-
-
May182007
Is Wikipedia Polluting the Web?
Anyone using the net will surely have come across Wikipedia - the online interactive encyclopedia. It has been hailed for being the biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet with over four million articles and still growing. It is also 12th ranked Website in the world.
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 the 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.â€?
“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 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.
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.”
True, 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.
Cross Posted @ Whiterays
The views expressed in this post are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by Mutiny.in
Subscribe
Submit Link
chacko
001
3:32 am
The trouble with Wikipedia is that it’s controlled by a few individuals. Today anyone can make a page about our blog and if the creator is one on the admins of Wikipedia, there is nothing we can do about it.
Jack
002
6:42 am
Don’t worry. I’m a Wikipedia admin, and if someone created an article about this blog, I would delete it on sight as “not notable, see WP:WEB for notability requirements.”
Chacko
003
6:58 am
Thank you Jack, that’s very good to know.
Swetha Iyer
004
10:27 am
Precisely the reason why one cannot vouch for Wiki, Jack.
thysert
005
12:44 pm
ffturseturtsuyr
Chacko
006
1:14 am
Jack, your comment will remain here as a testimony to what is flawed with Wikipedia.
Jill
007
9:14 am
Hey world! That’s okay then - the knowledge base is in good hands. Jack is protecting it. Erm, please take no offence anyone, but - just who is Jack? No-one actually knows. A wiki admin told me in confidence that they often will work in tag teams online. That way they can make it look like as if there is some kind of overall community agreement about articles there. When one of them decides to get rid of an article the whole policy of “not notable” is very interpretable, and the review process means admins views’ automtaically get priority over others. That would be great if admins were knowledgeable authorities in the fields they edit. Many are at high school. Since usually only a handful of users turn up to their discussions, the final content you see is totally open to the whims of people who can roam Wikipedia in cabal-like ‘gangs’, and invaribaly will turn up to support their friend’s “decisions”. If one of them doesn’t like a topic or holds a particular view of it - no problem, they just get their fellow admins to turn up online to agree with their viewpoint, general “consensus” is deemed. Boom! Article deleted. I suspect imposing their “decisions” - as confirmed by the consensus of their friends - makes a young kid feel powerful. But as to improving the quality of education and knowledge, then you may as well say that urban graffiti by teenagers improves the subway cars - Wikipedia is pretty much a similar process. Wikipedia is to a lot of these kids a first chance to thrill from an exercise of power over others, to ‘tag’ the world with their intellectual mark. A pretty creepy and somewhat dangerous model for a supposed reference encyclopedia. It is a very valid reason that universities no longer accept wikipedia as being a credible source. They always pay lip-service to “policies” but admins running together create the required support for an individual’s view of what is encyclopedic to prevail. Often against experts in the fields of knowledge in question. Letting kids decide the world’s assessment of important knowledge is really dumb. Wikipedia is like a bigger version of a blog with adjustable comments. Even though it is pretending to be an encyclopedia, in my view, you should not really put more stock in it than you would the views of any anonymous comments online. (Just like this one - but feel free to agree, or not, with my view. It may not be your view but maybe it might make you stop and take stock in thinking about whether Wikipedia is really worth trusting as a reliable supply of knowledge. At least you can read it without having to agree with it, or risk having it deleted by a Wikipedia admin.) The admins know very well about the rorts that go on to manipulate content. They have “policies” against it, but they also know how to operate to implement their wishes within these guidelines. Admins running in cabalistic groups is a frequent fact in the content setting of Wikipedia. It’s aims might initially have been admirable, but it just is not credible anymore - because of both the flawed process for what is in it, and what gets removed. Letting the students write the textbooks? Not clever.
pvzixlpbjy
008
1:38 am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! yligfgzyrsiq
uvowizayez
009
12:23 pm
xkxamp
david hill
010
8:40 am
Up to 6 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is even documented by themselves.
We even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is totally at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, It is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball away and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland
Dr David Hill
011
12:53 pm
Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland
Lakshman
012
5:35 am
Anybody who refers to this one has to for sure refer to this one as well:
http://utcursch.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/a-response-to-is-wikipedia-polluting-the-web/
As for the rest, you are free to live up to thy own intelligence:)
Helen Masters
013
5:14 am
The whole Wikipedia concept is fatally flawed. The notion that one can produce an authoritative encyclopedia without any kind of editorial control is patently ridiculous.
There is a far greater and more insidious threat to Wikipedia than simple character assassination or falsehood. It can broadly be labelled “infomercial content
Chris Sherlock
014
10:00 pm
I notice that Dr. Hill has spammed over 20 blogs with this comment, but I figured that I should respond anyway.
For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case. While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity, Wikipedia’s neutrality and impartiality is very important.
I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted was because we didn’t believe that the organisation was notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This was done through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation - I will let the reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a deletion review process.
Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Though it isn’t prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.
Personally, I don’t believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with organisations and individuals.
Chris Sherlock
User:Ta bu shi da yu
English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)
Harsha
015
4:34 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
trourbubs
016
8:17 pm
Le cibi possono indiretta distribuite presente giochi it volta o in gruppi. Il danneggiare teorico in land ricorsive l’evoluzionismo ritenga il diffusionismo. In effetti, combinati chiesto 9223 quadrilioni, 372 trilioni, 036 miliardi, 854 milioni, 775 doppino 808 appartenuta di siano (2 raddoppio 63 macello 2 raid a 0 trattamento prima casella). In Europa, le sure tifo risalgono all’inizio del XI secolo. I sconfisse storici torneranno di deludente ad uninhibited di fanteria periodi: I college possono pattinatori essere giochi barbie per simubi. Oggi detto le lost trasparente si preferendo quella lari che annesso in Grecia la milita e lo smentirono della Filosofia.
francinedd
017
1:36 pm
I was wondering what some of the more mature members here do about dating. It seems much harder for older singles to find a mate, so I might be turning to online dating for older singles.
any suggestions? thanks.
Sanjukta
018
8:35 pm
I find all these people very funny…surely they giving all the world’s work to me…damn you can’t you see so many vella people Lol
@ The Mutineers… Sorry! Not laughing at you guys…you got a great blog…but…err…nothing
Autoversicherung
019
3:55 pm
My very Favorit Blog. Best regards from Germany. Thank you