Comments on: Academia and Wikipedia

By: Sara

Sara — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:14:38 +0000

My experience with wikipedia has been disasterous. Certain articles, not all articles, are grossly inaccurate, some explicitly so, and furthermore, contrary to the oft-used phrase that it is a free encyclopedia that can be edited by just about anyone, the opposite is in fact true. Certain articles are hawked by a select few over-exuberant editors and administrators, who take great pride in spending far too much time online, and these editors &admins, work in tandem with each other to ensure that no changes are made to content, because “some people have spent a great deal of time working on it.” Despite the fact that in my experience, the content was blatantly anti-intellectual and made use of spurious sources that are NOT used nor would ever be used by scholars or even well-meaning amateurs for that matter. These articles are protected, and any “intruders” are then repeatedly attacked and inflamed by the “herd.” In the end, the content remains flawed, in some cases, grossly inaccurate and in my case, absurd!, but at least the “long timers” retain their dictatorial hold on nonsensical articles. I think it is possibly the WORST creation ever. Besides which, when one thinks about the concept, it makes so little sense once one is exposed to the way it works. Wikipedia, at the moment, focuses mainly on etiquette, fraught as it is bound to be with manipulation, viciousness, corruption etc. and NOT on content. Lastly, an “encyclopedia” or even a parody of an encyclopedia should not be editable, is meant to quell inaccuracy, wikipedia only fosters it. Somehow, I feel it is only symptomatic of a general intellectual degeneration.

By: Vob Gurdge

Vob Gurdge — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:58:14 +0000

Your citation of the Simple English Wikipedia rather than the English Wikipedia seems to me very unlikely to be an accident, and for me raises the suspicion that perhaps it was an attempt to make Wikipedia appear less well-written than it really is. No doubt you will have read the full version of the article now. You should also be able to appreciate the benefit of having a Wikipedia written using simplified English for the benefit of those who do not understand it particularly well, for example if they are learning it as a foreign language.

By: The HUMlab blog

The HUMlab blog — Wed, 04 May 2005 10:01:25 +0000

Wiki Questions

I was sent a series of questions by a couple of college students ib the south of Sweden doing a study on the use of wikis. These are their questions and my own answers…although perhaps not the right ones….

By: plasticbag.org

plasticbag.org — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:57:55 +0000

Links for 2005-01-23

Bill Gates plots a Windows future BBC News interview with Bill Gates in which he talks about home entertainment appliances and the digital hub (categories: bbc bbcnews interview billgates homentertainment mediahub appliance appliances homeentertainmen…

By: Martin Wisse

Martin Wisse — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:40:52 +0000

Which says a lot about the trust one could have in this article, seeing as a simple matter of checking the source of a disputed quote is beyond the writer’s ability…

A mistake that is compounded by the quote from this ex-editor of the Brittanica, found through FlackCentralStation even, which makes for a great soundbite, but is wrong in all accounts.

Anyone can check the history of a wikipedia article, know exactly what the article looked during any given revision and can track the changes in it.

Try this with any of the commercial encyclopedias.

Apart from these two issues, this article is breathtakingly daring in its kicking in of open doors: never trust a single source, as astonishing a revelation as the discovery that many students are inclined to be lazy and naive in their research.

Neither of which, an astute observer may notice, is specific to Wikipedia.

Only Todd X touched on one of the real problems with Wikipedia: the fact that it is very much shaped by what is already online and of interest to those who use it.

By: Martin Wisse

Martin Wisse — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:38:29 +0000

Which says a lot about the trust one could have in this article, seeing as a simple matter of checking the source of a disputed quote is beyond the writer’s ability…

A mistake that is compounded by the quote from this ex-editor of the Brittanica, found through FlackCentralStation even, which makes for a great soundbite, but is wrong in all accounts.

Anyone can check the history of a wikipedia article, know exactly what the article looked during any given revision and can track the changes in it.

Try this with any of the commercial encyclopedias.

Neither of which, an astute observer may notice, is specific to Wikipedia.

Only Todd X touched on one of the real problems with Wikipedia: the fact that it is very much shaped by what is already online and of interest to those who use it.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:34:12 +0000

Oops, it looks like Andrew Gray already pointed out the Simple English issue. Sorry.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:29:28 +0000

You should try looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network. The page you cited was from the Simple English Wikipedia, and the one on the regular English Wikipedia is more comprehensive.

That said, while I enjoy reading and contributing articles on Wikipedia, I do not think that it, or any other encyclopedia, is really a good source for research. As you said, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide an overview of a topic to the everyday person. Research usually requires at least some involvement with a primary source.

By: Epistemographer

Epistemographer — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:08:29 +0000

On users designing for themselves…

I’ve spent the past few weeks working on and off with others at the Center on a grant application to the IMLS. We’re proposing to build a package of interfaces and extensions to Firefox that will in essence stick…

By: zephoria

zephoria — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:00:21 +0000

Andrew Gray – precisely. And this is why students write lots of entries while they’re learning about a subject.