I have several issues with Wikipedia to begin with, one of which concerns webcomics. Over the past couple of years a singular individual editing Wikipedia conducted a campaign to remove all webcomics from the site by citing that webcomics were non-significant. I've also witnessed a Wikipedia editor actively remove anything on a Jeremy Clarkson page that painted his quintessentially German car segment from Top Gear in a neutral tone. I've witnessed discussion on a page concerning Geri Halliwell, one of the spice girls, in which a Wikipedia editor was actively telling other users to remove all but basic information about the singer.
Now, I'm quite familiar with http://www.dictionary.com which is owned and controlled by Lexico. I'm also somewhat familiar with http://www.merriam-webster.com/. On a whim then I decided to look up the definition of encyclopedia.
Dictionary.com Unabridged defines encyclopedia as: 1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.
Dictionary.com references the American Heritage Dictionary which defines encylopedia as : n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
Dictionary.com also references WordNet which defines encyclopedia as : noun a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty
Dictionary.com proceeds to reference Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) as well, which defines encyclopedia as : a reference work containing information on every branch of knowledge, or on one particular branch
Miriam-Webster defines encyclopedia as : Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child — more at few Date: 1644 : a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Okay, fair assortment of definitions for an encyclopedia, and none of them say anything about removing information. Rather each of them states that an encyclopedia contains information on every branch of knowledge.
Right off hand, Wikipedia has already failed the basic test to qualify as an encyclopedia. Information is discarded, instead of stored. One of the excuses given to removal is that of the storage space available on Wikipedia. Okay, I can test that theory. One copy of open office. One 209 page long document filled with capital A's in red text lettering with black background color. One save in Open Document. One save in Microsoft .doc. One save in .html. One save in the .txt format to strip text encoding. Care to guess the document sizes? Well, see for yourself.
The heaviest document format was to be had in Microsoft's Word Format. The smallest format was to be hand in the Open Document format with a mere 9946 bytes... which includes the entire formatting. The HTML format was still under 1 meg. So lets face it. Space for text really isn't a problem. Any wikipedia editor that sites saving space as a reason for deletion has pretty much disqualified themselves.
Wikipedia editors also have a long history of removing information in a biased manner, and there are multiple sites that go after Wikimedia and Jimbo on a daily basis. Cade Metz, who has been published in PC Magazine and I believe is still an editor with Ziff Davis, went after the issues surrounding the creator of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest section.
It is my opinion that many of the existing Wikipedia editors do not understand the concept of an encyclopedia, and it is my opinion that Jimbo of Wikimedia has no intentions what-so-ever of enforcing policies that would turn Wikipedia into an encyclopedia.
I don't want this to be taken as an indication that the Wiki format itself is flawed. No. The failure of Wikipedia has given rise to smaller wiki's based on specific subjects. Example, Wiki Fur, which tells you about people such as Blade. Word of advice... telling her to have fun while drawing is probably not considered a brilliant idea. In fact, it's probably one of the dumbest things you can possibly do. Ever.
Guess who did it twice.
A very real problem then is to handle citing Wikipedia. As a source of credible information, Wikipedia fails even basic litmus tests. As a source of reliable information, Wikipedia fails there too. As a source of neutral information, Wikipedia doesn't just miss, the hit rate is so low many editors could fly by throwing themselves at the ground.
Why I am adding my voice to the anti-wikipedia crowd? Why now?
Simple answer is that the article written by Cade Metz was a tipping point. Within 5 or so minutes the write-up was verifiable, which isn't the case with many of the other charges leveled against Wikipedia that could take days, weeks, or even months to properly verify through normal sources. As I see it, Wikipedia has been caught with their pants down around their ankles. The term busted springs to mind.
Since I cite Wikipedia myself, I find myself in the position that I don't want to drive traffic to the Wikipedia cite, and I don't want my linkings to be taken that there is a tacit approval of some of the stunts wikipedia is involved in.
Granted, I was probably already doing that with the contextual comments.
2 comments:
Wikipedia Accuracy: It’s a free Encyclopaedia
Upon reading your views of Wikipedia, I think several elements need to be highlighted before completely disapproving this information source.
I believe that Wikipedia as stated by Mark Pesce is “something new; it’s not just a directory of facts, like its nearest competitor, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because it has been created by all of us for all of us, its interests range as broadly as our own; … the place where all things of interest to humanity… have been gathered together” (Pesce, 2006)
Indeed the question is raised, as to the accuracy of Wikipedia. When comparing with other information sources, how can you ensure they are correct? The Encyclopaedia Britannica is released every several years, surely by then lots of the information would be out dated and in fact inaccurate. Wikipedia can be altered and the changes are instantaneous everywhere.
Of course there is room for vandalism on such a site, but the “burden of evidence… rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material” (Wikipedia, 2007). You have the responsibility to accurately publish information and “articles will eventually reach… the highest degree of accuracy” (McHenry, 2004).
Wikipedia will remain a widely used source of information and after all, it is free.
References:
McHenry, R. (2004). The Faith-Based Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 10, 2008, From http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A
Pesce, M. (2006). Hyperintelligence. Retrieved May 11, 2008, From http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=17
Wikipedia. (2007). Wikipedia: Semi-Protection Policy. Retrieved May 11, 2008, From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-Protection_policy
Hey Saist, try not to be so cynical. Are you a rocket scientist? You seem to know alot about Star wars and Top gear even Spice girls!, hmmmm quite a factual person you are. We all base our knoweldge on what people write at the time and compare with alternatives if need be. If you really want to know what time Geri Hallwell gets out of bed, check out her own website! Dont knock a very informative community based action helping those who enjoy information and current information at that. Wiki editors can say what they like, you should stick with comics because I'm sure it has all the detail you need.
Post a Comment