(Page 3 of 3)
Now Wikipedia president Wales has enacted a policy that requires users to log in before creating new articles. However, since there’s no e-mail address required to do so, anyone can make up a name and create an article without a way to verify their identity.
In any case, Wales insists that the vast majority of the articles on the site are correct, and that anonymity isn’t the issue. Still, he's working on other measures aimed at eliminating the possibility of false information being added.
One is a “holding zone,” where contentious information or topics -- those prone to vandalization -- can be queued for review before going live. Another is a community-based rating system, scheduled to go live on January 1, 2006. Wales says he’s also considering soliciting experts to submit ratings on articles, to see how those ratings jibe with the community’s.
A couple of years ago, Wales suggested to the Wikipedia board that they adopt a “real name” policy, similar to Amazon.com’s review system. At Amazon, anyone can review a book; but after the site was hit with allegations that authors were writing glowing reviews of their own books and slamming competitors’ works, Amazon decided that giving people the option to use their real names -- and having Amazon certify it with a “Real Name” logo beneath it -- would lend credibility. The Wikipedia board rejected the idea a few years ago; but today Wales thinks “anything’s possible.”
Others with experience allowing masses of people to create content say some policing is necessary to prevent chaos and to ensure the validity of information. Today, Rich Skrenta is CEO of Topix.net, a news-gathering site that just launched a citizen’s journalism effort, where visitors can write news stories that pertain to their interests. Prior to founding Topix, though, Skrenta was a founder of DMOZ.com, a community-created site directory, where 60,000 "editors" index sites and write site descriptions.
“We had issues where editors were being bribed to write good reviews and spammers tried to get in, so we had to develop a fairly sophisticated set of policies to keep this running,” Skrenta says. “With our new project we have both social and technical designs to facilitate good information. They’re patrolled, monitored, and managed.”
Would a stricter log-in process have stopped me from falsifying the Tom Waits page? Probably not; I was under deadline and knew I'd change it back. But for the few visitors who come to the site with a casual ill intent, it might.
Skrenta puts the Wikipedia situation into some perspective: “Our citizen journalism effort doesn’t have any problems yet because it doesn’t have any traffic. When people are corrupting entries, that’s a problem you only have when you’ve succeeded.”
If Wikipedia wants to become the trusted, open-source repository of all the world’s knowledge -- and it probably does -- it may have to adopt some of the successful tactics of Amazon and others who have gone before it.
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.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
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