Quote of the day

My students taught me that everything was personal - history, politics, foreign relations - but this approach creates boundaries as well as connections

— Peter Hessler

Syndicate content

Navigation
Home → Forums → media & the net >> Wikipedia – Good or Bad?

Wikipedia – Good or Bad?

chris9234

Posts: 932
 Joined: 2005-11-22
The original title I had for this thread was actually called The Spread of the Democratic Ideal and the Death of Truth, and I was two paragraphs deep into explaining the values and principles of the democratic ideal before it occurred to me I wasn't the second coming of David Thompson, and never mind that I was going to try to synthesize the ideas of no less than three weighty books into my efforts, nope, Wikipeida -Good or Bad, sounds about right to me. The fundamental question I'm after is whether or not the democratization of information via the internet is a good thing, or does it simply 'create an endless digital forest of mediocrity' that acts to 'collectively corrupt and confuse popular opinion'? A place where an unending number of narcissistic and amateurish posters, bloggers, and social net-workers post their own versions of the truth at the expense of undermining real truth and reducing as redundant and irrelevant the traditional 'cultural gate keepers' of the truth.(1) So, seeing as Od members often use Wikipedia as a valid form of reference for their posts (never me, I'm happy to say), I've decided to use it as an example to kick off discussion. So, loosely, why are most people generally willing to accept references from Wikipedia as being valid when you can't verify the credentials of those making the entries in it? And secondly, is the watering down of information on the internet by any idiot with an internet connection, coupled with the ideals of democratization – which have led to web-sites such as Wikipedia, the beginning of the end of civilization. (too dramatic?) Two examples to illustrate the point: "In March 2007, the New Yorker magazine discovered that "Essjay." An avid Wikipedia contributor interviewed for a recent article by the magazine's Stacy Schiff, had edited thousands of Wikipedia articles under a false identity. It turned out that "Essjay" was not a tenured professor of theology with four academic degrees, a his profile claimed, but was in fact a twenty-four-old high school graduate from Kentucky named Ryan Jordan with no academic or professional credentials. What's worse is that when confronted with the blatant deception perpetrated by one of his star contributors , Wales was less than apologetic. " I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it"(2) "Dr. William Connolley, a climate modeler at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge and an expert on global warming with many professional publications to his credit, recently went head-to-head with a particularly aggressive Wikipedia editor over the site's global warming entry, when, after trying to correct inaccuracies he noticed in the entry, he was accused of "strongly pushing his POV [point of view] with systemic removal of any POV which does not match his own." Connolly, who was pushing no POV other than that of factual accuracy, was put on editorial parole by Wikipedia, and was limited to making one entry a day. When he challenged the case, the Wikipedia arbitration committee gave no weight to his expertise, treating Connelley, an international expert on global warming, with the same deference and level of credibility as his anonymous foe"(3) 1 The Culture of the Amateur, Andrew Keen, 2007 2 The Culture of the Amateur, Andrew Keen, 2007 pp. 41 3 The Culture of the Amateur, Andrew Keen, 2007 pp. 43
‹ Is the value of a community online, greater than the value of money? Global Political Simulator ›

Submitted on Thu, 2007-09-13 20:56

Home → Forums → media & the net >> The modern day luddites are making a mountain out of a molehill

Matt Murrell

Posts: 1556
 Joined: 2004-02-22
The modern day luddites are making a mountain out of a molehill

Wikipedia is probably valid enough for a starting-off point. Even if the articles themselves are questionable in their accuracy they normally contain one or two links to more authoritative sites that people can move onto if the debate really gets going.

In terms of on-line debate it's main strength is its accessibility. If during a discussion I cite a particular book that the others haven't read then we have two main options: 1) take the point made at face value, or 2) bring the discussion to a close until someone in a position to comment shows up. Neither seems particularly great. Citing wikipedia means that others can pop over, see what's being referenced and then return to the debate. They're able to question the validity of the source if they want to - which normally leads to a rush of googling for alternatives.

