Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
> >> Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or >> won't. > > The law routinely expects producers to add explicit safety warnings > and disclaimers on their products for idiots who don't think for > themselves. > > http://coolrain44.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/stupid-warning-labels/ > > -- > John Vandenberg To paraphrase Murphy's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law If information can be misused, it will be. Actually, when designing equipment one must be careful not to connect any button on switch to anything that does much as eventually someone will push it or turn it. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24/10/2010 23:48, David Gerard wrote: > On 24 October 2010 23:40, wrote: > >> Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the >> work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion, >> whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a >> site that boasts of containing the worlds knowledge, where every page >> can be turned on its head from one page request to the next. >> Whatever was I thinking? Of course the vandalism, POV pushing, and plain >> old altering of pages to 'win' an argument in the pub or the David Ike >> forum, is exactly the same as what goes on at the New Columbia Encyclopedia. > > > It's entirely unclear what it is you're actually expecting to achieve > in participating in discussion here, either in particular or in > general. Could you please detail what you want to achieve and what you > actually expect to? > Perhaps you aren't listening? Although I do notice moments where you tend to make the same points. Still what I'm trying to do is to at least get some here to think as to how one might produce a body of work that can be relied upon. Where the body of work isn't continually under attack or being buggered about with. In the case of drugs it is entirely unclear why the pages should reflect this months news reports. Someone dies in Epping Forest a drug is blamed and someone adds that to the article page for the drug. The drug may or may not have been responsible the person putting the report on the page has no way of knowing. You'll remember that those two kids died in the UK and some recreational drug mephedrone was blamed. It turned out that neither had taken the stuff. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone you'll find this: According to Fiona Measham, a criminologist who is a member of the ACMD, the reporting of the unconfirmed deaths by newspapers followed "the usual cycle of ‘exaggeration, distortion, inaccuracy and sensationalism'" associated with the reporting of recreational drug use" its worth holding on to that thought as it happens not just with recreational drugs, but with almost every medical story. The newspapers distort and exaggerate. Actually this particular quote is a bit of an exaggeration in itself the full section currently reads: Toxicology reports following the deaths of two teenagers (Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19) that were widely reported by the media to be caused by mephedrone, and which led to a ban on the substance in April 2010, showed that the teenagers had in fact not taken any mephedrone.[76] According to Fiona Measham, a criminologist who is a member of the ACMD, the reporting of the unconfirmed deaths by newspapers followed "the usual cycle of ‘exaggeration, distortion, inaccuracy and sensationalism'" associated with the reporting of recreational drug use. The two teenagers died on March 15th and the Fiona Measham article was published online 3 days before the two teenagers died. The current state of the article implies that it is the reporting of the events surrounding those two teenagers that she is referring to, when in fact it is not. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 16:52, wrote: > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The > information contained on the page could well be nonsense". Our general disclaimer is good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer Perhaps we should mention it on our introduction, which is linked on the en.wp front page "the free encyclopedia that _anyone can edit_." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:28 AM, David Gerard wrote: > > That would be the logo at the side, then. If you think the logo is supposed to indicate something, it should link to a textual description of that. > Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or won't. The law routinely expects producers to add explicit safety warnings and disclaimers on their products for idiots who don't think for themselves. http://coolrain44.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/stupid-warning-labels/ -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 23:40, wrote: > Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the > work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion, > whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a > site that boasts of containing the worlds knowledge, where every page > can be turned on its head from one page request to the next. > Whatever was I thinking? Of course the vandalism, POV pushing, and plain > old altering of pages to 'win' an argument in the pub or the David Ike > forum, is exactly the same as what goes on at the New Columbia Encyclopedia. It's entirely unclear what it is you're actually expecting to achieve in participating in discussion here, either in particular or in general. Could you please detail what you want to achieve and what you actually expect to? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24/10/2010 21:12, geni wrote: > On 24 October 2010 20:58, wrote: >> Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of >> the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that >> what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted >> to push some agenda. > > And how does that differ from every other document written by human beings > ever? > >> Next to the EB we have a French encyclopaedia. It is much less in depth >> but it is still accurate in what it has to say on the subjects it >> covers, and again I don't have to worry about whether some one just >> added nonsense to the article on Maurice Jarre. > > You've just defined the New Columbia Encyclopedia as not an > encyclopedia (see > http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford ). > > And then well consider this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine#Length > Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion, whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a site that boasts of containing the worlds knowledge, where every page can be turned on its head from one page request to the next. Whatever was I thinking? Of course the vandalism, POV pushing, and plain old altering of pages to 'win' an argument in the pub or the David Ike forum, is exactly