Ialmost forgot. The second Ars Technica article that I linked to in my last post had a link at the very end to a comic that I, personally, found extremely amusing.
I shared that comic with my girlfriend and with a friend of ours, and, based on their responses, I now realize that a certain amount of background knowledge is required in order to fully appreciate it.
If, having now brushed up on your Masters of the Universe, you feel ready, enjoy!
The Seigenthaler fallout continues... if that means nothing to you, go read my first two posts in this series here and here, respectively, and then come back.
Ars Technica — always a good read — has two new articles up pertaining Wikipedia's recent time in the spotlight.
In the first, Ken "Caesar" Fisher digs a little deeper into the Nature study (seriously — if you're lost, read this) and the broader Wikipedia-reliability issue.
The gist of it is that Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales has recently responded to the accusations of inaccuracy in Wikipedia by stating that (a) people really shouldn't be citing encyclopedias as authoritative sources in the first place, and that (b) Wikipedia may have its flaws, but it's worlds better than where people were probably going before... that is, than any ol' sketchy website.
As the Nature study demonstrated, Britannica isn't much better than Wikipedia as far as accuracy is concerned, and I think Wales' first point is a good one. His second is a bit more complex, as Seigenthaler would no doubt agree. The problem is that people expect sketchy websites to be sketchy, whereas people generally expect Wikipedia to be reliable. The question of accountability arises when, on occasion, Wikipedia turns out to be not-so-reliable. But does the fault lie with Wikipedia for not doing a better job of controlling their content, or with the user-base for having expectations that are out of wack with reality?
Personally, I think people spend too much time looking for someone to blame and not enough time taking responsibility for their own actions. Wikipedia never promised to be accurate... quite the opposite, in fact. I think people should spend a little more time appreciating the amazing resource that Wikipedia is, and a little less time nattering on about its shortcomings.
And what better way to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, than to spend your daily Wikipedia-appreciation time making Wikipedia better.
Oh. Right. I promised two Ars articles. The other is about Wikipedia's recent addition of a few more anti-vandalism measures. It's a good idea, it's certainly relevant, and it's not overly exciting... read it here if you care.
In response to the recent Wikipedia trustworthiness controversy — see my first post on that here — the fine folks over at Nature have put Wikipedia to the test.
According to this well-written Business Week article, Nature found that, out of a random sample of 42 entries of a scientific bent, Wikipedia had, on average, just 1 more error per entry than the much-vaunted Encyclopædia Britannica.
What's more, they also polled more than 1,000 scientists who had contributed to Nature, and found that 17% consulted Wikipedia on a weekly basis. And we should all know, by now, that the more smart people that use Wikipedia, the better — because they can FIX MISTAKES that they find there.1
By the way, you can check out Nature's own report of their findings here.
I'll repeat myself one more time, just for good measure: viva Wikipedia!
1 Yes, in fact, I did read the Nature article, and I saw that part where they said that while 17% of those scientists use Wikipedia on a weekly basis, only 10% of them contribute to Wikipedia while they're there. What do I have to say about that? Two things. First, it's better than nothing. Second, shame on the rest of them.
One John Seigenthaler, Sr., has been making a big fuss over Wikipedia lately. You can get the whole story just about anywhere, such as from a New York Times article or, as should come as no surprise, a Wikipedia entry.
The meat of the situation is this — Seigenthaler happened to come across the Wikipedia entry about himself recently, and he didn't like what he read there. It implicated him in the RFK and JFK assassinations or something... but that's not important. What is important, is this: he has made and is continuing to make a huge stink over it.
I do feel bad for him, honestly. He seems like a nice fellow who was offended by what he read about himself, and, on top of that, he's concerned that anyone could write similar "slander" about anyone or anything else, and hapless readers might accept it as the truth.
But poor John, unfortunately, just doesn't understand Wikipedia. Wikipedia is founded on two basic ground rules:
1. If you know something and it's not in there, add it.
2. If you find something in there that is incorrect, fix it.
These are the rules from which Wikipedia was born, and the rules according to which it continues to grow. A true User of Wikipedia accepts them and abides by them. What Seigenthaler should have done when he came across his bio is fix it, and then post an explanatory note in the entry discussion. It would have been quiet, under the radar, and correct from then on.
Instead, he made a fuss. Who does this benefit, other than the news-media? No one that I can see. It has caused him an even greater headache, though, as his entry is now a juicy target for wikivandalism.
Wikivandals, by way, deserve to beaten over the head with all 32 volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica.
