What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
117 Comments
- Peko, on 02/07/2009, -5/+166Interesting article.
FTA: "One of the most serious concerns remains the fact that its articles are written and edited by a hidden army of people with unknown interests and biases."
Wikipedia has a monopoly on this how exactly? - WordSmithGuy, on 02/07/2009, -0/+77Great idea. The Internet has opened the world up to an incredible dissemination of factual reseach and ideas in real time. Along with that comes a lot of misinformation, half-truths and bad research. Ultimately, it is up to us, the users of this information, to be diligent and cross-check the information.
- lukas88, on 02/07/2009, -2/+63"Despite warnings from many high-school teachers and college professors, Wikipedia is one of the most-visited websites in the world (not to mention the biggest encyclopedia ever created)."
They lose points for their first line. Any professor with his/her salt will not discourage wikipedia. 9 times out of 10, it is the easiest springboard from which to find reference-worthy information. If you are dumb enough to cite wikipedia directly, you shouldn't be in college in the first place.
People (mainly in the media) are going to misunderstand wikipedia for as long as it is possible for people to freely and anonymously edit pages, the very thing that makes it great. I find it much more revealing and constructive to point out the tens of thousands of pages with great information and very little malicious tampering than focus on the few pages and situations where the system was abused. - Chairboy, on 02/07/2009, -3/+61More information is fine, but the article seems to focus on giving undue weight to the idea that Wikipedia is somehow inherently unreliable and that the information on it cannot be used.
Fact: Nature magazine did a comparison between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica and determined that the two appeared to be roughly equivalent in accuracy. Wikipedia has fractionally more mistakes per subject than Britannica, but Britannica (because of the physical limitations of the printed books) had much less in-depth information about the subjects it covered.
Fact: The primary objection college teachers have against Wikipedia is that an encyclopedia is not to be used as a Primary Source for research. Doesn't matter if it's an encyclopedia or Wikipedia.
Fact: DISREGARD, I SUCK *****</revision> (20 seconds later, it's fixed). Vandalism is a common source of criticism. "How can I use Wikipedia if some guy has come and changed the article to say something wrong?" In actual practice, the amount of time vandalism stays in a page is pretty small. A high profile article might be fixed in seconds, and a low profile page might be fixed in a minute. There are occasional cases of vandalism lasting longer, but it's still pretty rare because of folks who patrol recent edits. - ARTLUKM, on 02/07/2009, -0/+34This might go without saying, but I honestly don't understand how anyone would be surprised by the amount of special interest and for-profit manipulation happening in so-called social media. Gaming/manipulating services like Wikipedia, Digg, and YouTube is basically a job description these days.
- DrLuv, on 02/07/2009, -0/+22Dont worry leontes...at least one other person laughed with you just now.
- NathanielJ, on 02/07/2009, -0/+20"Apparently they need to step this up, or else people will starting reading how Evolution is a trick of Satan to test faith."
Apparently you have no idea how Wikipedia works. It's not like if one person decides to change an article then *gasp oh no* it's ruined forever. It's called vandalism, and the median revert time for it is 14 minutes. - MacEnvy, on 02/07/2009, -4/+21Why? Because you buy into the falsity that Wikipedia is somehow run by "the liberal elite"? Why don't you just hang around the circle jerk that is Conservapedia, if dedication to reality bothers you that much.
- leontes, on 02/07/2009, -0/+17I'm glad at least someone got it.
- FoxOrian, on 02/07/2009, -0/+16Usually the vandalism is painfully noticeable, too. It's rare that a vandal messes up statistical data or such with other data that seems plausible, but is completely wrong. Gross exaggeration and absurdity seem to be a popular thing among vandals. Usually you'll read something that sets off a "Wtf?" flag in your head after reading the vandals alteration, then disregard it.
I think I had to look up something on beef once, and there was a picture of a cow with a vandalized caption that said something similar to "Cows are the laziest type of cows who typically spend all day eating hot dogs and other processed groceries." - leontes, on 02/07/2009, -3/+19That's an excellent point ARTLUKM. I, and many of my friends, have enjoyed other articles that you've written at your very affordable artlukm.com website. Your commentary is both insightful and clearly written.
