Monday, May 01, 2006

The Wiki Debate

Erica and I got into a hot debate over Wikipedia. I like it as a tool, not as a primary source. I guess that's a big disclaimer but I like that it cross references its self and allows for users to follow lines of inquiry through out the website. It also has up to date articles on a wider range of topics than a traditional encyclopedia would. For example it has a large section on pod casting which was helpful to me.

Concerns about it's open source nature (anyone can modify it's content) are valid. Here's how Wiki responds to these concerns (from their site, wikipedia.org):

"Wikipedia will be ruined by cranks who post ridiculous theories on the Internet."
So far, there have been relatively few cranks on Wikipedia, and it's easy to delete patent nonsense as soon as it appears on the Recent Changes page.
Some websites say the first moon landing was staged in a movie studio, or describe supposed perpetual motion machines. It is impossible to correct those websites, no matter how wrong they are, because their authors demand complete control over their work. They fail miserably on Wikipedia.
This does not mean that idiosyncratic points of view are silenced or deleted; rather, they are contextualized by attributing them to named advocates. The more idiosyncratic an entry, the more likely it is to be modified. Because no one owns the information in Wikipedia, people are compelled to contribute convincingly true information. Thus, cranks who are unable to accept critical editing of their writing find they have no platform and leave; those willing to present their interests in less-biased ways become valuable contributors.
"Some persistent cranks could write up a crankish page on the Holocaust, and keep reverting it back to their version."
However, a better way is to challenge cranks using Wikipedia itself. For example, the Holocaust denial article shows that crank opinions' weaknesses are exposed in a neutral point of view. After all, it is far better to understand and challenge inaccurate claims than simply try to ignore them.
Generally, partisans of all sorts are kept under the gun. Wikipedians feel pretty strongly about enforcing our non-bias policy. We've managed to work our way to rough consensus on a number of controversial issues. People who stubbornly insist that an article must reflect their personal biases are rare, and then they generally receive a drubbing.
In serious cases, we can ban people as a last resort and use technical means to stop them from making further edits to Wikipedia"Wikipedia will be ruined by cranks who post ridiculous theories on the Internet."
So far, there have been relatively few cranks on Wikipedia, and it's easy to delete patent nonsense as soon as it appears on the Recent Changes page.
Some websites say the first moon landing was staged in a movie studio, or describe supposed perpetual motion machines. It is impossible to correct those websites, no matter how wrong they are, because their authors demand complete control over their work. They fail miserably on Wikipedia.
This does not mean that idiosyncratic points of view are silenced or deleted; rather, they are contextualized by attributing them to named advocates. The more idiosyncratic an entry, the more likely it is to be modified. Because no one owns the information in Wikipedia, people are compelled to contribute convincingly true information. Thus, cranks who are unable to accept critical editing of their writing find they have no platform and leave; those willing to present their interests in less-biased ways become valuable contributors.
"Some persistent cranks could write up a crankish page on the Holocaust, and keep reverting it back to their version."
However, a better way is to challenge cranks using Wikipedia itself. For example, the Holocaust denial article shows that crank opinions' weaknesses are exposed in a neutral point of view. After all, it is far better to understand and challenge inaccurate claims than simply try to ignore them.
Generally, partisans of all sorts are kept under the gun. Wikipedians feel pretty strongly about enforcing our non-bias policy. We've managed to work our way to rough consensus on a number of controversial issues. People who stubbornly insist that an article must reflect their personal biases are rare, and then they generally receive a drubbing.
In serious cases, we can ban people as a last resort and use technical means to stop them from making further edits to Wikipedia.

Thoughts?

2 comments:

Matthew Cheney said...

I love Wikipedia for certain subject areas -- I've not found a better research tool for pop culture, for instance, and it's also good for explaining complex computer concepts to those of us who don't understand them. It all depends on who it's attracted for editors; for instance, somebody with good knowledge of postmodern philosophy has been very busy there, because a lot of the entries for major figures and ideas are great.

Here's an article from the Journal of American History assessing its usefulness for historians.

One of the ways Wikipedia can be useful as a learning tool is showing students that knowledge is something that is constructed and always under discussion. It's a great way to teach critical thinking -- have them assess articles and look at ways that the Wikipedians themselves assess articles (for instance, by looking at some of the articles that have been tagged as incomplete, biased, in the wrong tone, etc.)

Matthew Cheney said...

And two more (because the Internet is my favorite procrastination tool...)

An article from The New Yorker

An article from The Onion