Clark, list, Clark, I'm in general agreement with what you've written. It seems to me that there remains much variation in the quality of Wikipedia articles, depending on the topic, the contributors, etc., and that, for example, in some fields--and not just music by a long shot--that the greater renown of the subject of the article can result in its having more errors corrected and corrected more quickly than that happens with less well known people, topics, etc.
But, again, the point that you, John Collier, and I have been emphasizing is that encyclopedias and the like can be very good places to commence research, but that even in this matter of getting an overview of a topic before one begins more serious research, that some care must be taken. I used to tell my students that even when using encyclopedias it is important to at least triangulate (in the sense of surveying) your sources. Of course seasoned researchers know this, while those beginning to learn about good research practice need some reminding that not all that's in print is credible (well, that's to say the least!) In the past, Ben Udell has had some revealing things to say about his experience of writing and editing Wikipedia articles--the good, the bad, and the ugly--and I'd be interested to hear his views regarding Wikipedia 2016. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > For the record I wouldn’t trust Britannica on technical topics either. > > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'trust' here. An encyclopedia is meant > principally as a first or preliminary source and, as John Collier > suggested, students--and, indeed, all researchers--should consult multiple > sources, *perhaps* including encyclopedias.. Indeed, encyclopedia > articles are characteristically brief enough that one might read > Wikipedia's, Britannica's, and perhaps a few other 'basic' sources before > plunging into deeper research. > > > That’s a really good point to make. People talk about trusting wikipedia > but probably mean many different things by that. I just mean that I assume > what they say is correct in the details. I use wikipedia (and other > encyclopedias like the SEP) regularly. But to me they are the first step in > my inquiry rather than the last. I think they’re fantastic for that. > > I think one thing wikipedia does that is both a strength and a weakness is > have more detailed topics than typical encyclopedias like say Brittania. > Where I tend to find problems are often in these more narrow places. > Although wikipedia by its very nature tends to improve every year. > > Clark also wrote: > > I think the Britannica/Wikipedia comparison is a bit problematic though. > On more general topics such as traditional encyclopedias cover I’m sure > Wikipedia is typically fine. It’s the more narrow topics where problems > tend to pop up. > > > I would tend to see it in just the opposite way. John Collier wrote: > > One of our brightest students, and my TA for a couple of years, was a big > contributor of articles and editor for Wikipedia. He took it very > seriously. > > > I know a number of Wikipedia contributors who take "it very seriously," > and are quick to correct errors when they appear. And this seems especially > the caseas concerns more 'narrow' topics. But John also wrote re Wikipedia > > > There most definitely are places like that. Indeed Ben Udell as I recall > spent considerable time a few years back fixing the entries on Peirce. But > do you remember what the entries were like before Ben did that? Is it fair > to assume there are still narrow topics where that problem remains? > > The one nice thing about wikipedia is that it does tend to get better over > time. Especially on the core more frequently accessed entries. It’s > dramatically better from 10 years ago and (in my experience) even from 5 > years ago. That’s both due to the aggregation of improvements along with > certain structural changes by the maintainers. (There were several > concerted efforts within the last few years to improve physics and related > topics for instance which were very uneven) However problems remain. Often > these are in biographical entries where most studies find more errors. > > The Nature article from a year or so ago found 4 major errors in 42 > articles from both wikipedia & Britannica but others found more in pop > music. However I’d bet there the obscurity of the band would make a huge > difference. i.e. probably Led Zepplin will have far fewer mistakes than > Blue Peter. Not that pop music is relevant for our discussion but I think > it highlights the underlying structures that cause problems. From what I > can tell science improved dramatically due to concerted efforts to fix a > lot of problems that had been there. > > Where I think wikipedia falls down a bit is not having the discussion > around the issue. So on more contentious issues - especially narrow > technical ones - you can end up with one view dominating and flaws not > being mentioned. That’s why I think it’s a good first step but you can be > left with an incomplete and distorted view. I find Stack Overflow’s > technical areas (physics, chemistry, philosophy) helpful here. They tend to > discuss these nuances and controversies more. Further by their very nature > misunderstandings come up and get corrected. (With a new topic or a topic > I’ve forgotten a lot on the erroneous ‘answers’ are sometimes as > informative as the canonical answer) > > Doing an other more careful look at wikipedia though I must say it’s > improved a lot since I did this last (3 or 4 years ago). Especially on > things like energy conservation. So part of my view was just out of date. > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
