A recent high-profile dispute over the user-written encyclopedia's veracity has the site rethinking some of its rules.
In 1728, Ephraim Chambers, a mapmaker in London, published the Cyclopaedia -- the first encyclopedia to include cross references. Almost 275 years later, Wikipedia, the online, user-created encyclopedia, is championed for its volunteer model and its elaborate system of cross-referencing and verifications. But the Wikipedia model has had a rough couple of weeks -- ever since the mainstream media jumped on the story of Robert F. Kennedy confidante John Seigenthaler’s outrage at false information posted in his Wikipedia entry.
The concept of Wikipedia -- and the general idea of "wikis," or user-edited Web pages -- is notable because it embodies one of the key cultural movements of the decade. Called Web 2.0, it's the notion that the Internet should be fueled by user-generated content -- blogs, wikis, podcasts, and user-created add-ons to programs such as Google Maps and Firefox. The desire of people to contribute online content is as old as the medium itself; now software improvements and broadband adoption make it easier than ever. With the tools for content creation in the hands of single individuals, not just companies and institutions, Web 2.0 means a more democratic Internet, and a truer voice, or at least a broader one.
“When people think of Web 2.0, they’re thinking of Wikipedia,” says Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, who's no longer with the enterprise and currently involved in a new online encyclopedia project.
But the Web 2.0 concept, and Wikipedia itself, still have some growing up to do. In part because of the Seigenthaler flap, Wikipedia is going through a very public coming-of-age. “The last two weeks, it’s been hard to get any work done,” says Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and president of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
At the heart of the issue is a problem that many startups would kill to have: overwhelming interest in their product. In 2001, Sanger predicted that, with a little luck, Wikipedia would have 80,000 articles by 2008. The site currently has more than 850,000 in English alone. Throw in 200 other world languages, and the total rises to 3.7 million.
Wikipedia was founded with a radical premise: thousands of enthusiastic volunteers would scan the entries regularly, ensuring that they remained truthful -- or at least not erroneous for very long. In addition to being reviewed by the general public, Wikipedia articles would also be vetted by administrators and “page watchers.”
That's exactly what has come about. But with the huge proliferation of Wikipedia entries, as well as the built-in ability for anyone to contribute to the site, the occasional vandal has appeared -- and gone undetected for too long.
Guest (Ivor Smith)
An informative article for I, as it shook me out of my nievity, that all that I read on-line, must be factual!
Guest (funny article)
funny that the writer s##t him self while trying to discredit wiki.
unfortunetly the writers atempt to prove the problems with the system just proved it works better than he knows.
he wrote
I edited the entry dedicated to musician Tom Waits. In a section on the artist in the 1990s, I wrote that Waits had played a concert with Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, and Mr. Ed (the talking horse). Within 24 hours, the Presley and Mr. Ed references were removed, but the Elvis Costello citation -- also false, but not as glaringly so -- remained
however
Faithful [H] reader Peter Hamilton (who I’m assuming is a Roy Orbison fan) pointed out that the information of Costello and Waits playing together is indeed true. A quick google search netted me the tell tale result. A simple click under Actors on the more link revealed that both aforementioned artists did indeed play this concert together
Guest (funny article)
funny that the writer s##t him self while trying to discredit wiki.
unfortunetly the writers atempt to prove the problems with the system just proved it works better than he knows.
he wrote
I edited the entry dedicated to musician Tom Waits. In a section on the artist in the 1990s, I wrote that Waits had played a concert with Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, and Mr. Ed (the talking horse). Within 24 hours, the Presley and Mr. Ed references were removed, but the Elvis Costello citation -- also false, but not as glaringly so -- remained
however
Faithful [H] reader Peter Hamilton (who I’m assuming is a Roy Orbison fan) pointed out that the information of Costello and Waits playing together is indeed true. A quick google search netted me the tell tale result. A simple click under Actors on the more link revealed that both aforementioned artists did indeed play this concert together
Guest (James)
Too bad Tom Waits DID play with Elvis Costello. You think the author could at least check information he was trying to falsify.
Guest (TR editor)
Re: Wrong by James: Give us a link to a reliable source saying that Waits played with Elvis Costello in the 1990s--and well even credit you! Thanks. -- Editor
You could just watch the video and see them together instead:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cast-crew/B0000203YR/
Guest (Max)
Wikipedia works and at the same time does not work..
