Fix Wikipedia?
It was gratifying to stumble onto this article at CNET that supports my long-held view that the Wikipedia is not a "legit" source for writers doing research. I see that even lawsuits have resulted and grave injuries been done to parties.Can German engineering fix Wikipedia?:
Because nearly anyone can edit just about any of the more than 2 million Wikipedia articles in 229 national versions and have those edits instantly appear, malicious edits of an article so that it contains obscenity or fiction have been one of the more serious problems Wikipedia has faced.
[research]
posted by Georganna Hancock M.S. | 11:50 AM
5 Comments:
I think any writer who relies on only one internet site for research is kinda nuts. So I agree with you that Wikipedia may not be a good place for writers doing legitimate research.
However, it is still a fabulous web site. A little of everything is there. The idea it is user created and driven makes it even more valuable. Sure, there will sometimes be a photo of a penis at the top of a popular article. And sometimes there will be inaccurate information within an article. But the rest of that vast resource is, at the least, a good place to start.
The thing about vandalism edits to Wikipedia is that they very seldom stand for long. For example, someone "blanked" the Madeleine L'Engle article today at 15:58 (I think that's EDT), replacing the entire article with the words, "i hate this book." At 15:59, the entire article was back the way it was, thanks for AntiVandalBot, one of many automated scripts users sent out to find and "revert" destructive edits. While it's true that a subtle edit to an obscure article might go unnoticed for a while, the vast majority of the vandalism is caught and fixed within a couple of minutes. And frankly, very little of it is more sophisticated than some kid's rude remark.
In addition to this, there's a push on to see that all the articlesare well "sourced." This gets pretty silly when the article is about a strictly online phenomenon, but if you look at articles other than the pop culture subjects (and even some of those), you will find citations and references. Wikipedia isn't perfectby a long shot, but it's not nearly as useless as many people believe.
"The idea it is user created and driven makes it even more valuable." Paula (and Karen) how does this work? To my thinking, the idea that it is amateur-created means it even more useless for writers doing research. The only value I can see is that if you have absolutely no notion of what something is or is about, a glance at Wikipedia might suggest keywords on which to search in a reputable, authoritative resource online. Of course, you can do the same with a legitimate encyclopedia online and save a step. Or you can a call a reference librarian.
O.K., I'll admit I once used it to discover the difference between a hub and a router so that when I went to the local geek shop, I could ask for the right piece of technology.
This creepy phenomenon of trusting what you read on the Internet becomes even more chilling as this user-created resource takes on the cachet of an information authority. Brrrr!
Have you ever heard of The Wisdom of Crowds? I don't know who wrote it, but the idea (very roughly, and assuming I even sorta kinda remember correctly) is that large groups learn and benefit from the best ideas of the individuals in it. That's the idea behind learning teams and teams in the workplace. That's kind of how Wikipedia works. Someone comes along and sees a typo - and fixes it. Someone else thinks this sentence will flow better if it's rewritten slightly - and does it. A third person adds an interesting point. A fourth looks at the interesting point, considers it doubtful, and removes it. The third person puts it back in, with a good citation that verifies the fact. This time it stands. That's the wisdom of crowds. At the end of the day, the article is better.
Take a look at an article like Adolph Hitler or Route 66 or Arizona, and you'll see lots of facts, and lots ofreferences to back up those facts. Where there's interpretation, it's generally attributed to some off-Wiki expert, or a study or an opinion poll. The rule is "No original research." Everything is supposed to be supported by a source, even if the source is just imdb.com or the tv show that the article is about. And if something is wrong - like a claim that Snoopy was originally brouwn - chances are excellentt that someone will quickly remove the error, and provide a citation to prove that it's wrong.
And it is not all amateurs. There are many professionals who write and edit articles within their craft.
The idea is that no one article will be written and edited by just one person. As popular as Wikipedia is, I don't see how an inaccuracy could last for very long.
Post a Comment
<< Home