- PrintScrn12, on 02/07/2009, -0/+14"It is a great informal tool, but not a reliable source. "
Exactly because it's just an encyclopaedia. Which is the second point anyway. - alricsca, on 02/07/2009, -1/+15What is so amazing is that people think these same biases they are disparaging in Wikipedia are not in paper encyclopedias. They are and are far worse as they are permanent. There have been studies showing that Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. While certain bias will always exist in these types of documents most extremes issues are corrected and flagged relatively quickly. I think the main issue the disturbs most people is the fluid nature of wiki, but the reality is that this provides as much strength as it does risks.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html - inactive, on 02/07/2009, -0/+14Yikes, not enough hugs as a kid? Anger coming from nowhere is funny.
- inactive, on 02/07/2009, -2/+15Wikipedia isn't wholly accurate and people edit it with their own views and politics in mind?
Shocking. - sloonark, on 02/08/2009, -0/+13Article or it didn't happen.
- ARTLUKM, on 02/07/2009, -1/+14Perhaps if nothing else, the biases of social media are a bit easier to detect than those of private-run media.
- pintomp3, on 02/07/2009, -0/+13I think he would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
- inactive, on 02/07/2009, -0/+12Is it really necessary for someone to be an expert to correct the occasional typo now and again? It's actually one of the things I like about Wikipedia - if I spot a misspelled word, or an incorrect date, or anything like that, I can go in and correct it myself.
- emkaysmith, on 02/07/2009, -0/+12"They shouldn't let -everyone- edit articles. That's why they do things like backround checks to make sure the writers have real degrees."
What are you talking about? There are no "background checks." The whole point is, if you let *everyone* -- and I mean **EVERYONE** -- edit articles, it will all even out. For every Holocaust-denier or anti-evolutionist with a particular warped spin to impart to an article on Wikipedia, there's another editor, a sane and knowledgeable one, who will fix it within minutes. NPOV is a major principle for editors. And having published a book doesn't make you fair-and-balanced. Ann Coulter writes books, and she has a law degree -- but would you take her word for anything?
I've written several dozen articles at Wikipedia over the years in my own degree-holding areas of expertise, Classical Studies and Texas history -- but my grandfather, if he were still alive, could write a heck of an article on carving duck decoys -- an art in which he won numerous awards. And without a degree, too. - trer, on 02/07/2009, -1/+12"One of the most serious concerns remains the fact that its articles are written and edited by a hidden army of people with unknown interests and biases."
A fact is only a fact if you can convince enough people that it is a fact. In my early years, the encyclopedias that were available were World Book and Encyclopedia Britannica...am I supposed to believe that the creators of those encyclopedias didn't have their own "unknown interests and biases"? The difference is that the entire planet (well most of it) can edit Wikipedia while only a select few could edit the "traditional" encyclopedias. Wikipedia is policed by its users, which is what makes it great. - Chairboy, on 02/07/2009, -0/+10Well, it's true. They are.
- kihadat, on 02/07/2009, -0/+9Well, private-run media has one obvious bias - the need to make money. We have no idea how to frame the intentions of people who give their time for free.
- NathanielJ, on 02/07/2009, -2/+11Awesome, so I now have a way to browse around a ridiculously laggy version of Wikipedia.
No seriously, if the information on a page looks sketchy, click the "History" tab and check the recent edits yourself. Why do we need a tool that shows the recent edits at the top of the page? - Avalontor, on 02/07/2009, -1/+10Troll [Citation needed]
- Zaeboes, on 02/07/2009, -0/+9You aren't supposed to use wikipedia as a primary source, because the articles are essentially essays. They have links to primary sources at the bottom of the page if you want to cite those.
- my10cent, on 02/07/2009, -2/+11Who cares? remember History books were also written by a hidden army of people with all kinds of hidden agendas, even the bible was, so what is the big deal? People lie all the time, always has always will.
- Wargasmic, on 02/07/2009, -0/+8It would be good if we could figure out some way to "lock in" known facts to keep them from being changed. But at any rate, always go to the source of the information. Don't just look at wikipedia as a source.