the same as what goes on at the New Columbia Encyclopedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni wrote: >> On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote: On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: > None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a > murderer. > There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd > definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the > traditional encyclopedias. So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand. >>> >>> No. It's more about accountability than about authority. >> >> You are claiming you are accountable if wikipedia turns out to be an >> encyclopedia? > > No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. > And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is > silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have > explained, it isn't. > Wikipedia is an institution. Funny word, but of great significance. Marriage is an institution. Parliament is an institution. Universities are institutions, as is the internet, and war. That doesn't mean we're a sacred chariot of the gods, a juggernaut, and entitled to be destructive. We're 9 years in, going on a hundred, a thousand. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 21:17, Anthony wrote: > No I haven't. I drew the line in the sand based on the fact that > Wikipedia is not a fixed work. I also pointed out that even the > Wikipedia article on Wikipedia doesn't say that Wikipedia is an > encyclopedia, it says that it is an "encyclopedia project". I then > went on to compare the reliability of Wikipedia to that of > encyclopedias. Err you are aware that this mailing list is archived and people can see the order in which you introduced your arguments? Still moving on you bring up the claim that wikipedia is not an encyclopedia because it is not a fixed work (which is a change from your original position that wikipedia was not in fact a work). Now this brings up that obvious problem that by your definition the encyclopedia Britannica is not in fact an encyclopedia since it has published multiple editions. Now I suppose you could get around that by arguing that say EB1911 is an encyclopedia however than in turn gives up the problem that by that logic wikipedia 24 October 2010 20:28 and some seconds is an encyclopedia. Encarta with it's online updates could also be mentioned here. More recently Britannica online has been increasing it's rate of updates. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: > >> Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an >> encyclopedia. > > Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language. I saw your name and was ready for the usual response to that argument: "stop trolling, of course Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. > http://twitter.com/#!/alisonclement/status/8421314259 Well, yeah, it's not something that's going to be easily fixed. Reminds me of the comment by Sanger at the end of "Truth in Numbers?": "A lot of kids are consulting wikipedia as the first and often the last source of information on anything that they're curious about. If it continues on in that capacity, we might have a generation of kids who have a fundamental confusion about basic principles of epistemology." It's not something that can be fixed with a few simple changes. But "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain", someone's going to have to engage in the campaign of educating people on why not to rely on sources like Wikipedia. Wikimedians are probably not the best candidates for doing that, though. On this very list we have an argument that Wikipedia is not less reliable than traditional encyclopedias. On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:15 PM, geni wrote: > On 24 October 2010 21:07, Anthony wrote: > >> No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. >> And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is >> silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have >> explained, it isn't. > > No you have explained that you have decided to draw a line in the sand > in terms of reliability to define what is and isn't an encyclopedia. No I haven't. I drew the line in the sand based on the fact that Wikipedia is not a fixed work. I also pointed out that even the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia doesn't say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it says that it is an "encyclopedia project". I then went on to compare the reliability of Wikipedia to that of encyclopedias. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 21:07, Anthony wrote: > No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. > And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is > silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have > explained, it isn't. No you have explained that you have decided to draw a line in the sand in terms of reliability to define what is and isn't an encyclopedia. The problem is that you have failed to provide any justification for this line such as showing that the majority of things listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_encyclopedias fall to one side while wikipedia does not. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 20:58, wrote: > Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of > the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that > what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted > to push some agenda. And how does that differ from every other document written by human beings ever? > Next to the EB we have a French encyclopaedia. It is much less in depth > but it is still accurate in what it has to say on the subjects it > covers, and again I don't have to worry about whether some one just > added nonsense to the article on Maurice Jarre. You've just defined the New Columbia Encyclopedia as not an encyclopedia (see http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford ). And then well consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine#Length -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni wrote: > On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote: >>> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: >>> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias. >>> >>> So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand. >> >> No. It's more about accountability than about authority. > > You are claiming you are accountable if wikipedia turns out to be an > encyclopedia? No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have explained, it isn't. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote: >> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: >> >>> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. >>> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd >>> definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the >>> traditional encyclopedias. >> >> So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand. > > No. It's more about accountability than about authority. You are claiming you are accountable if wikipedia turns out to be an encyclopedia? