What is Digg?190 Comments
- Neticule, on 10/12/2007, -8/+74I very simple solution to this, would have users sign up (obviously) Every time they add or edit something they can be rated by other users + or - Kinda of like ebay. Then if they go below a certain amount, they can no longer edit items. Maybe every time a user wants to add something, it goes into a queue where other users can verify the information is correct or not.
It would need a bit more thinking out of course, but it could really work well. I totally agree SOMETHING needs to be done, wikipedia has been one of the most useful things to come out on the internet IMO, and I would hate to see it "implode" :o( - elusive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41Yes, in theory there could be all kinds of problems with Wikipedia. However, in the reality Wikipedia works quite well.
- catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43It seems this guy has no concept of what the philosophy of the world wide web originally was, who cares if it's 'anarchic' who cares if it's 'lawless', Wikipedia is policed better than any other 'open' website to my knowledge, the amount of do-gooders FAR outweighs the vandals, I'm sure everyone tried a random edit when they first found out about it and I'm sure it was reverted within minutes.
To my mind Wikipedia works and falls in line with Tim Berners-Lee's original concept for a read/write WWW and represents what the Internet/www should really be about, without sounding corny or whatever; but people coming together from all over the world and sharing knowledge, to ultimately make over 1,000,000 pages, that's something special.. - gord, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35This article comes from bitterness and some kind of personal grudge, I think. If there was a big problem with inaccuracy on wikipedia I'd be more inclined to agree with the guy, but there just isn't.
Another view: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/jun06/wiki.htm - DougTanner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Interesting editorial, but lacking in real stubstance. He managed to write the entire attack piece without giving a single concrete example. He makes his point with vitorol and rhetoric, but does not present evidence to back up his opinions. The general internet consensus is that Wikipedia is a usefull tool (and working quite well with it's current system, thank you very much). This author has presented no new information that would change my mind.
- gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Your ebay model doesnt work for a few reasons, two I can think of are:
1) Sales are not controversial on ebay, but wikipedia articles are. A Page would get negative feedback because they dislike the content (err, the content of the content).
2) Readers are not buyers. People could just mark everyone negative if they wanted to. They could make extra accounts and mark themselves postive. - chapel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27Well I agree that Wikipedia isn't perfect, but a lot if not most of the information is true or from reputable sources. The author of this article seems jaded because of his personal experiences with Wikipedia and the people that represent and work on it. I can understand where he may be coming from, but the internet isn't a source like radio or TV, its not a book or magazine, its not a newspaper or anything like that. It is a website that allows users to put information up about anything that well anything.
I am not a reputable source, I have no personal experience adding/editing anything on Wikipedia, but I understand the ebb and flow of the internet(for the most part, as much as one could comprehend) and Wikipedia has been a positive step for everyone. Information should be free. If we start censoring or controlling content online, ultimately the internet of America would turn into that of the Chinese governments dominance over information online.
Its a good article and brings up some great points, so +1 digg, but its an opinion article, and thats all. - CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@chapel
You have copyright and patents confused. You can't copyright an idea, you can patent one. Also, you get automatic copyright on artistic works you create, so you don't need to 'copyright' something. It's not a thing you do, it's something you have.
Also, since the 'invention' (if it was one) can't be patented as it's now public knowledge. You need to patent things before you release them to the public, afaik. Or just be rich and buy influence in the government of your country ;) - ezod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Agreed. Sounds like the same old fnord from old timers and corporate teatsuckers who just don't understand how something requiring people to work together for free could possibly work. They're always trying to fit the square peg of free software and free collaboration in general into the round hole of their capitalist, dog-eat-dog worldview.
Naturally, TFA exhibits the kind of elitism you'd expect. Why are teenagers automatically not taken seriously? I'd have some teenagers I know edit Wikipedia before I'd have some adults I know edit a birthday card. Again, it reeks of the same old fnord -- the printing press is the devil, you know.
We need to start giving ourselves a bit more credit. If free and open collaboration didn't work, and if the "flotsam and jetsam" of the masses were so ill-equipped to accomplish anything, Wikipedia, among other things (say, any popular movement since the dawn of time), would never have made it this far. - Cymsdale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16This is a terrible article. Sing #4: "Wikipedia is against real knowledge" I think the author is either bitter toward Wikipedia, or just looking to cause controversy for its own sake.
- InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Your idealistic Internet opinions don't gel particularly well with your digg patent suggestion above.
