Wikipedia

[flexibeast]

Wikipedia is the source of much debate: is it a good resource, or questionable, or what? So there's a regular stream of articles giving evidence in support of the various viewpoints: for example, The Register is a good source of anti-Wikipedia writings, and articles such as this provide a more Wikipedia-sympathetic view.

Myself, i'm a critical supporter of the project. i have a Wikipedia login, which i've used to make a number of small edits here and there. My overall feeling, based on induction from articles i've read covering topics i already have prior knowledge of, is that it's often reasonably reliable, sans topics which are the subject of heated debates outside the relevant scholarly communities. So i'd be comfortable suggesting people refer to Wikipedia for information about the Wars of the Roses, or about how an internal combustion engine works, or about differential calculus; but not particularly comfortable referring people to articles on George W Bush, or on abortion, or on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. And of course, there are articles in-between these two positions.

A while back i was trying to have a discussion on an e-list about current physical and cosmological theories, and made a few references to Wikipedia articles on these topics in order to help explain what i was going on about. Someone on the list with hir own *cough* very idiosyncratic theories in these areas (actually, the person who inspired me to write this post) tried to diminish my argument by mmaking some statement along the lines of "Pfft, Wikipedia, as if that's reliable." i countered by noting that the articles to which i had referred basically gel'd with all the other reading i'd done on these topics, often by respected authors; and i encouraged people to do their own reading on these matters, and come to their own conclusions. It was a good example of naïve Wikipedia-assassination, coming not from a place of thoughtful criticism, but from a place of simple prejudice.

Interestingly, at least one of sacred_harlot's kids has been told not to use Wikipedia as a reference, presumably on the basis of its supposed lack of reliability. Yet i am aware of no such restrictions on them using the mass media as a source, even though i have personal experience of poor journalistic standards: take, as but one example, the time when i watched a supposedly "live" tv news report about a protest - showing scenes that i had personally been present at prior to the broadcast in question. And implying that the Murdoch media, such as the Herald-Sun, are a reliable source of information is naïve at best.

There are certainly problems with Wikipedia, some of which are being addressed, some of which are not. But i tend to feel that the issues that myself and other people have with Wikipedia have more chance of being resolved than the extensive issues myself and other people have with much of the mainstream media.
 

Comments

[penguinpusher.livejournal.com]

wiki rocks, particularly for computing stuff. Also what other encyclopedia are you likely to find info about the church of the flying spaghetti monster in ;) and some real facts about the $cientologists...

I've got a problem with them right now though, the banned editing of the hd-dvd pages and removal of the decryption key and locking of pages to prevent people putting it back up. It's understandable though, they have a hard enough time finding the funds to keep it running, let alone fight DMCA legal battles.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

particularly for computing stuff.

*nod* Yes, it's helped me with some of the fundamentals of comp. sci., serving as a springboard to other, more comprehensive resources.

Also what other encyclopedia are you likely to find info about the church of the flying spaghetti monster in ;) and some real facts about the $cientologists...

Heh, this is true.

the banned editing of the hd-dvd pages and removal of the decryption key and locking of pages to prevent people putting it back up. It's understandable though, they have a hard enough time finding the funds to keep it running, let alone fight DMCA legal battles.

*nod* Agreed. And it's not like the key isn't now trivially discoverable elsewhere on the Net . . . .

[penguinpusher.livejournal.com]

the most brilliant example of wiki in computing I've found is it's section on lock free algorithms when you start going through all the onsite links. Lock free is a black art, has been for decades now, but it's suddenly becoming useful with the explosion of multicore architectures. Wiki actually provides enough info for a competent programmer to learn one of the most obscure parts of CS, particularly with the external links.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Ah cool! My interest in Haskell has led me to read about STM in Haskell, which has led me to become more broadly interested in this sort of thing. :-)

[catsnstuff.livejournal.com]

I tell my students they can look at Wikipedia as a starting place for their own understanding, but not use it as a reference. Basically, this is because there is no guarantee of quality - while many articles are very good, some are not, but first year students may not be in a position to know the difference. It often explains topics very well, and you're right, often far better than the mainstream media. But the few instances where it isn't OK mean that its safer to just tell students to go look stuff up in an introductory book. This teaches better library skills, also - heaps of these students are great at using the 'net, while still seeming pretty uncertain about general non-google study skills.

(An example of bad Wikipedia - a few days ago, I looked up NZ TV broadcaster Paul Holmes, unable to believe he was only 57. While most of the page I read was fine, check out the third paragraph under "controversy" - "his daughter Milly is a crackhead loose girl"?! Riiiight.)

And yes, we tell students to be critical of mass media, newspaper articles, and the "facts" presented on such sites as the Auckland City Council website or Nike.com as well.

[catsnstuff.livejournal.com]

I should put a caveat on this - sometimes there is information on Wikipedia about new phenomena that aren't written about elsewhere. It's great for this. But when you reference it, this is of course stated.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Well, i guess where i was coming from is that there's no guarantee of quality from the mass media either: they often get their information wrong, whether due to incompetence or political agendas. And although they sometimes publish corrections, they often don't. So as long as you're making it clear that neither Wikipedia nor much of the mass (well, really, populist) media have no real guarantee of quality, i'd be happy with that.

And then, of course, i've encountered several pieces about the low quality of a variety of student textbooks (e.g. on biology and physics) . . . .

[catsnstuff.livejournal.com]

Our major newspaper, The New Zealand Herald, has a column for corrections in each issue. I can't remember where I read this, but someone made a spoof Herald couple of pages, and inserted a column called "we fucked up". *grin*

That being said, of course, it is only the blatantly wrong facts that get corrected. Other interpretations of events etc. are seldom critiqued again afterwards.

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Wikipedia's an excellent place for looking up jargon and technical details for any number of fields, but more hit-or-miss when it comes to the "real world" and personages. E.g. politics re philosophical theory tends to be good, but politics re people doing it tends not to. On the whole, it's a great reference (very much like manpages are a great reference) but you should look to the cited sources or cross-reference before trying to cite it.