As long as everyone is spending their fourth of July in the office and not
out celebrating the holiday, I thought I'd join in and render my 2 cents'
worth in the debate over Wikipedia.
I use it myself quite a bit for curiosity-based inquiries, and it can be
pretty amazing -- I once found a long, very detailed and authoritative
monograph on the physics of how ceramic plate armor works, for example. I
do think, however, that on social issues or other controversial issues, or
any issue that is not absolutely fact-based (as in hard scientific facts),
the lack of vetting and peer review poses real problems -- anyone anyplace
can start an article, or revise the content of an existing one, which leaves
obvious opportunities for persons with an agenda to place their own notions
and prejudices out there quite effectively disguised as fact, and this has,
in fact, happened in at least a couple of well-publicized cases. There is a
self-policing mechanism nominally in place, but that assumes that people
have the free time and inclination to do the policing, which may be
unrealistic. Until that problem is solved, I don't think that Wikipedia can
be viewed as an authoritative source on many kinds of topics.
J.
John Montaña
General Counsel
Cunningham & Montaña, Inc.
29 Parsons Road
Landenberg PA 19350
610-255-1588
610-255-1558 fax
484-832-3260 mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Peter W. Shewchenko
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] OT: Friday postings, ? about Wikipedia as a general source
Another journal article on wikis from the peer-reviewed journal on the
internet, f ¡ r s T - m o ñ d @ ¥:
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/coffin/index.html#c2
There are actually two or three very good articles about wikis in this
journal, and f ¡ r s T - m o ñ d @ ¥ is both well written and a great
journal to read articles covering all aspects of the Internet.
Peter Shewchenko
Senior Project Manager,
City Clerk's Office,
Records and Information Management
City of Toronto
Phone: 416-392-4363
Fax: 416-392-3995
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>> Jesse Wilkins <[log in to unmask]> 04/07/2006 10:31:27 AM
>>>
Hi all,
My ears were burning and I thought I'd clarify the point I made about wikis
generally and Wikipedia at several presentations recently. Nature Magazine
did a study that compared the accuracy, breadth of coverage, and depth of
coverage between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Brittanica (EB), which many
of you would use (and have used) as part of a presentation and/or a report.
What Nature found, and EB tried to refute, and Nature repudiated, was that
Wikipedia and EB suffer from similar error rates.
The original article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
EB's response:
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
Nature's response:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/full/440582b.html
From the original article: "Several Nature reviewers agreed with Panelas'
point on readability, commenting that the Wikipedia article they reviewed
was poorly structured and confusing. This criticism is common among
information scientists, who also point to other problems with article
quality, such as undue prominence given to controversial scientific
theories. But Michael Twidale, an information scientist at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says that Wikipedia's strongest suit is the
speed at which it can updated, a factor not considered by Nature's
reviewers.
"People will find it shocking to see how many errors there are in
Britannica," Twidale adds. "Print encyclopaedias are often set up as the
gold standards of information quality against which the failings of faster
or cheaper resources can be compared. These findings remind us that we have
an 18-carat standard, not a 24-carat one." "
I agree with Ghyslain's point that there are a number of topics where there
is significantly more heat than light being generated and the "endurocratic"
tag certainly applies. However, for the other 1 MILLION articles on
Wikipedia (and c.f. 100,000 articles in EB), they are by and large quite
accurate. Individuals may choose to quibble with a particular article; by
way of testing, take a look at the Records Management article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_management). The beauty is that if you
see something with which you disagree, you can update it and reflect the
change immediately - how long would a correction take for EB (if indeed they
made one at all)?
The rules are good and the folks who run Wikipedia have made some changes in
response to just these criticisms. One is that articles track the changes
made, either by login (if the user did so) or by IP address. Another is that
particularly volatile articles, such as those dealing with political issues,
get "locked down" periodically so the same changes aren't being
added/stripped/added/stripped. And yet another is an approach where
Wikipedia will create "published" versions of articles that have been vetted
for accuracy as well as readability (which is probably where Wikipedia
suffers the most). For a list of other criticisms and Wikipedia's response
to them, please read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections.
As with any other resource, I think the key is to use Wikipedia as a good,
reasonably accurate resource - and find at least one other resource that
agrees with the nature of the point being researched. Whether I use
Wikipedia, IMJ, or any other resource, I try to make a point of getting at
least two cites so it's not just one lone crank that forms the basis of my
article or presentation. But to simply dismiss Wikipedia as the work of
amateurs and demagogues and therefore unworthy of significant scholarly
application is I think short-sighted.
Cheers on Independence Day in sunny Colorado,
Jesse Wilkins
CDIA+, LIT/ERM, edp, ICP, ERMs, ECMs
IMERGE Consulting
[log in to unmask]
(303) 574-1455 office
(303) 484-4142 fax
Yahoo! IM: jessewilkins8511
Visit http://www.imergeconsult.com/schedule2.html for a list of AIIM ERM and
CDIA+ workshops
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Ghyslain Sabourin
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 7:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] OT: Friday postings, ? about Wikipedia as a general source
I would use Wikipedia to settle arguments over a drink, but not as part of
any presentation I would give nor report I would use.
Our friend and colleague Mr. Wilkins has described it as a "meritocracy"
during the most recent ARMA conference here in Toronto. I'd label it more of
an "endurocracy" or "bloody-mindedness-cracy". Whoever has the longest wind,
the most time to spend [waste]or the sharpest axe to grind, will eventually
win out. Such an environment does not foster accuracy, facts, or
truthfulness. It is a source of information where the mob rules. And mobs,
though they can shout down most opposition, are not always right.
That said, the maintainers of Wikipedia have an elaborate set of rules that
anyone who wishes to edit or enter entries should follow
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines].
They're quite good. I'm still working through it in order to adjust some
entries I found. Unfortunately, I'm just too busy to make any headway.
Ghyslain Sabourin
Director, Records Management
Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc.
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