- Unicron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Sorry for replying to myself but after reading a little further in to this guy I found this rather interesting write-up about the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/Global_Politician
Seems this guy has a pretty hefty grudge against Wikipedia, kind of funny for someone who writes books about narcissism - Unicron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I think I know why he doesn't like Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vaknin
He doesn't even exist ;) - dukeinlondon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Yeah, problems on wikipedia are on articles of subjects where controversy is ongoing and the jury is still out. What do these people expect ? But all the times I have used it, I have been so happy of the wealth of information about subjects like Sonic youth, Foo Fighters, Waldo Emerson, you name it that I will defend the it with my own money and advocacy if it comes to it.
- FlimFlam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The Six Signs of a Crackpot 'Journalist':
1. The article is littered with exclamation marks! Astonishing!
2. The author makes grand statements with no factual references.
3. The author reveals a personal, perceived mistreatment by the article subject.
4. The article includes other's opinions but only those that support the author's premise
...
Go read it and fill in the rest yourself. This kind of writing makes me sick to my stomach. - kostyan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Vaknin
Ahahaha... - SuperMank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10They said the same thing about rock and roll, and this new fangled intarweb of ours.
- jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The purpose of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it as long as you follow the rules. Banning anonymous users from creating new articles was a first step in restricting editing access, but I hope that's as far as it goes. Sure, there are those people who vandalize and spam Wikipedia, but those people's edits are very quickly reverted to a stable version of the article. It is a problem, but it's not out of control. There's a system in place to take care of people who don't constructively contribute, and it works.
- DougTanner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11So... you're saying the Wikipedia system is flawed because any flaw that people point out will be fixed? If that's not a good system I don't know what is!
(Sorry, I understood what you were saying, but I couldn't resist... why can't the author just link to the history pages? All past edits are preserved as far as I know) - DerGeist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11In case anyone is curious, this guy was banned because he was editing HIS OWN ARTICLE to make himself look better and falsifying information about himself. When that didn't work, he tried sockpuppetry (ie he INTENTIONALLY logged out) but admins found out it was his IP. He threw a tantrum and was banned (justifiably).
As most diggers have pointed out, this guy is just afraid of Wikipedia because it's intimidating. It's scary! It's like a giant repository of all the world's knowledge; any idiot with an IQ higher than room temperature can hear a word or phrase, look it up, and have all the basic, foundational knowledge an expert would. Basically his opinions are the same biased nonsense that everyone has spouted since WIkipedia started and Wikipedia still just gets better.
Oh and his "Wikipedia is against true knowledge" is a load. He acts like so-called experts should be given total control -- half the time they're the LAST people I'd EVER want editing an article because they've spent their lives on something and are completely biased. And "life experience" is crap, you need facts, not hearsay. I'm not even sure I'd trust a whole panel of "experts", they tend to get stuck in their mindsets and not even allow other opinions. Wikipedia isn't about that. - ezod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ rtphokie, Angostura
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson
Despite small temporary issues here and there, Wikipedia has worked incredibly well. No system will yield empirically perfect results. That's not a flaw in the system, it's just a reflection of the people who make it go. Wikipedia's philosophy (a very correct one) is that since there is no perfect way to regulate the system, the optimum is minimal control to dampen the human factor just enough to keep the whole thing this side of the sanity line. The result is an amazingly fast, dynamic, self-organizing and accurate reference that is accountable to its entire userbase. - jcidiotashram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7again being moderated(or rated by somebody else) beats the purpose of the wikipedia.
- imikedaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Boringly predictable responses. Utter lack of grasp of any of the arguments I made. Juvenile presentation.
I expected nothing more of an anonymous Wikipedian (statistically, an obese and schizod teenager with no life and grandiose compensatory fantasies)."
Wow, is that guy immature, or what? I'm half expecting him to start crying and throwing things on the floor until he gets his way. What a troll. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"if you don't like it, don't use it."
What happened to "if you don't like it, speak out in the hope that you can make it better"? What is so wrong with debate and criticism? - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"It is a question of time before the Wikipedia self-destructs and implodes."
There's simply no way. If Wikipedia would have had an unstable foundation of "good" not winning over "evil" (vandalism and such) in the by far most cases, it would have been turned into chaos the minutes after launch. Wikipedia is currently at work on "Wikipedia 1.0" content actually verified to be correct and containing the "best of Wikipedia" to be released soon. Also, there are plans to have "stable" and "unstable" branches of each article. Summarized, the Wikipedia future is actually looking very bright, admins are aware of basically the only issues -- vandalism and unverified links -- and they're working on improving themselves there.
I think Wikipedia will not implode, but flourish. Imagine the day when most content on Wikipedia of today has been verified and referenced properly. That would be a free match to Encyclopedia Britannica.
