Comments on: Wikipedia Follies http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 00:43:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Exasperated Calculator » Blog Archive » The problems with Wikipedia http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-187284 Exasperated Calculator » Blog Archive » The problems with Wikipedia Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:53:14 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-187284 [...] Exhibit 3 - Wikipedia hates experts [...] [...] Exhibit 3 – Wikipedia hates experts [...]

]]> By: Academia as an Extreme Sport » editing wikipedia http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186701 Academia as an Extreme Sport » editing wikipedia Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:49:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186701 [...] on top of it, as Crooked Timber noted a few weeks ago, you get into a situation where the expert does know more than the lay person, yet by Wikiepedia [...] [...] on top of it, as Crooked Timber noted a few weeks ago, you get into a situation where the expert does know more than the lay person, yet by Wikiepedia [...]

]]> By: noneuklid http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186503 noneuklid Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:29:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186503 I'm kind of astonished at the number of comments condemning Dr. Chalmers's response. I'm really not seeing a 'pompous air of authority' as loxley says (or as others in this thread have seemed to imply). As for Wikipedia itself, I think that subject's been well-covered already in this thread. It's an excellent encyclopedia, emphasis on both terms. I’m kind of astonished at the number of comments condemning Dr. Chalmers’s response. I’m really not seeing a ‘pompous air of authority’ as loxley says (or as others in this thread have seemed to imply).

As for Wikipedia itself, I think that subject’s been well-covered already in this thread. It’s an excellent encyclopedia, emphasis on both terms.

]]> By: Doctor Slack http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186442 Doctor Slack Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:29:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186442 Radek: <i>It would be a sad statement about the creativity and sense of humor of the human race if there was no wiki-hoaxes. </i> I really have to admit, that's well-put. A bit of a sense of humour about these things doesn't go amiss. On the other hand: <i>I dunno, I once created an article for a major Polish painter (Andrzej Wroblewski) which was deleted within 5 seconds because someone somewhere outthere hadn’t heard of him and thought it was a hoax.</i> ... and I once found an article effectively accusing ethnobotanist Wade Davis of fraud which had been up for over two years. (It's probably the defamatory stuff that bothers me most.) Mileage varies. Radek: It would be a sad statement about the creativity and sense of humor of the human race if there was no wiki-hoaxes.

I really have to admit, that’s well-put. A bit of a sense of humour about these things doesn’t go amiss.

On the other hand:

I dunno, I once created an article for a major Polish painter (Andrzej Wroblewski) which was deleted within 5 seconds because someone somewhere outthere hadn’t heard of him and thought it was a hoax.

… and I once found an article effectively accusing ethnobotanist Wade Davis of fraud which had been up for over two years. (It’s probably the defamatory stuff that bothers me most.) Mileage varies.

]]> By: radek http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186433 radek Thu, 08 Feb 2007 03:44:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186433 I knew that that was gonna get screwed up. Just look for the decimal point. I knew that that was gonna get screwed up. Just look for the decimal point.

]]> By: radek http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186432 radek Thu, 08 Feb 2007 03:42:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186432 Just out of curiosity I calculated the number of articles per language-speakers for the top entries languages that are displayed on Wiki's home page. Here's how it breaks down (first column = number of articles, second column # of speakers, third column = ratio): Spanish 196000 400000000 0.00049 Portugese 237000 230000000 0.0010 Italian 250000 100000000 0.0025 French 440660 175000000 0.0025 English 1625476 370000000 0.0044 German 539328 105000000 0.0051 Polish 345692 55000000 0.0063 Dutch 269000 26000000 0.0103 Swedish 207000 9300000 0.0223 Man, someone should do something about them Swedes. 45 Swedes = 1 Wiki Article !!! Compare that to 97 Dutchmen or 160 Poles = 1 Wiki article. Of course I got all these numbers from Wiki itself and the Language Wiki Page does have NPOV tag - but I think that has something to do with # of Tamil speakers rather than any of these. The Cree language wiki has 113 articles, which gets them a very respectable .0023 articles per speaker. For some reason this wiki has been vandalized a lot. Just out of curiosity I calculated the number of articles per language-speakers for the top entries languages that are displayed on Wiki’s home page. Here’s how it breaks down (first column = number of articles, second column # of speakers, third column = ratio):
Spanish1960004000000000.00049
Portugese2370002300000000.0010
Italian 2500001000000000.0025
French4406601750000000.0025
English 16254763700000000.0044
German 5393281050000000.0051
Polish345692550000000.0063
Dutch269000260000000.0103
Swedish20700093000000.0223

Man, someone should do something about them Swedes. 45 Swedes = 1 Wiki Article Compare that to 97 Dutchmen or 160 Poles = 1 Wiki article.

Of course I got all these numbers from Wiki itself and the Language Wiki Page does have NPOV tag – but I think that has something to do with # of Tamil speakers rather than any of these.

The Cree language wiki has 113 articles, which gets them a very respectable .0023 articles per speaker. For some reason this wiki has been vandalized a lot.