- colonelbuckshot, on 02/07/2009, -2/+8Some *administrators* are so notoriously biased they have their own forums:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=46 - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 02/07/2009, -0/+6Wikipedia has CITATIONS. You can always go to the sources from a Wikipedia article. :)
- MarimbaFire07, on 02/08/2009, -0/+6Wikipedia gave me herpes.
(citation needed) - GalacticRerun, on 02/07/2009, -0/+6I knew the Flatiron building couldn't have been built on a giant triangular block of cheese.
- scott1, on 02/08/2009, -0/+6"Apparently they need to step this up, or else people will starting reading how Evolution is a trick of Satan to test faith."
Those people already have their wiki:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page - Stavrosian, on 02/07/2009, -0/+5My professors used to actively recommend it.
- Chairboy, on 02/07/2009, -1/+6Thank you for providing an ADHD compliant summary of my post you just responded to.
- pwdrskier, on 02/07/2009, -0/+5I use Wikipedia all the time. On most things it's spot on. If it's wrong, it's easy to confirm with an outside source and it's usually quite good so I frequent the site.
- Ouze, on 02/07/2009, -2/+7way to embrace mediocrity, pal.
- jasdf, on 02/07/2009, -0/+5Well, it is going very slowly at the moment. I wonder why.
- NathanielJ, on 02/07/2009, -1/+6Seriously, that's your reply? I've never even edited a Wikipedia entry, just posted suggestions on talk pages.
But that's completely irrelevant anyways, because this tool doesn't "unmask" anything, and that's my point. You can ALREADY see exactly who has added what to each Wikipedia article -- that's what the "History" tab is for. This tool just puts the information on the top of the article itself and makes the page load about a fifth as quickly in the process. - linuxpenguin, on 02/07/2009, -0/+5Don't worry, I can tell from the picture - they're just defragmenting it
- inactive, on 02/08/2009, -0/+4You sound like you don't like how Wikipedia works.
- inactive, on 02/07/2009, -6/+10Unfortunantly, very few teachers and professors are worth their salt.
- Metasquares, on 02/08/2009, -0/+4The Illuminati, of course.
I mean, duh. - Ouze, on 02/07/2009, -0/+4"fact is only a fact if you can convince enough people that it is a fact."
I'm not sure if this is low level trolling, or if you're just a goddamn idiot, but reality is *not defined by a consensus*. If I convince you walking off a cliff will not injure you, it is not a fact. If I convince 1,000 people that if you walk off a cliff, you will not be injured, it is still not a fact.
There are aspects of reality that are immutable despite popular opinion. It depresses me that I even had to type that. - markpoepsel, on 02/07/2009, -0/+4When I was teaching a Latin American Studies class as a graduate TA, I would always encourage people to read wikipedia for basic information but not to cite it, since we would provide plenty of readings from peer-reviewed journals and since students had access to several databases for information.
I don't get the feeling from old-school profs that this is a big deal or any different a practice than the way they approached Britannica or World Book. Use it to familiarize yourself with something new, but don't use it for the kind of depth of support you would need for a college-level composition of any sort.
Ditto to borrowing the resources. All scholars use each others' references, and often during peer review that is the first thing they will check (ok, sometimes it's to see if you cited THEM, but then again they're often reviewing articles because they're experts in a particular area).
did he say Yank My Area? - ubershmekel, on 02/08/2009, -0/+3The only problem with cross-checking is that people are cross-posting mis-information...
And it does make you wonder how much of our modern history is actually manipulated. There are always biases and interests, and it was always a wikipedia memory of things, it was just slower (historians talking to historians, editting, reviewing, etc.). - ickyelf, on 02/07/2009, -1/+4It's amazing how quickly vandalism gets fixed on Wikipedia, but I suppose that fighting Wikipedia abuse will always be a Whack-A-Mole game.
- gh0st3000, on 02/08/2009, -1/+4"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production...."
Hold on a second there... what happened to "Bush lied about WMD's, he knew all along there were none?" - BoxAdorable, on 02/07/2009, -1/+4I found the article uninteresting because its not new information or even topic of discussion. I was under the impression that they had something new to say, which they sadly did not.
- izolutionz, on 02/07/2009, -1/+4Exacto!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is