BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 10:01 PM

BillD, it was just included as a random quote. Sure you might say it, but I'll bet you'd read the textbooks anyway. Who knows, maybe that kid would, too. It read like an endorsement.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 05:51 PM

So big business censors its Wiki entries! Any news on the relief of Mafeking yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 03:36 PM

does it give the reason? I can think of several circumstances where I'd say the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 01:30 PM

The following does not bode well. I found it randomly displayed on a Wiki page to which google pointed:


"I'd rather read Wikipedia than my college textbooks." — William R.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:45 AM

That entirely depends on who's doing the 'recognising. Oxford Uni.Press, which publishes OED is pretty rich, and there are large important swathes of the world that will stick by the OED, knowing its authority and integrity.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:50 PM

How is the OED supported anyway? It would seem there is a lot to lose if WikiPedia comes to be recognized as an actual authority on issues and items, and the OED dies on the vine because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:34 PM

oooooooooooooo - and on Government desks too...


(Australian Political Joke....)

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:02 PM

I hope someone who knows will put back the true stuff that The Kremlins de nos jours aka 'our' democratic governmnet reps, took out.

   Would that result in constant in-out-in-out goings-on?





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 02:50 AM

It now appears that since the ids of those posting are outed - that large numbers of edits have been done from Aust Govt sites.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:51 PM

Imagine what it was like to compile the first OED...no internet or email! Click Here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:44 PM

Thread not dead.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Tootler
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM

I think we should be careful not to condemn all of Wikipedia on the basis of entries in an area which, by its very nature, is contentious.

I have a friend who is a statistics lecturer at a well respected English University and he says that the Wikipedia entry on basic statistics is excellent - better than the majority of text books.

He has a shrewd idea who the author of the entry is and says that he (the author) is a well respected academic who will make sure what he puts in is both correct and up to date.

That said, I agree that we should use a certain amount of caution when using Wikipedia. Nevertheless it is a very useful as a starting point and they do make the effort to reference their articles so you can follow up their sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:39 PM

Thread

    Dead?




       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 12:59 PM

How are you going to chop anything if you don't gring it first?




         Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 10:24 PM

"All have axes to gring"

Please don't gring my axe, I need it to chop wood... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:33 PM

In spite of all of that, ... I'll continue to use them.

He who plays with a turd will be beshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 03:45 AM

Yes, that's exactly the position most people are in about most subjects, and exactly the position where it's a BAD IDEA to rely on only one source of information.





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 10:36 PM

Yeah, you're right about all of that. The problem that Wikipedia has, I suppose, is they would have to have an expert in every catagory you can think of to review the entries, and, of course, that's not what they're about.

             In spite of all of that, I think they are trying to do a good job, and I'll continue to use them.

             The problem one gets into is, if you're looking up something you know very little about, you can be led down the primrose path pretty easily. You can only hope that somebody who does know will take the trouble to enter a counter opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 01:06 PM

The wiki intro stuff says they reject copy which is not neutral. good if true andpossible.

   Not sure, even about neutrality of facts - the White House puts out a 'fact sheet' about the Iraq War.

   Any historian, and certainly philosopher, knows there is selection in the process of deciding what a fact is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not to mention agendas (see para 2 above.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 10:56 PM

I suspect the founderw of Wikipedia become distraught in the extreme when entries of opinion are inserted as fact. I don't think that was their intention.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 07:44 PM

"So he published The Myth of the Britannica, showing they'd gone to sleep on the job, having not revised many articles in yonks."

Dealing with information sources that are dodgy because they haven't been revised or are out of date, is something that's been around for ages - but dealing with information sources that are subject to revision by interested parties without any obvious indication of this having being done is something else, and it's a lot more tricky.

It would help if there was some mechanism by which changes were flagged up, and earlier versions were still available.
....................

...that the US-led invasion was not a "US-led occupation" but a "US-led liberation."

I'd say that's within the spirit of Wikipedia. The two expressions are equally subjective statements of opinion.

I'd disagree there - "occupation" is a straightforward term for a situation where a foreign army occupies a country and is in charge of running it. No value judgement is implied. An occupation can well be a liberation, a liberation carried out by a foreign army can hardly avoid being an occupation, for at least some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:08 PM

rigin yes, reference works do have a level of integrity, tho' some more than others. And most reference work compilers say that there will be errors in their productions.

e.g. Grove is THE dictionary/encuclopedia of classical music, and a learned contributor still managed to slip in a hoax entry that was printed in the 20-volume effort.

i'm forever finding errors in the most learned reference books.

   And there have been 2 series on Beeb tv, called Balderdash and Piffle, in which people have been finding earlier first printings/documentation of words than the great Oxford English Dictionary had already.

So no surprises that Wikip., the internet, esteemed newspapers and government publications are all flawed. All have axes to gring, agendas too, and require their assumptions being uncovered.

it's a naughty world.




         Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:05 AM

Q: NYT's On Wiki. Several listed link articles at the Washington Post, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 10:13 AM

Let us keep in mind that August is a slow news month. It may be sad that people with money and reputation to lose feel free to mess with Wikipedia, but it's not a big surprise and it's not earthshaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:34 AM

no, Greg F, Wikipedia is NOT a 'blog'. A blog is one persons opinion...

