Much, much more to say (and respond to) on the Collaboration in the Humanities thread, but I need to note the current Wikipedia controversy over an inaccurate biography. Many fascinating and urgent issues raised by these events, with the best talk about them occurring on Wikipedia itself, especially in the discussion pages.
In case the article I linked to above is deleted by the Wikipedia admins, here’s another description of the controversy. This account trumpets the value and accuracy of traditional media in ways that seem a bit self-serving to me, especially since traditional media don’t always get it right, either. It’s also worth noting that the vigorous and thoughtful discussion of the issue on Wikipedia doesn’t get a mention. No surprises there–this is an economic competition, after all, and I’m sure MSNBC wants us to get all our information from them.
With all the recent foaming that focuses on the “validty” and truth of content in the WikiPedia, I hope what is not loss is the magical vehicle it is that allows humble, ordinary individuals, mtivated by their own interest in perhaps narrow topics, to collaboratively build something on a scale that did not exist before and a rate that is exhilerating. While concerns rage over Siegenthalers fake bio and Adam Curry’s ego, let’s not forget the amazing coverage of Katrina or Jon Udell’s screen cast of Heavy Metal Umlaut, or the likely countless numbers of niche treasures within.
You have to be somewhere in the balance on WikiPedia; one cannot overly gloss of acts there that are either ignorantly wrong or malicious; nor can one really want to go the oposite route that all content needs to be written by “professionals”.
It’s a rather interesting mirror of real society.
I agree completely, and the last sentence is quite the punch line.
The discussion on Wikipedia itself about the controversy is fascinating: a town hall meeting about the care and feeding of civilization, if that’s not too grand.
One detail sticks with me – did Siegenthaler try to edit his biographical article? I can’t tell from the op-ed, and it increasingly bugs me.
No, he did not. According to one account (I think I delicious’d it), when asked Seigenthaler said he didn’t edit it because he didn’t believe in Wikipedia, or words to that effect.
Not what I’d call persuasive.
His points about the potential harm and about the way other sites (about.com, etc.) simply harvest Wikipedia content and thus propagate the errors are good ones, but his refusal to correct the entry is troubling. He could still have called Jimmy Wales with a copy of the erroneous page, which would have lingered in the history, but perhaps he wanted more than simply to set the record straight. That’s what I fear.
Pingback: Gardner Writes » Blog Archive » More on the Wikipedia controversy
Well, I’ve been busy, but I did want to put my two cents–MSN.com had a link to an article on the reliability of the Wikipedia, and it said that the Wikipedia was about as reliable as the Britannica. Not bad, I would think. Kind of amazing, in fact.
Cheers,
Ter
Some people see that Wikipedia has got left bias. And I did not meet anyone yet who would say that Wikipedia has got right bias.
For more try Google search: wikipedia left bias.
Pingback: 14th Colony Scout » Blog Archive » Google - Wikipedia Connection Problematic