I read a really interesting article today at InfoWorld about Wikipedia and the quality of the entries there. According to the article, the powers that be want to steer Wikipedia away from growth and instead concentrate on quality. To this end, they're talking about putting together an advisory board. I guess I'm a bit skeptical that an advisory board is going to be do much advising over a worldwide group of public volunteers, but hey, the Internet has always been about pioneering. Who ever thought Amazon.com would work?
One paragraph that really caught my attention was this one:
Soon after the Seigenthaler controversy, Wikipedia got positive feedback from a study in Nature magazine that found that a group of its scientific articles had an average of three errors compared to four found in similar pieces from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a traditional encyclopedia. "It contradicted people who said Wikipedia was rubbish," Wales said. "We got pretty lucky, we're stronger in science" than in other areas such as the humanities, he added. Wales is keen to reach out to more good quality arts editors to improve Wikipedia's humanities coverage.
Now my question has to do with the nature of folks who are editing the wikipedia. If Wikipedia is strong in sciences but weak in humanities, surely that says something about the cross-section of humanity that is contributing. Do we infer that the scales are tipped a bit more to the "computer nerd" personality (and believe me, I use that word with the utmost of love and respect)?
The Internet sure has changed the social world, and the Wikipedia is yet another subset of that. It will be interesting to see how worldwide public projects can be managed and loosely controlled to ensure that some common direction is [mostly] unilaterally applied. Can the Wikipedia become a strong reference across all swathes of knowledge? I look forward to finding out.
Wikipedia needs oversigh. They currently allow posting of all sorts of insane conspiracy threories with weak attribution, and without rebuttal.
"Wikipedia needs oversight. They currently allow posting of all sorts of insane conspiracy theories with weak attribution, and without rebuttal."
Ovwersight has been left to the community at large!
Uhhhhh, I thought that being "open" is part of the main philosphopy of Wikipedia. Therefore, the doors are open to "all sorts of...." postings. So, the readers need to use a bit of common sense (which sadly, is mostly lacking) when reading ANY postings ANYWHERE. For example, when claims are made, is ANY kind of supporting evidence presented, or referenes cited that can be checked? If not, then it must be taken as nothing more than an OPINION of the writer.
If you come a cross what seems to YOU as an "insane" posting, there is a tab that says "Edit this page". Have at it, my friend, and make whatever rebuttal you wish. It can be totally "insane" with undocumented factoids tossed about with abandon. Or it can just be your own opinion. Write whtever you feel like. It is up to the communnity at large to police the content, and the public at large to exercise common sense when reading the entries.