Discussions

« Back 1 [2] 3 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Who's Messing with Wikipedia?.

• 
  jopemoro
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/08/2009 06:51 AM

  IBM History Flow

  Isn't this somehow similar to IBM Research's "History Flow" from back in 2003?
  
  http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    edchi
    

    Posts:
    4

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/12/2009 07:02 PM

    Re: IBM History Flow

    We were somewhat inspired by the work done at IBM indeed.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  jmaximus9
  

  Posts:
  83

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/09/2009 01:39 AM

  Texts Books are Better?

  I, along with millions of other Americans were taught things like "Columbus discovered America" or that "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree" which are false.  Because it is updated daily, I would say it is more accurate than most sources.  The inaccuracies relate to current political figures like Jerry Falwell or George Bush, hardly something to worry about.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  florsie
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/09/2009 09:54 AM

  It's easy to say that...

  Most of my college teachers think Wikipedia is the devil but I actually think it is because most of them don't know how to use it correctly. As this article says, they don't know how to check the sources or the edit history (or they don't care). Still, my experience with Wikipedia so far has been good. When I read an article I sense to be one-sided, I go back to the history and report it. I've found vandalized articles lots of times and I do take the time to fix them.
  
  My aunt works on the Biology department at my college and instead of telling her students that wiki is satan, she encourages them to use it and fix it. The teachers at the department also took matters at hand and started fixing or completing many biology articles. Their involment with wiki has gone as far as donating money in the most recent donations drive. When I did work the courage to question my Literary History teacher regarding why didn't he correct in wiki what he considered to be "wrong", he didn't give me a straight answer. That's what makes me think that the truth is they don't know how to really use Wiki.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    eteranalsunshine
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/09/2009 11:42 AM

    Re: It's easy to say that...

    I agree with you, wikipedia is a tool that needs to be used with dexterity and wit.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    edchi
    

    Posts:
    4

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/12/2009 07:05 PM

    Re: It's easy to say that...

    I agree with your positive-oriented way of thinking about how to use Wikipedia.  If you find an error, you should help to fix it.  We can spend all day arguing whether it is a bad reference, the reality is that it is the 8th ranked site in the world.  It is already being used as a reference, so it will help everyone to make it more accurate.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  Handshake
  

  Posts:
  16

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/09/2009 10:24 AM

  Wikipedia

  Wikipedia is dangerous... like Google. This is better observed on countries like China.
  Wikipedia explains in 2-3 words a general idea about a subject. This is extremely dangerous because people understood what happen or what it is to know immediately. Take for instances "Watergate" scandal. 99% of people will believe it is about poisoned water, but if you go to Wikipedia you find out it is about CORRUPTION on higher level than god...

  Rate this comment:
• 
  WikipediaBias
  

  Posts:
  2

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/09/2009 11:37 AM

  WP is a great source for disinfo

  Wikipedia is a very good way to spread disinfo because it’s usually at or near the top in search results for a wide variety of terms. Many of its political entries are missing key information that was never added or was removed. Most people aren’t willing to spend the time necessary to get facts to stick if the other side is motivated to keep deleting it.
  
  For an example, the entry discussed here is missing two key pieces of information:
  
  http://wikipediabias.com/valerie-jarrett-obama-advisor
  
  In the month of January, the WP page on her had almost 40,000 visitors. Depending on when they visited, some of those found out she was linked to Rezko, but most didn't. And, only the no doubt small number of people who went to the discussion page will have learned that most people - including those in the MSM - believe she's "Senate Candidate 1".
  
  In other words, thanks to Wikipedia, thousands of people got a sanitized, inaccurate view of her. And, partly because people keep linking to Wikipedia, her entry and thousands more like it are at the top of search results.
  
  I suggest taking a close look at WP's various rules and thinking through what they result in. Those rules basically force WP into tracking the coverage offered by the MSM: until the MSM covers an issue it's not likely to find its way into WP. And, those rules force WP into covering an issue into the way the MSM covers it.
  
  If you think the NYT and WaPo are always accurate and always cover the things that are important, then WP is for you.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    edchi
    

    Posts:
    4

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/12/2009 07:08 PM

    Re: WP is a great source for disinfo

    Here is the relevant WikiDashboard for the entry:
    
    Valerie_Jarrett
    

    Rate this comment:
• 
  Flip
  

  Posts:
  18

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/11/2009 11:04 AM

  Links and Books

  Another controversial area is how links and books get approved or not for an article.  I prepare a daily meta-journal called Political Ecology (http://politicalecology.xyvy.info) that should be a perfect link from the article Political Ecology. I am a JD-MPA in Environmental Science and Policy and yet I cannot get the article 'Editor' to approve this as a link.  The 'editor' seems to think that because I am the one proposing the link then that is self-promotion and therefore fatally suspect. So I then did what he advised, which was to leave a post in the discussion area for the page asking others to recommend the link.  Since then nothing has happened so I guess neither the self-promotional nor the cooperative model works (unless one assembles a claque of apparently independent proponents).

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    smithsomian
    

    Posts:
    51

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/13/2009 01:26 PM

    Re: Links and Books

    I checked out your site, (politicalecology) it's a good read, no reason for it not to be listed.
    
    Given that wikipedia editors are self-appointed volunteers they can be pretty arbitrary, that is the downside of wikipedia.  There certainly are abuses.
    
    The upside is that in my experience and that of many other people, the vast majority of wikipedi articles are excellent.
    
    you didn't say which wiki page you wanted the link on.  perhaps the editor considers it off topic?  (which is what this post is in danger of becoming).

    Rate this comment:

« Back 1 [2] 3 Next »