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24/10/2010 20:10, geni wrote: > On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote: >>> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote: You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. >>> >>> He is probably thinking about this: >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ >> >> Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate >> errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia >> contained more errors-per-article than Britannica. > > > Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in > terms of encyclopedias . I should hope so. The paper copy I bought in 1980 cost almost £1000. 30 years on I have every confidence that the articles won't have have random "was a homo fag" comments inserted into them, and the articles on Aristotle and Maths not much changed. OTOH the one on Beruit is probably changed out of all recognition, and there'll be a few extra Presidents of the USA. It is also a bit useless for doing ctrl-C ctrl-V on though. > So unless you are going to define > "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that > works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias. Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted to push some agenda. Next to the EB we have a French encyclopaedia. It is much less in depth but it is still accurate in what it has to say on the subjects it covers, and again I don't have to worry about whether some one just added nonsense to the article on Maurice Jarre. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote: > On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: > >> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. >> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd >> definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the >> traditional encyclopedias. > > So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand. No. It's more about accountability than about authority. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: > None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. > There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd > definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the > traditional encyclopedias. So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand. > No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational > definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia". "Wikipedia" cannot be > "an encyclopedia", because it isn't "a work". > > Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an > encyclopedia. Your position would require that Ai Weiwei's Sunflower Seeds wasn't a work until 15 October. A somewhat non standard approach I feel. In fact wikipedia is at any given moment in a fixed form. So in fact there are a few tens of wikipedia encyclopedias a minute. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: > Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an > encyclopedia. Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language. http://twitter.com/#!/alisonclement/status/8421314259 "Yesterday I asked one of my students if she knew what an encyclopedia is, and she said, Is it something like Wikipedia?" - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Anthony wrote: > No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational > definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia". Even Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia doesn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, it calls it "a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project". A project, not an encyclopedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, geni wrote: > Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in > terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define > "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that > works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias. None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias. > "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia" is a great bit of rhetoric but it > is not consistent with any rational definition of encyclopedia. No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia". "Wikipedia" cannot be "an encyclopedia", because it isn't "a work". Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an encyclopedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote: >> On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote: >>> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other >>> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. >> >> He is probably thinking about this: >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ > > Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate > errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia > contained more errors-per-article than Britannica. Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias. "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia" is a great bit of rhetoric but it is not consistent with any rational definition of encyclopedia. Of course pre wikipedia I doubt anyone outside OED really worried about the definition of encyclopedia. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote: > On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote: >> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other >> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. > > He is probably thinking about this: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia contained more errors-per-article than Britannica. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: >>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >>> >>> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The >>> information contained on the page could well be nonsense". >> >> A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. > > Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? How is that relevant? >>> >>> You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, >>> reliability is implied. >> >> A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I >> wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally >> authoritative, though. > > You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other > encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. He is probably thinking about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ Actually I dug out an old 1999 CD version of Britannica the other week. *whispers* I was amazed as to how refreshing the articles are. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other > encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject supports. