Wikipedia

User Comments

1. 

   6/09/08

   markstoneman

   As you know, I belong to the school of thought that accepts the existence of Wikipedia and with it my responsibility as an educator to teach students how to use it, meaning what its strengths and weaknesses are. My teaching exercise last semester has made me much more weary of Wikipedia than I had been in the past. I had cases where users out there latched onto a page and literally controlled its content with no regard for other facts available. That made a mockery of the self-correcting mechanism.
   
   The following link contains my general take on its reliability, but it was written before this past, somewhat sobering semester: homepage.mac.com/markstoneman/wikipedia%20in%20the%20history%20survey.html

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/09/08

      IanThal

      I certainly discussed the question of what happens when a user controls the content without regard for the facts:
      
      ianthal.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-wikipedia-renders-one-un-person.html
2. 

   6/09/08

   kevingoodman

   absolutely - It certainly has a revolutionary factor. I use wikipedia often (though I do wish there other strong wiki's)for quick reference. What really suprises me is the degree of conviction some people have against wiki.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/09/08

      markstoneman

      Why should that be surprising? What bothers such people, I believe, is not Wikipedia per se, but the authority granted by uncritical readers that it has come to enjoy.
   2. 

      6/09/08

      IanThal

      But is Wikipedia the worst offender (or rather the instrument of the worst offenders)?
   3. 

      6/09/08

      kevingoodman

      I was trying to read your article Ian but the web froze on me - will try again later.
      
      @stoneman - I think it just suprised me because it's an everyday thing for me. I know it's not something to cite but I am suprised that an attitude of absolute invalue exist - thats what I percieved. Of course this is family and friends so I respect there opinion. It was just the first time I had seen that kind of attitude and in consensus.
      
      @Ian - I think the social implications and the natural patterns that have emerged from wikipedia are very interesting. I don't know a whole lot about the inner workings of wikipedia but it seems there is room for editorial and policy improvement. Since wikipedia is already a significant beauracracy it's probably harder to achieve in life than in theory.
      
      I am in favor of a central authority and Identity disclosure. I think for those reasons it would be nice to see citizendium succeed.
      
      @Stoneman in regards to your first post. Did you find a greater authority when such problems occured?
   4. 

      6/09/08

      markstoneman

      @Ian: The instrument, of course, but to whom can one appeal? FYI, I oversaw more than 100 students doing a Wikipedia article. Most went okay. The correction mechanism worked for the students who screwed it up, most of the time. But the few bad cases I experienced seemed like a lot, given the small number of articles I was dealing with.
      
      @Kevin: The attitude you ran into is quite common. If it was realistic I would take it myself. Since kids use it, I have to help them understand both strengths and weaknesses. --- I found no higher authority to whom I could appeal. Maybe there is one, but if so, the process is not transparent enough.
   5. 

      6/11/08

      IanThal

      Stoneman-
      
      Exactly-- you get into the value of peer review, expertise, and transparency and away from "we all know."
   6. 

      6/11/08

      markstoneman

      Where's the peer review, if one user decides to undo all edits on a page? And "peer" is a rather generous term to use in many cases..
   7. 

      6/13/08

      IanThal

      Precisely.
      
      The very fact that an ideologically motivated vandal can undo so many well thought out edits with very little effort or imagination, and replace main body of the article with deliberate propaganda (even if it doesn't happen most of the time) is a glaring example of what happens when one does not have a peer review system and when one does have to rely upon the good will and altruism of all involved parties, shows the value of the institution of peer review-- an institution that had taken generations to develop.
3. 

   6/12/08

   kevingoodman

   - peer review - an issue citizendium is trying to at least merit.
   
   I believe anybody with a profile can write an article but it will be reviewed by editors who have a certain degree of certifiable experiance in that area.
   
   The citizendium model should be better promoted - wikipedia is huge but citizendium makes an honest attempt to correct wikipedias problems problems.

   [reply]