wired.com— Starting this fall, you'll have a new reason to trust the information you find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called WikiTrust will color code every
Aug 31, 2009View in Crawl 4
This is a really neat idea, and if deployed correctly could possibly be a big life saver. At some schools currently teachers are not accepting Wikipedia as a reliable source for information, for any project you may have (pain in the ass; trust from personal expereince). Although when you google a subject majority of the times a Wikipedia entry is the first thing to pop up. With this system's emplimantation it will raise the reliability of Wikipedia (hopefully), and make it more trustworthy in a educational environment as well as a public environment.
What the hell? Wikipedia already has page rankings: Featured, Featured Candidate, A, Good Article, B, C, Start, and Stub, and theres already a plugin which you can toggle if you have an account that lets you color code article titles based on their rankings, and display a note under the article title showing the ranking. I requested this as a default feature, as far as a link to a recent history page at the top of the article, but no, that was deemed too distracting. And this isn't?Also, I can't see this not creating truthiness issues. "Oh, that text has a better color. I guess it gets to stay."
@Encyclopedia Britannica -Primary motivation of contributors: Money.and if someone pays them money to distort the truth? you dont think that happens? pressure from government groups and businesses allow distortion of viewsthis has been shown with various other medias such as newspaper and television, thus the failure in using profit as a way to keep integrity in check. they have their own financial backers etcalso note, i never said use it as your ONLY source of knowledge.
"... and if someone pays them money to distort the truth? you dont think that happens?"At least they have to put forth the effort and money to bribe someone. On Wikipedia, they can just do it themselves.
"... as long as wikipedia isnt centrally controlled, the masses will be able to edit and hopefully be able to "curb distortions."""Curbing distortions" is no simple matter.A number of things have to happen. First they have to be recognized as such. Then references and documentation have to be provided. And lastly, you have to pick an on-line edit fight with whoever is responsible for the distortions in the first place. If you're lucky, you may be able to convince the Wiki administrators (who are the "central control") to block the distorter instead of you. In the end, it pretty much boils down to persistence.Or you could just say "that's pure BS" and walk away. Wonder which path is taken most often?
diggaliggAug 31, 2009
would you like websites to streamline the process and make history become less accurate faster?
Closed AccountAug 31, 2009
I won't be using it to protect myself from murder.
mohinibhaiSep 1, 2009
This is a really neat idea, and if deployed correctly could possibly be a big life saver. At some schools currently teachers are not accepting Wikipedia as a reliable source for information, for any project you may have (pain in the ass; trust from personal expereince). Although when you google a subject majority of the times a Wikipedia entry is the first thing to pop up. With this system's emplimantation it will raise the reliability of Wikipedia (hopefully), and make it more trustworthy in a educational environment as well as a public environment.
falserSep 1, 2009
Why is it necessary to double check the facts? Fox News doesn't do that and they seem trustworthy.
the8thbitSep 1, 2009
What the hell? Wikipedia already has page rankings: Featured, Featured Candidate, A, Good Article, B, C, Start, and Stub, and theres already a plugin which you can toggle if you have an account that lets you color code article titles based on their rankings, and display a note under the article title showing the ranking. I requested this as a default feature, as far as a link to a recent history page at the top of the article, but no, that was deemed too distracting. And this isn't?Also, I can't see this not creating truthiness issues. "Oh, that text has a better color. I guess it gets to stay."
wunkstaSep 1, 2009
@Encyclopedia Britannica -Primary motivation of contributors: Money.and if someone pays them money to distort the truth? you dont think that happens? pressure from government groups and businesses allow distortion of viewsthis has been shown with various other medias such as newspaper and television, thus the failure in using profit as a way to keep integrity in check. they have their own financial backers etcalso note, i never said use it as your ONLY source of knowledge.
jqp123Sep 2, 2009
"... and if someone pays them money to distort the truth? you dont think that happens?"At least they have to put forth the effort and money to bribe someone. On Wikipedia, they can just do it themselves.
jqp123Sep 2, 2009
"... as long as wikipedia isnt centrally controlled, the masses will be able to edit and hopefully be able to "curb distortions."""Curbing distortions" is no simple matter.A number of things have to happen. First they have to be recognized as such. Then references and documentation have to be provided. And lastly, you have to pick an on-line edit fight with whoever is responsible for the distortions in the first place. If you're lucky, you may be able to convince the Wiki administrators (who are the "central control") to block the distorter instead of you. In the end, it pretty much boils down to persistence.Or you could just say "that's pure BS" and walk away. Wonder which path is taken most often?