Is this use of open-source reference material something we should be worried about? I doubt it. Wikipedia doesn't replace more stringent research. Before its arrival people just used to rely on personal opinion - much as we do during pub debates, etc. It's simply a new tool to be added to the arsenal of pre-existing ones.

The wider phenomenon of blogging is a more interesting area. Again, I think that worries about it are largely baseless. yes, blogs are more opinion than fact-driven, but the very fact that they market themselves in this way negates many of the problems that people see arising. When I read a blog post I'm fully aware that I'm reading one person's take on events - which leads me to be more critical of material, and more likely to try to track down information than when I read a professional newspaper which puts considerable effort into appearing authoritative.

--

www.aninsomniac.co.uk


Submitted on Sat, 2007-09-15 13:58
login or register to post comments | email this comment

chris9234

Posts: 932
 Joined: 2005-11-22
Some information are not informed information

Hi Matt

I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make with your ‘personal opinion’ statement. People have opinions, informed and not informed, biased and less biased, etc., but the crux of the question is whether or not the opinion of the majority has benefited or suffered as a result of the democratization of information (more on that in a minute) which has fueled and sustains web-sites such as Wikipedia. Keep in mind as well, that internet web-sites such as Wikipedia or search engines like Google act as a mirror in the way that they give information to us. And, contributors to Wikipedia and similar web-sites do often link to other ‘authoritative’ web-sites, but more often than not these links are only used to reinforce a particular point of view and rarely, if ever, offer counter views.

  

Popular opinion is critically important in democracies as the decisions based on it can have devastating consequences, so then, isn’t popular opinion and how it is formed equally important? You mention that you are aware of when you are reading someone’s take on a certain event versus, I suppose, an informed and intelligent opinion, but isn't that line becoming more and more blurry and only getting worse? There are already many examples of how some web-sites, acting as serious news outlets, have been very successful in forming public opinion about the upcoming US presidential elections on nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors, and while you and diligent people like you might be more critical about the information they digest, I don't believe most are - and even when they are, there are still simple lion and tiger problems to trip them up.

 Now, let me come back to my point about popular opinion, in a book I read called The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria, he discusses this idea (the democratization of information) in general, and uses an interesting example to make a point. During the 20’s when someone started up the book of the month club and well into the next four decades the selections of books were made by writers and editors and those in the literature field. During this time book selections were often criticized as being chosen by elitists who didn’t understand what the public really wanted and you would end up with books by the likes of Hemmingway, Steinbeck, Ellison, and Nabokov, etc. After Time bought the BOMC the focus of the company changed to primarily one of corporate profit and you started getting primarily the ‘popular’ writers like King, Clancy, and ‘romance’ novels, etc. The point being, that the earlier BOMC believed they had a ‘duty’ to promote books based on merit, not based on popularity. This, in a way, can be interpreted as what is currently happening with the internet and information, i.e., information is now not being spread on its merit, but on its popularity, what are the consequences of this?  

Submitted on Sun, 2007-09-16 01:15
login or register to post comments | email this comment

Zeeboid

Posts: 2
 Joined: 2007-09-25
Even William is a poor example of a Wikipedia Editor

Unfortunately both examples given of Wikipedia editors are poor examples.  William Connolley even has a vicious history of “Do as I say not as I do” with his edits, inflicting his own bias or POV, and editing articles on those he is associated with to remove any negativity.  Between William and many of those who edit on Global Warming related articles, for example, much work is done to limit what some have to say, so far as to have websites added to Metawiki’s Spam list (with gives the guideline for only adding items to the spam list who send out spam) Because of pointing out edits by these Wikipedia editors that show their bias.  all you need to do is look at their edit history.  William Connolley, Raul654, Raymond arritt, Stephan Schulz, KimDabelsteinPetersen, the list goes on.

--

http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com


Submitted on Tue, 2007-09-25 04:10
login or register to post comments | email this comment

chris9234

Posts: 932
 Joined: 2005-11-22
.