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: >> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >> >> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The >> information contained on the page could well be nonsense". > > A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? >>> >>> How is that relevant? >> >> You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, >> reliability is implied. > > A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I > wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally > authoritative, though. You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: > On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? > > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The > information contained on the page could well be nonsense". A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. >>> >>> Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? >> >> How is that relevant? > > You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, > reliability is implied. A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: > Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense". >>> >>> A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. >> >> Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? > > How is that relevant? You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied. If I misapplied the transitive property, I apologize. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: >>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >>> >>> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The >>> information contained on the page could well be nonsense". >> >> A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. > > Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? How is that relevant? On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: >>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >>> >>> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The >>> information contained on the page could well be nonsense". >> >> A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. >> > > We define what encyclopedia means at this point, and research has shown > that more "professional" encyclopedias also contain errors, the > difference is that you can't fix them easily. Two other differences are that biases in encyclopedias are generally easier to discover (in large part because they are usually consistent across an entire article), and that you can find out who to blame for them (either generally or specifically depending on the seriousness and willfulness of the error). > That said, any suggestions which adequately represents the power and > utility of our product, but avoids implication of inerrancy? I wouldn't want to waste much time on this as it has zero chance of being followed, but something like "the free bulletin board" would probably be more accurate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: >> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >> >> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The >> information contained on the page could well be nonsense". > > A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source? Any professor would flunk you for citing an encyclopedia—any encyclopedia—as a reference. I was homeschooled, and my mother would have slapped me in the head for not finding a primary source. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: >> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >>> >> >> Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The >> information contained on the page could well be nonsense". > > A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. > We define what encyclopedia means at this point, and research has shown that more "professional" encyclopedias also contain errors, the difference is that you can't fix them easily. That said, any suggestions which adequately represents the power and utility of our product, but avoids implication of inerrancy? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: > On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >> > > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The > information contained on the page could well be nonsense". A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24 October 2010 16:52, wrote: > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The > information contained on the page could well be nonsense". That would be the logo at the side, then. Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or won't. The community attempts best-effort, but the readers need to understand that Wikipedia is *just written by people*. We tell them this all the time. Slowly it seeps through the culture. Furthering this is definitely the best thing that can be done about the problem you raise. Not "everything in Wikipedia is rubbish and must be ignored" - that's obvious exaggeration and will be discounted by the readers, even though you're convinced it's the case. It wouldn't be #5 site in the world if it wasn't actually useful. Instead, that it's just written by people, and check the references. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> One would certainly hope that engineers weren't copying data from >> wikipedia. The issue though isn't the use put by Engineers and Doctors >> but rather the use put by normal people that are clicking on a search >> engine's 1st link, and where the site is saying Encyclopaedia and there >> is a general assumption that the information that you read is accurate >> baring any cultural bias. >> > > Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense". But really the issue is one of having every edit immediately visible to the world. Wikipedia is sometimes compared to Open Source Software, and whilst anyone can change the source code, you don't get to hack the toplevel distribution of Linux for instance. Instead the changes are community reviewed before they get submitted to core. Of course you are free to take your own version and hack away at it in your own little corner, but your changes aren't automatically reflected back into everybody's version. The open source crowd take a pride in the continual quality of the code. Here on wikipedia the quality of the information isn't held in such high regard, its enough that its right most of the time. I'll repeat my calculator analogy: A calculator that randomly adds two numbers wrongly is useless even if it only does it 1:10 times wrongly. So there needs to be an assessment of classes of articles that the community consider should be held to 'Calculator' or 'Linux' standard and should be locked from edits until reviewed. ie articles in those classes should automatically fall under level 2 protection of "pending changes". Secondly an assessment on what constitutes encyclopaedic information. Does an article absolutely have to mention each and every rumour, half-truth, or crackpot opinion? Encyclopaedic information doesn't change from day to day or even from month to month. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