Yup, and BlogiPedia is also one person's opinion (or one entity's opinion- like the Republican National Committee, for example) at a time- and that opinion changes with every so-called "revision"- an ever changing kaleidoscope of hogwash.


'scuse me, I have to go now & watch "Survivor"...

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:20 AM

I can see how that should apply to news sources, but reference material should have some level of integrity.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:00 AM

propoganda, i mean education, so that eventually no-one relies on any one source for their information (even their own 'reliable' newspaper.)   And to discourage a tendency for people to think of only one source, even the internet as an example, as a satisfactory approach to knowledge.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 09:28 PM

I think most people would agree that the people behind Wikipedia meant it as a means to bring factual information to researchers. What's to be done about things like the Republican party perverting entries to give the data the political spin they want it to convey?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia - how reliable?
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 05:15 PM

I've just seen that Katlaughing has already introduced this topic on another thread, so I'll defer to that thread.

---

Threads combined.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia - how reliable?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 05:05 PM

WWikipedia reflects Wickiality

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia - how reliable?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 04:59 PM

If Wikipedia wishes to be authoritative, it must appoint reviewers who have credibility through academic standing or proven subject knowledge.

I have not seen discussion of the 'editing' story in the Washington Post or the New York Times or other responsible publication yet; whether there is any truth to the story is hard to judge.

Subject: BS: Wikipedia - how reliable?
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 04:44 PM

Computer program  reveals FBI, CIA edited Wikipedia entries
17/08/2007 10:07 WASHINGTON,  August 17 (RIA Novosti) - A new scanning
program has revealed that the FBI and  CIA have been editing Wikipedia
entries on
topics ranging from the Iraq war to  Guantanamo. 
WikiScanner, developed by CalTech  graduate student Virgil Griffith, has
traced editorial changes made to the  online encyclopedia to FBI and CIA
computers, including the removal of satellite  imagery of the Guantanamo
prison camp on
the island of Cuba, where the United  States has detained suspected
terrorists since 2002, and redactions of articles  on the invasion of
Iraq in 2003. 
The program revealed that the CIA  edited entries about its former
director,
William Colby, altering details of his  career, and that a graphic on
casualties in Iraq was manipulated to downplay the  figures. 
A number of commercial companies  were also found to have edited entries
related to them, in clear violation of  Wikipedia's editorial guidelines
that
disqualify people or organizations from  editing articles that concern
them
directly. 
However, a spokeswoman for  Wikipedia's parent company, Wikimedia, said
the
online encyclopedia was in any  event self-correcting, and that any
misleading
entries are usually quickly  rectified. 
The FBI did not have any comment,  and the CIA insisted that all of its
computers are used responsibly. 
© 2005 RIA Novosti 

The link to the story is here -

CIA & FBI editing Wikipedia


I suppose the CIA and FBI might cite those all-embracing 'security concerns' in their editorial process, and it seems a bit unfair that people cannot directly edit information given on themselves, though I understand Wikipedia has strict libel policies. And of course the Doubting Thomases will point to the fact the story comes from a Russian news agency.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 04:08 PM

giginslinger, that's true, and an isolated example. my question was general.

Fionn, i also think the methos is transparent. That, tho' doesn't make it transparent to everyone, like naive youngsters who may not know how to "read" things like wikiped. in its background and intellectual assumptions.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 01:56 PM

Do young students know how wiki is assembled?

Well, Autolycus, if by wiki you mean Wikipedia (there are lots of wikis, as many young students could tell you), it could hardly make itself more transparent. As an admittedly sweeping generalisation, I'd say old students are more likely than young to find the newer online technologies somewhat baffling.

Uncle DaveO is on to a good point. Some of the cited "abuses" may in fact be perfectly legitimate. Any Amnesty employee prowlihg around Wikipedia at the workplace might reasonably disagree that Amnesty is anti-American, as I do myself. OK maybe that person should have used the monicker "Amnesty employee" but in the end it's no big deal. Wikipedia's strength is the size of the consensus it can usually bring to bear.

Doubters might find it interesting to look up an obviously controversial subject and then click the discussion tab to find out how the article got to be the way it is. More often than not, even quite vitriolic debates end in agreement to work towards wording that can be accepted by all factions as "neutral point of view." Some of the entries concerned with the former Yugoslavia, where some of the contributors were recently and literally at war with each other, are good examples.

There is however one aspect of Wikipedia that makes some people instantly suspicious: no-one seems to be making any money out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 11:24 AM

I looked at Jeri's link, and found the following, and I have added my comments in bold:

The Republican Party and Iraq

The Republican Party edited Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party entry so it made it clear that the US-led invasion was not a "US-led occupation" but a "US-led liberation."

I'd say that's within the spirit of Wikipedia. The two expressions are equally subjective statements of opinion. I happen to agree with the "occupation" more so than "liberation", but neither is a matter of objective fact.

