But the big question is how reliable or credible is wikipedia?The bone of contention against Wiki is the very foundation of its "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" concept. A defining characteristic of wiki technology is the ease with which pages can be created and updated. There is no review before modifications are accepted. Wikis generally practice the philosophy of making it easy to correct mistakes, rather than making it difficult to make them.
Wiki in News: For all the wrong reasons -
There was recently a scandal surrounding the academic qualifications of one of the editors at Wiki. Wikipedia administrator who stated that he was a professor of religion with advanced degrees in theology and canon law, was exposed as a 24-year-old community college drop-out. However Jimmy Wales the Founder of Wikipedia went on record to say of Wikipedia editor and Wikia employee Ryan Jordan (nee "Essjay"): "“I accepted his apology, because he is now, and has always been, an excellent editor with an exemplary track record.”
“I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."
- Wikipedia CEO Jimmy Wales stating that lying on Wikipedia is OK.
But rest of the world don't seem to agree with Wales.
Wikipedia has been banned as a citation source by all major American universities,as the source is anonymous and totally un-credible authority.
Wikipedia has also been accused of supporting terrorism
The author goes on to state -
Wikipedia's Achilles heel is that it is open to any 8-year-old child or perverted mind to edit matters from nuclear physics to Islamic terrorism.
When everyone can write, some write crap.
While no one can dispute or challenge the knowledge aggregator that Wiki has come to represent the debate over the legitimacy over the sources of information rages on.
9 comments:
Shweta..I guess very few 'write crap'..people willing to share knowledge of the 'correct' kind far outnumber these 'crap' kinds..so wouldn't worry much..
Righto Shree but what worries the folks out there is that how much of this 'correct' kind of information is accurate too?
Google around and u can see that companies like Britannica, Microsoft have been miffed with inaccuracies in wiki articles.
yeah..thats a worry..but there's always somebody else who is there to re'correct' it, isnt it? :)
Not quite so..Apparently experts don't seem to consider their time worthwhile to correct wiki entries. Check here what Dan Gillmor has to say - http://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_grassroots/2005/02/google_wikipedi.html
One critic is a Big University professor -- a former professional journalist with significant online experience -- whose class I visited recently as a guest lecturer. I was talking about Wikipedia, and he launched into a rant about its failings. In particular, he complained about the several inaccuracies in an article about a topic with which he was deeply familiar.
"So," I asked, "did you fix them?"
"No," he responded, "I don't have time for that kind of thing."
**********
There you go.
I dont think wikipedia is evil! In fact, it may not be thoroughly correct and citable BUT it is definitely a good way to get a good general idea about a LOT of things. Ok so what if one editor wasnt a professor in theology? I got a friend who is a wikipedia admin and that guy has spent a lot of last few years putting India on to the wiki circuit. I know the kinda effort those guys spend researching, formatting, coding all that goes into what we see as the wikipedia. It's not perfect, hell no, but it's still a collaborative source of information as nowhere on the web. Where else will you find so much on one website?
Ok it's sad to see those inaccuracies but most of them are NOT purposely put in there. Some are mistakes but wikipedia never claimed to be a citable source of information - but just a free encyclopedia. In fact look at the kind of indepth information wikipidea hands out when it comes to a single city or town... last I heard they were going to launch into a lonely planet styled wiki guides!
So what if the biggies are a little miffed and their stories have been a little inaccurate? No one is asking them to not correct the article - it's free, remember? In fact I'm sure if they dispatch a small letter to the wikimedia foundation regarding the inaccuracies, the inaccuracies can be dealt with quoting an official source. BUT the biggies refuse to cooperate in the development of information... they can't stand the power in the hand of the people unfortunately. Rather than cooperating in eliminating those inaccuracies, they insist on cribbing. Why don't you see it that way? The world isn't defined by these people, the world is defined by the millions of others who get so much of general information from the wikipedia from movies to music to maps to geography and why aren't all these articles inaccurate?
People like Britannica and Microsoft are basically against the word "free" and "open source" mainly because they've seen the power of the movement. They fear the movement and hence the nautanki. Let's not forget Britannica's future was destroyed the minute Wikipedia became popular.
Ok, that one professor must've found the inaccuracies because he is well acquainted. He doesn't have the time, but the information will not remain as it is. There will be someone else who will come and change it who knows about it as much as the professor. Also, I'm sure the information isn't all that incorrect but it's a little inaccurate which a layman can't be good at because unlike the prof he is not an expert. So now imagine as a reader who wanted to get some information about X. X is inaccurate but not wholly wrong on the wikipedia. At least now you know what X is as compared to pre-wiki period where you wouldn't know ANYTHING about it.
As I said earlier, repeating that again: Wikipedia is not citable information, it is something to enhance your knowledge. It's not an authority over any information, not written on stone. Can you count the ratio of inaccuracies over the accuracies at Wikipedia? Then calculate the probability of your landing on such an indepth topic which may be inaccurate because the person who added it isn't an expert. Now multiply the ratio to the probability :) You'll figure out how insignificant that information is in the accusation game. Most people visit the wiki to get general information, not such expert detail. And down the years as wiki expands and gets better, even those inaccuracies will be checked.
If someone gets drunk and shoots a man... do you blame the alcohol or the man or the gun company for making the gun?
Wow, thats one passionate response for Wiki, Jugal. :)
But here's some great news to match. Wikipedia has announced a new, more credible site called Citizendium where all authors are non-anonymous - http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=6877
So there, that should silence all the critics now. :)
Yep, I heard of that. When Jimmy Wales, CEO of Wikimedia foundation (parent company of Wikipedia) refused to change the prime policy of the product, one of the co-founders (along with Jimmy Wales) decided to part ways and correct the errors that were with the Wiki-way. I still don't think that the Wiki-way is wrong :) It's still good evolution and development of information. BTW there's tons of layman information about the world which gets added which a lot of experts might also have missed may be because they don't know or they don't consider it important, but still it is information :) so this is free as in libre, not just free as in gratis.
And about Citizendium :) Great step to create a citable source of free information on the web... free as in gratis not free as in libre :) Such a step will always be applauded and found cool.
And about my passion for Wikipedia :) I guess it just comes from the inside... but that makes me wonder, am I a fundamentalist? :D LOL
Also I think it has a lot to do with free as in libre and not free as in gratis which really gets me going about anything :)
How many things are free(libre) in today's world?
Libre
:) Enjoy reading the link.
I have not fully grokked your "Free/Libre and Free/Gratis" but Wiki surely is not the last word on Free/Libre. How can we be sure Wales has no imperialistic ambitions for it? What if it's "bread for today and hunger for tomorrow”? :) Am honestly not sure why I am rambling so when in principle I am not at all against wikipedia. :))
Post a Comment