It is even an encyclopedia that puts a great deal of attention to *criticism* of topics, which it shuold be honored for. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8i won't visit the article because i can see right away from the title that he's whoring for page hits and i won't give them to him.
besides, he bitches and moans about wiki not being a reputable source, yet displays massive bias in his first few lines just in the digg submission? pot calling the kettle black?
wiki is a great resource, and while i won't be quoting it in an assignments, it's definately a great tool for cross refferencing things and for common knowledge. - ezzthetic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I was inclined to be sympathetic to Sam's article, because, although I read Wikipedia quite a lot, I often feel dissatisfied with it. But it usually comes down to the fact that many articles are scrappy and poorly written. Also, Sam states his criticisms clearly, even if they might be wrong-headed or inacurrate. Nonetheless, I read the rebuttal cited above, which I felt was fairly effective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/Global_Politician
I was astonished at Sam's response, which was juvenile and abusive. It basically blew him out of the water. - MrVisible, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Having been on the receiving end of quite a bit of complete and total dreck that's been pushed by someone eminently qualified, I've long since stopped judging the quality of information I receive solely on the academic credentials of the person dispensing it.
I, and most people, judge their information based on many factors such as its consistency with observable facts, its internal coherence, and the level of integrity demonstrated in its presentation. For instance, in your post above I noticed that you created a straw man: "What you are basically arguing is that it's a great thing for human progress because there is now no such thing as expertise. And that is clearly utter madness." Which cost you some serious points with me.
I do believe that there are people out there who have excellent academic qualifications and are knowledgeable, dependable sources of knowledge in their fields. They are, however, balanced out by the existence of people with advanced degrees who are simply jaw-droppingly stupid. Academic success on the part of a proponent of an argument is useless as the sole determinant of the worth of the argument.
You'll notice I said 'sole determinant.' I do believe that academic achievements give one's statements an additional amount of weight. But I also think that there are other criteria which are just as important. Wikipedia's method of democratic critiquing of knowledge is an essential addition to our arsenal of evaluative tools. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"pot calling the kettle black?"
No, you are absolutely wrong. When you claim to be a source for facts, having a bias is a bad thing. When you claim to be a source for opinion, having a bias is a good thing. Wikipedia claims the former, the author is clearly claiming the latter. - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Copy and paste the article into your word processor of choice, then replace all instances of "Wikipedia" with "The Internet."
All of a sudden, it's as though you're reading a conservative article from 1997 about how the internet is going to destroy society. - turricanz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7[Vakni's Inner Voice] Yeah wikipedia sucks! it is flawed I say!! .. but.. but.. why is it working? I don't understand! 95% of the articles are insightful and offer a good overview of the subject at hand! my statistical calculations show me this cannot be true! no! no! no! I must write an article bashing wikipedia to make up for this failure or I risk having to shamefully admit that it actually is an interesting project which works better than my hateful criticism implies!
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I don't think it suffers in that respect any more than any other encyclopedia - it just seems worse because it's much more easily accessible. It's also a problem that will be easily solved - any good teacher will respond to the problem by educating their students about different types of sources and their suitability to different uses.
- DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I have heard that Wikipedia is working on a system where there are two articles about the same thing; One public and one editable. The public one can only be updated if consensus is met, while the other is the actualy one that editors add to to make the public one better. This will in effect remove all forms of vandalism, seeing as non of the vandalisms will be viewable by a regular visitor as they will only see the public one.
Other then that, this entire article speaks volums about this guy being a complete *****, if you don't like it, don't use it. No need to go around ranting your story like a 5-year-old is there Sam? - cyclomedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5AFAIK this is still just an idea, but one that i have myself put forward in past discussions, it'd be great if it were actively being worked on IMO. The visual change would be that the "stable" article is the default one and the buttons along the top then read something like: "Stable Version", "Current Version", "History". with the "current version" being the free-for-all we see today.
- MrVisible, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8In the same way that music-sharing gets resistance from the RIAA/MPAA, Wikipedia is going to get resistance from the entrenched academic community. There can be no bigger threat to the world of academia than the idea of a repository of knowledge that bases its assessment of information on the quality of the information itself, and not on the academic qualifications of the person espousing that knowledge?
They're losing their monopoly on knowledge, and it scares them. - UloPe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Maybe he should consult his book about narcissm once more with himself in mind.
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I was about to say the same thing.
He makes some reasonable points, Wikipedia is flawed, but is also an exciting experiment.
The real nub of the article, in my opinion comes in the first paragraph of point 4:
"The Wikipedia's ethos is malignantly anti-elitist. Experts are scorned and rebuffed, attacked, and abused with official sanction and blessing. Since everyone is assumed to be equally qualified to edit and contribute, no one is entitled to a privileged position by virtue of scholarship, academic credentials, or even life experience."
In my opinion, this gets it half right. Wikipedia is designed as a meritocracy, however, at the moment, there is no way for a poster to gain merit in a particularly structured way.
At the risk of a flamewar, I think something akin to the Slashdot moderation/metamoderation scheme may work well.
