Zone is NOT in the state of Florida.
  
  More info can be found here:
  http://digg.com/politics/McCain_raped_wife_Obama_a_nudist_and_Hillary_has_a_penis
  
  I know, a crazy URL.  But, on Wikipedia, for at least some stretch of time, all "true".

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    genemit
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/23/2008 12:56 AM

    Re: Error rates on Wikipedia

    Agreed, Wikipedia is often taken for truth, and its facts are NOT checked.  But so are chain emails, superstitions, and mass media hype and spin.  Don't forget, 4 of 6 billion people on this planet still live in poverty and are controlled by religious idolatry and not religious philosophy, let alone scientific fact.  They take their nationalism or royalty worship as facts.  In much of the world, facts are what the rich and powerful say they are, despite everyone knowing they are wrong, because they can beat up anyone who disagrees.  So from that perspective, it is an improvement.  However, I support Wikipedia simply because the idea of an online encyclopedia has mass appeal and NEED, so basically on the grounds its new and groundbreaking.  I disagree that Wikipedia is English based, its multilingual, though its policing get very sloppy for many other languages...
    Its also a cool translation device too, especially to rare or rare on the web languages.  Any new technology is bound to have flaws, especially one that grows so fast and is based on content.  Better competitors will spring up once the rate of change slows dramatically, and will force it to get better or die.  While I agree some technology like Microsoft undergoes this evolution, but never really flies in an engineering sense.  However, in an everyday layman functional sense, it serves its purpose, otherwise people won't use it.  It was never meant to be engineering quality, scientific quality, even on so-called scientific articles.  Its a process, please wait for it to mature, and until it does, do as anyone *SHOULD* do...read all articles anywhere with scrutiny, and regard it as an single group's attempt to make a mass-appeal and all-inclusive webopedia.
    (I welcome anyone's attempts to make quality competition)

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    fiberman
    

    Posts:
    73

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/29/2008 01:36 PM

    Re: Error rates on Wikipedia

    As a textbook author and a contributor to several technical magazines, I often use the web for research. Generally, I find Wikipedia to be more "reliable" than most other sources, where "truthiness" is the standard. However, it does have many technical articles obviously written with a point of view, many of which sound like magazine or online articles culled from company "white papers" full of hype about their view of a technology. I once tried to edit some of this hype out and found my edits reversed almost immediately!

    Rate this comment:
• 
  Mapou
  

  Posts:
  65

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/23/2008 02:45 AM

  Nice Article

  Simon, thanks for a well-written and informative article. As a species, I guess we will have to make do with Wikipedia's definition of truth. It's a subjective truth, which, when you think about it, is not all that different than other kinds of truth in other publications. It's always a judgement call. In other words, who vets for the truths told by the authors of Technology Review? It does not matter, really. I keep coming back for more. Why? Because I like it.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Shalom Freedman
  

  Posts:
  6

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/23/2008 03:50 AM

  Editing on 'Wikipedia'

  I use Wikipedia many times each day, and am most frequently helped by it.
  But I have more than one problem with it. I occasionally edit , and when I corrected the emphasis on a politically controversial article the reply from another Wikieditor was abusive and insulting. I would maintain that the article as it was written was inaccurate in fact. Specifically it was an article on Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the implication of the article's opening was that Ahmadinejad is hostile to the Bush Administration but not to the United States in general. Ahmadinejad has more than once referred to the United States as force of Evil and Corruption which is in decline and is going to be destroyed.
  In any case this specific instance led me to check Wikipedia on other controversial political people and questions. They do try to give opposing views, but invariably there is, and this I believe is unavoidable, a certain spin.
  Another problem with 'Wikipedia' is the degree of completeness and weight of articles. I have the sense that the scientific, and technological articles are better in general than those for the Humanities.
  However I would stress that overall I believe Wikipedia is a tremendous resource, of great use and help when like anything else, used wisely.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  zig158
  

  Posts:
  64

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/23/2008 04:20 AM

  Wikipedia definition of truth

  see Truthiness.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    stevesliva
    

    Posts:
    1

    Reply

    10/23/2008 01:14 PM

    Re: Wikipedia definition of truth

    Indeed, it's not just Wikipedia that cites two conflicting points-of-view and lets the reader decide, it's just about every news organization still standing.
    
    Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today said, "There are no gays in Iran."  When called for comment, the head of the Iranian gay advocacy group said, "That is not true."
    
    Why call for comment?  Claims are not legitimate merely because they appear in print, yet at what point did it become sufficient to simply call someone for an opposing POV?  When did reporters abdicate the responsibility for investigating claims and reporting on their veracity?
    
    An investigation by the Wikitimes has revealed that there are, in fact, gays in Iran.
    
    That's it.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    asok700
    

    Posts:
    2

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/31/2008 04:13 PM

    Re: Wikipedia definition of truth

    From my experience with Wikipedia if you write
    anything political which is not mainstream "western"
    then they will try to shut you down by acting in concert and finally saying that the "Voice of All" has decided that your opinion  is against majority opinion.  So in that sense Wikipedia employs sham democracy.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  grahamix
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/23/2008 05:08 AM

  Yes, but is it "true"

  While the article is right to highlight the quirks of the Wikipedia process, it completely fails to address the most important issue when considering Wikipedia's "truth". Nature decided to compare the accuracy of Wikipedia articles versus Encyclopaedia Britannica and found them broadly as accurate as each other.
  
  http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

  Rate this comment:

[1] 2 3 Next »