The CIA and casualties of war

A computer with a CIA IP address was used to change a graphic on casualties of the Iraq war by adding the warning that many of the figures were estimated and not broken down by class. Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited to expand his cv.

Seems to me that both of these changes are entirely appropriate, assuming the figures were in fact estimated and not broken down, and that the facts in the expanded cv are correct. This use of Wikipedia is exactly what Wikipedia should be about.

I am sure I could go further (and I'm going to) through the article, and I'd find other changes which, at least by implication, are claimed to be illegitimate. I'm sure I would find plenty that are flat-out wrong, too. But not every change made by a party with a special interest is an intellectual crime against Wikipedia and the general public.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 11:08 AM

no, Greg F, Wikipedia is NOT a 'blog'. A blog is one persons opinion, kep & edited by that person only. Wikipedia is a collaboration of many people who can correct each other.
As I and others say above, you should still take care in using it, but it tends to have accurate information much more often than not, and unlike a printed encyclopedia, it can BE corrected instantly if better data is found.

The "Boobocracy" will be there forever, but maybe we can gradually lead them toward the BETTER internet sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 10:56 AM

Wikipedia is a BLOG, folks, B-L-O-G, not an encyclopedia or a reliable source for anything..

This is probably the biggest problem of all. Kids have a tendancy to take anything they see in print as truth.

Kids do? And where do they get this behavior from? Adults, who are just as gullible, but should know better.

Actually, its much worse: these days the Boobocracy tends to question things in print, but believe anything posted on the internet.

Oh, ye generation of morons.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 10:17 AM

Here's another article, Wikipedia and the art of censorship, from The Independent, 18 Aug 07.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: pattyClink
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 09:54 AM

A Youtube favorite

Lewis Black: Fossils, the Devil's Handiwork

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 09:45 AM

When somebody tells you the planet earth is only six thousand years old and that dinosaur bones were placed here by the devil to lead you astray, that's a pretty good indication you're being ill-informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 03:35 AM

How do we know when we're being ill-informed?





          Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 09:19 PM

Bill D - Yes, I agree with you completely. I guess the problem is, they don't want to share the stage, they think they can convert everybody else to their perverted way of thinking, and they think it's the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 08:20 PM

There has to some mechanism worked out to let the "religious right" go on in their misguided way, but without effect on the rest of us.

I can't control how fools think, but I will not let them tell ME how to think or behave....and this principle needs to be deeply embedded in the laws & culture....not just obliquely referred to, then ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 07:36 PM

As do those in power.





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 02:19 PM

"but over time, both tend towards accuracy, simply because of the Delphic principle of better answers arising from many inputs."


            But the Religious Right is always moving to cut off debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 02:17 PM

I'm constantly finding errors in printed reference books.

Harvey Einbinder sharpened up Britannica when he discovered how many errors that had. So he published The Myth of the Britannica, showing they'd gone to sleep on the job, having not revised many articles in yonks.

And unfortunately, even if a fact is in half-a-dozen encyclopedias, that still doesn't rove it's necessarily correct.

Do young students know how wiki is assembled?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 11:19 AM

and when you think about it, Mudcat itself is a 'form' of an editable database. Though not as direct as a Wiki, we are constantly getting new information, both about music as well as diverse other things. The big difference is that all the changes 'usually' remain, so one can follow the process and debate....but in the end, it is usually possible to sort out authorship of songs, most common lyrics, meanings of phrases...etc.
   Obviously, some topics have no one 'right' answer, but it is possible to read some strong defenses by committed exponents of viewpoints.
   I don't mean to belabor the comparison, but only to suggest that, with a little effort, it IS possible to sort out better data from dubious data because knowledgeable people are always chiming in with updates and clarifications.

Neither Wikipedia nor Mudcat & its song database should be taken as 'revealed truth', but over time, both tend towards accuracy, simply because of the Delphic principle of better answers arising from many inputs.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 10:28 AM

Spot on, Bill D.

Most recent studies have shown Wikipedia to be at least as reliable as Britannica, and obviously it's vastly bigger. Use it sensibly and it is a fantastic resource.

That article quoted by Kat is certainly interesting but it's not exactly strong on concrete evidence of sytematic abuse by the self-interested. The examples quoted (some of them dating back a while) are the kind of stuff that might be expected or predicted. As such it is soon noticed and - as Bill said - is quickly sorted.

By the way, LtS, it's This SCEPTRED Isle, being the story of Britain, not the US. That was indeed a quirky slightly one-dimensional race through a lot of history. But you could say the same about books by Corelli Barnett, AJP Taylor etc. They're all useful but it's better not to rely on any one of them to the exclusion of all else.

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 06:54 AM

All this shows why education must be about far more than reading, wrighting (or wroughting), arithmetic, and subject subjects (geog, bio and the rest0

    It must include critical thinking, evaluation, even philosophy and sociology and media studies, so that students begin to know how to approach and get to grips with their world, to see how it works, and what 'knowing' means.


    There's a whole essay/tome in all this. (As usual).





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Wicked Impediment on WikiPedia?!
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 10:42 PM

How easily one can become an unperson....