I certainly think it results in an improved level of comments on that site compared to some other sites without a similar reward/rating system. - Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I have a friend for whom there is an entry in Wikipedia. He is uncertain how it got there and he told me he suspected that his employer put it on Wikipedia to promote him.
Does he deserve an entry? Maybe. He's prominent in his field.
But still, it shows how Wikipedia can be manipulated by people with a profit motive and the mass of "editors" perhaps will never know, not to mention its legions of readers who trust it with little thought. - dbrodbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The library has books for free!!!!
Sorry could not resist... - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When designing any system of editing moderation, one of the primary requirements is "how much bureaucratic overhead does the system create?" What would work for a Wiki with dozens of edits a day can easily cause a thousand-edits-a-day-Wiki to choke on the overhead and die a horrible death.
I don't see many suggestions in this thread that acknowledge this, but perhaps others will disagree. - mostapha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Even Wikipedians know there's something wrong with Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia (a way better article than this one).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
But everyone will still be using it nonetheless, because Wikipedia is probably the quickest way to get information on anything. And that's what matters in the start of research, or when you quickly want information on something. - EdwardsNH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Platitude: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true."
- HL Mencken
quote of the day ;) - sondosia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the time has come for Wikipedia to make signing in mandatory if you're going to edit. However, though I don't think Wikipedia should be accepted as a source for research papers and the like YET, it's invaluable for topics that encyclopedias of "authority" don't have. Where else could I compare IM clients, look up obscure cities and towns, and find summaries of any book or movie in a flash?
And by the way, I don't see why everyone feels the need to generalize about teenagers so much. I'm 15, and I've never vandalized anything in my life. Teens have a different knowledge base than most adults and we can make valuable contributions about things they can't. ANY uninformed or misguided person can ruin Wikipedia. You don't need to be a teenager to do that. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The thing is: time has already told. Wikipedia is several years old. It was once an experiment, but I wouldn't call it that much more. It is a working system with rules and guidelines enough people follow to make the clockwork run. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it looks people are indeed, contrary to pessimists beliefs, usually willing to improve content rather than to destroy it. If not, no wiki on the web would have worked. When the reality is: by far most do.
Yes, there are the vandalism, but this issue is being worked on for more long term solutions, such as stable and verified releases of the encyclopedia, and even possibly further ahead, stable branches of articles containing only verified content, so people can pick from "bleeding edge and possibly unverified content" vs "stable and definitely useful content".
Passion definitely rules Wikipedia. If it didn't, we wouldn't have Wikipedia. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm trying to come up with a decent response, but I'm struggling, because what you have said is just so incredibly dumb. Academia doesn't seek or hold a monopoly on knowledge.
"a repository of knowledge that bases its assessment of information on the quality of the information itself, and not on the academic qualifications of the person espousing that knowledge"
How do you determine the quality of information? The expertise of the person espousing that knowledge is a pretty good indicator. The number of people agreeing with the information is not a substitute, because it opens the information up to being warped by politics. It's well documented that humans have an inbuilt tendency to reject information that disagrees with their beliefs.
What you are basically arguing is that it's a great thing for human progress because there is now no such thing as expertise. And that is clearly utter madness. - turricanz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree with bioshocker, it is just another source, which should be used and quoted in its own way. Students should know better than to use only one source, let alone to quote from it. As a student myself I found wikipedia more than helpful and it has explained some subjects better than the textbooks did. I absolutely love how it points out the different points of view on controversial subjects and how it connects different aspects of information. I've yet to encounter serious flaws in the information I got from wikipedia, but I suppose this depends on what kind of articles you are looking for.
- beale, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6'If we start censoring or controlling content online, ultimately the internet of America would turn into that of the Chinese governments dominance over information online.' The flipside is that by allowing anyone to edit articles on Wikipedia without first checking their credentials, truth can easily become obscured by lies and misinformation. An academic should be considered a better editor for an article than an anonymous person who happens to BELIEVE something is true, even if the facts prove it is not. Wikipedia has no such defence against this and could just as easily be used as a system to inject propaganda into the populous.
- ezod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Good for you. Too bad it's already been working so well for years. Leave us alone.
Do you realize that "there will always be asshats that mess things up" is a self-fulfilling prophecy? It's precisely that defeatist attitude that makes you one of those asshats, perhaps in some other situation at some other place and time. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"If you can't do better, your opinion doesn't count" is a fallacy. Are film critics ignored because they don't make the best movies? Etc.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think a Slashdot karma system would work all that well... just because someone earns good karma working on game-related articles, doesn't mean they would be remotely authoritative when editing about plant phylums. (granted, they may know policies and process a little better, but edit counters tell roughly the same information)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 188 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is