> A pathological skeptic trashed the Wikipedia article on
> cold fusion. Steve Krivit wrote, urging me to protest.
> His message:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion
>
> Go to where it says SURVEY, and at the bottom of the
> SURVEY section, add this, including the semicolon in
> front,
>
>
> My response to Steve:
>
> Wikipedia is crap. It is a failed experiment.
> The structure and rules make it impossible to
> sustain an objective article about cold fusion
> or some other controversial subject. The pathological
> skeptics rule there, and they can have it. I will
> not devote any more time or effort to that lost cause.
>
> - Jed
>
Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia faults.
While I can sympathize with Jed's frustration with Wiki's apparent inability to resolve informational disputes concerning CF, particularly when opposing points start battling for dominance I'm not willing to go as far as proclaiming it's a failed experiment.
The problem, as I see it, is that Wikipidia is still a growing & evolving repository of information where the collection and dissemination of information is not yet fully understood nor what kinds of mechanisms should be in place in order to help maintain accurate information. At present there appear to be insufficient checks and balances in place to handle situations where information wars flare up, where there are more than one POVs claiming ultimate legitimacy and dominance. The problem is exacerbated when revised information is almost immediately removed and replaced with new revisions from the opposite ideological camp. This kind of posting behavior can quickly degenerate into an endless tit for tat, until one side finally washes their hands of the ordeal and leaves the forum in disgust. The obvious danger in all of this is that much of the information posted out in Wiki may not necessarily the most accurate. It's just the most stubbornly maintained POV.
It seems to me that Wikipidia might need to institute a cooling off period, a time period yet to be determined. During this cooling off period a new editing mechanism shifts into gear, one where all the different & opposing points of view are simultaneously placed next to each other. IOW, when an informational war is obviously in the process of unfolding, NO INFORMATION can be summarily deleted. Instead, only additional information, such as new paragraphs of opposing view points can be appended to the already existing information. It should also be clearly revealed WHO (which editor) has added the new information.
Obviously, this cooling-off approach runs the danger of cluttering up the topic to the point that it may become difficult if not down-right confusing to read, at least while the cooling off moratorium is in place. But then, perhaps that's the price one must make, it being the lesser of two evils. Such a mechanism might make it imperative to all interested opposing parties to make their points as succinct and as brief as possible so as not to tick off the reader. During such informational "disputes" impartial readers sould be able to sift through the growing lists of differing POVs and perhaps glean what data is perhaps the more accurate and which information has been placed out there due to sheer stubbornness, be-damned what the actual facts are. IMHO, people aren't stupid. I think most are more than capable of sensing how much inappropriate emotional baggage might be behind recent "revisions."
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
- Re: [Vo]: Steve Krivit urges participation in Wikipedia OrionWorks