My profs at the University used to say that any reference to Wikipedia in any paper you submit, will be considered a minus and crossed-out and I think they are right about it. It is a good idea to get a first glimpse at a problem by looking at the wiki, but for more information, one should consider standard references and books.
However, an entire unnoticed problem is bias in the wikipedia. It is not so much about factual errors, but rather the supremacy of political belief systems. While this is not a big deal in the US wiki, it is in Europe. I have seen that socialist content doesnt allow any criticism on their pages, while they censor anything that goes beyond their political scheme. This might be a big problem in the future and is why I abstain from using any social science pages from the Wiki.
Guest (Sly)
What you are saying about Europe content is quite wrong. But may be its just that you dont agree with the content.
When you use censorship to tell the truth, its only the truth of the censor.
Guest (Andy)
It seems to me that Wikipedia is only slightly different than any other media source in history (newspapers, TV, etc.). There is always bias, either cultural or intentional. The difference discussed here is the transient nature of the information, so if referencing a hard copy should always be made, particularly noting specific date and time of the Wikipedia image. Does Wikipedia have a CM system so that, if necessary, the history canbe rebuilt?
Guest (Eric Hellweg)
While I dont doubt that Tom Waits and Elvis Costello played together some time in the 1990s, my false Wikipedia entry said that he played with Tom Waits at the Raven Theater in Healdsburg CA in 1996. I was at that show, and have a recording of it. Elvis Costello did not play.
Guest (Eric Hellweg)
While I dont doubt that Tom Waits and Elvis Costello played together some time in the 1990s, my false Wikipedia entry said that he played with Tom Waits at the Raven Theater in Healdsburg CA in 1996. I was at that show, and have a recording of it. Elvis Costello did not play.
Guest (Andy)
It seems to me that Wikipedia is only slightly different than any other media source in history (newspapers, TV, etc.). There is always bias, either cultural or intentional. The difference discussed here is the transient nature of the information, so if referencing a hard copy should always be made, particularly noting specific date and time of the Wikipedia image. Does Wikipedia have a CM system so that, if necessary, the history canbe rebuilt?
Guest (Aaron E. Klemm)
Baou and what Wikipedia has to do
First, its unfortunate that you legitimize Baous actions and the inflammatory articles on news.baou.com. They dont deserve to be valid voices in any discussion of Wikipedia.
Second, your conclusion is a bit overblown. Maybe Wikipedia *doesnt* have to adopt new tactics. I would argue the process is working despite recent and occasional problems.
The information and usefulness of Wikipedia content is improving daily--so whats wrong?
Guest (Ivor Smith)
An informative article for I, as it shook me out of my nievity, that all that I read on-line, must be factual!
Guest (James)
Too bad Tom Waits DID play with Elvis Costello. You think the author could at least check information he was trying to falsify.
Guest (Max)
Wikipedia works and at the same time does not work..
My profs at the University used to say that any reference to Wikipedia in any paper you submit, will be considered a minus and crossed-out and I think they are right about it. It is a good idea to get a first glimpse at a problem by looking at the wiki, but for more information, one should consider standard references and books.
However, an entire unnoticed problem is bias in the wikipedia. It is not so much about factual errors, but rather the supremacy of political belief systems. While this is not a big deal in the US wiki, it is in Europe. I have seen that socialist content doesnt allow any criticism on their pages, while they censor anything that goes beyond their political scheme. This might be a big problem in the future and is why I abstain from using any social science pages from the Wiki.
Guest (Andy)
It seems to me that Wikipedia is only slightly different than any other media source in history (newspapers, TV, etc.). There is always bias, either cultural or intentional. The difference discussed here is the transient nature of the information, so if referencing a hard copy should always be made, particularly noting specific date and time of the Wikipedia image. Does Wikipedia have a CM system so that, if necessary, the history canbe rebuilt?
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.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Aaron E. Klemm)
Baou and what Wikipedia has to do
First, its unfortunate that you legitimize Baous actions and the inflammatory articles on news.baou.com. They dont deserve to be valid voices in any discussion of Wikipedia.
Second, your conclusion is a bit overblown. Maybe Wikipedia *doesnt* have to adopt new tactics. I would argue the process is working despite recent and occasional problems.
The information and usefulness of Wikipedia content is improving daily--so whats wrong?
Reply