Welcome Zee,

You may be right, but isn't the fact that all people are susceptible to their own particular bias the reason it's important to know who's opinions we're reading on a site that pretends to offer credible information? You may disagree with William Connolley's opinions and think they're biased, but you also know that they are informed and educated opinions, ones that are have been put through strict academic scrutiny.

I to have opinions on Global warming as do millions of others, but mine are only informed by what I've read on the topic, so who's opinion do you think has more value, Mr Connolley, or Chris from Toronto who has never studied anything related to global warming in his life?

That's the essence of the question here - are all opinions of equal value now, is there no such thing as the truth

Wikipedia thinks so.

Submitted on Tue, 2007-09-25 13:45
login or register to post comments | email this comment

Zeeboid

Posts: 2
 Joined: 2007-09-25
"You may disagree with

"You may disagree with William Connolley's opinions and think they're biased, but you also know that they are informed and educated opinions, ones that are have been put through strict academic scrutiny."

The problem though with Wikipedia is when there is scrutiny, it is often shut down as quickly as possible.  when you review the global warming articles, (and Apple Inc is another good one for that) it is quite clear, that there is a) A group of people with a view and alot of time on their hands to devote to wikipedia and b) a group of people who try to bring balance and NPOV views, but don't keep watching the same article for months on end.  The pOV Pushing in many articles like the Global Warming related and Apple inc articles for example are horriable.

--

http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com


Submitted on Mon, 2007-10-01 21:53
login or register to post comments | email this comment

L.W.

Posts: 250
 Joined: 2006-08-08
The thing that wikipedia

The thing that wikipedia has on me is that it responds instantly to my curiosity. Usually when there is something I do not know I would look it up there as a starting point but as soon as I get more information on the subject I immediately move over to researching in different sources. I do not necessarily take the writer's point of view on the subject for the absolute facto-logical truth. But as I said, Wikipedia is convenient to my impatience.

Using Wikipedia as a reference in a debate thou is only as credible as one can prove  through their own arguments.


Submitted on Thu, 2007-10-18 16:07
login or register to post comments | email this comment

burnitdown2012

Posts: 4
 Joined: 2007-02-12
Bad
Bad -- centralized power in the hands of the abusive!

Submitted on Tue, 2007-10-23 01:15
login or register to post comments | email this comment

DaveGood

Posts: 823
 Joined: 2003-02-18
OK..choose between

OK..choose between Wikipedia ( Millions of people around the planet can and do review and correct anything posted) and US main stream media ( Owned and controlled by a handful of people who use what they own as a means of making ever increasing fortunes). When all is said and done.....which information source will you place faith in? Does Anyone reading this want to come here and argue that Fox News ( Prop. Rupert Murdoch) has the right to sole ownership of the phrase "Fair and balanced" in regard to how and what it represents to it's consumers as real world life? Fox news has sued in court for the ownership of the phrase "Fair and Balanced". Does anyone reading this think Rupert Murdoch has the right to "own" a commonly used phrase of the English Language and turn it into money?

DaveGood


Submitted on Sat, 2007-10-27 20:40
login or register to post comments | email this comment

Richard

Posts: 233
 Joined: 2004-12-12
Goor, Bad or Pretty Useful with Some Dodgy Bits?

"Good or bad" is for certain theologians and old-fashioned neurotics.

Wikipedia is undeniably useful, and amazingly so considering you do not have to pay for it, since it is created by voluntary effort. It does have some dodgy bits, but when you find them, report them, or better, improve  them yourself.


Submitted on Sun, 2007-10-28 12:37
login or register to post comments | email this comment

weepyhollow

Posts: 3
 Joined: 2008-04-23
yea well the point is you

yea well the point is you can't trust wikipedia, or at least have to be sceptical.. i'd recommend cross-checking wiki with other encyclopedias.


Submitted on Wed, 2008-04-23 11:27
login or register to post comments | email this comment