]]> By: radek http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186425 radek Thu, 08 Feb 2007 02:45:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186425 <i>To which I say, people who have time to babysit Wikipedia need to get a life.</i> Yeah but the babysitters are doing something socially productive whereas the wikitruth guy is just sneering from the sidelines. This is also why I have a lot more respect for the WikiWatch guy who's own website is pretty amazing, has lots of info and which I've used as a source previously (or at least as a source for sources). So he gets to smack talk, the other guy doesn't. Also, as far as all those hoaxes go. First, given anyone can write stuff up you'd be crazy to expect no hoaxes. It would be a sad statement about the creativity and sense of humor of the human race if there was no wiki-hoaxes. Second, and relatedly, I'm actually surprised as to how few of them actually are. The response to that I guess would be that we don't really know how many hoaxes are out there because some may not have been discovered yet. But like it's been pointed out it's a self correcting process (and the WikiWatch guy points to a case where scepticism on Wiki led to questioning of a story naively reported by MSM). Further, the slow rate at which these hoaxes pop up suggests either that there's few of them to be discovered, or that Wiki editors are horrible at detecting them. I dunno, I once created an article for a major Polish painter (Andrzej Wroblewski) which was deleted within 5 seconds because someone somewhere outthere hadn't heard of him and thought it was a hoax. So I'll go with the "there's few of them to be discovered". To which I say, people who have time to babysit Wikipedia need to get a life.

Yeah but the babysitters are doing something socially productive whereas the wikitruth guy is just sneering from the sidelines. This is also why I have a lot more respect for the WikiWatch guy who’s own website is pretty amazing, has lots of info and which I’ve used as a source previously (or at least as a source for sources). So he gets to smack talk, the other guy doesn’t.

Also, as far as all those hoaxes go. First, given anyone can write stuff up you’d be crazy to expect no hoaxes. It would be a sad statement about the creativity and sense of humor of the human race if there was no wiki-hoaxes. Second, and relatedly, I’m actually surprised as to how few of them actually are. The response to that I guess would be that we don’t really know how many hoaxes are out there because some may not have been discovered yet. But like it’s been pointed out it’s a self correcting process (and the WikiWatch guy points to a case where scepticism on Wiki led to questioning of a story naively reported by MSM). Further, the slow rate at which these hoaxes pop up suggests either that there’s few of them to be discovered, or that Wiki editors are horrible at detecting them.

I dunno, I once created an article for a major Polish painter (Andrzej Wroblewski) which was deleted within 5 seconds because someone somewhere outthere hadn’t heard of him and thought it was a hoax. So I’ll go with the “there’s few of them to be discovered”.

]]> By: yeti http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186418 yeti Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:11:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186418 Also, I thought the McLuhan joke was funny. And if loxley had just read the contemporaneous McLuhan wikipedia page, he would have caught the Annie Hall reference. No prior knowledge needed, <i>pace</i> Emerson. Also, I thought the McLuhan joke was funny. And if loxley had just read the contemporaneous McLuhan wikipedia page, he would have caught the Annie Hall reference. No prior knowledge needed, pace Emerson.

]]> By: yeti http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186416 yeti Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:06:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186416 ...if that *is* your real name... …if that is your real name…

]]> By: David Chalmers http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186410 David Chalmers Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:03:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186410 126 comments -- wow. But I think some context has been lost here. My contribution was prompted by a comment (from "Loxley" in response to an attempted correction by "Philos") saying "I would refer you to Chalmers' classic 1996 text "The Conscious Mind" where he comes at consciousness from precisely this angle." I thought that in this context a word from me might be helpful (hence the <i>Annie Hall</i> reference, which really doesn't make sense outside this context). Obviously I was wrong about that. And yes, if I'd been prepared to stick around for a long argument, we probably could have made progress, but that would have been borderline inappropriate, and others were already fighting that battle. In any case, I certainly don't take myself to have any sort of "grievance" over this, and overall I'm pretty impressed by Wikipedia, despite its imperfections. 126 comments—wow. But I think some context has been lost here. My contribution was prompted by a comment (from “Loxley” in response to an attempted correction by “Philos”) saying “I would refer you to Chalmers’ classic 1996 text “The Conscious Mind” where he comes at consciousness from precisely this angle.” I thought that in this context a word from me might be helpful (hence the Annie Hall reference, which really doesn’t make sense outside this context). Obviously I was wrong about that. And yes, if I’d been prepared to stick around for a long argument, we probably could have made progress, but that would have been borderline inappropriate, and others were already fighting that battle. In any case, I certainly don’t take myself to have any sort of “grievance” over this, and overall I’m pretty impressed by Wikipedia, despite its imperfections.

]]> By: John Emerson http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186407 John Emerson Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:27:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186407 Let the Shaolin heretics die the death they have brought on themselves. I will say nothing about your family. Let the Shaolin heretics die the death they have brought on themselves. I will say nothing about your family.

]]> By: Doctor Slack http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186404 Doctor Slack Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:13:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186404 No, fair enough: it's been good to you, whereas it has offended my family and offended a Shaolin Temple. I don't think any more need be said. No, fair enough: it’s been good to you, whereas it has offended my family and offended a Shaolin Temple. I don’t think any more need be said.

]]> By: John Emerson http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186403 John Emerson Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:08:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186403 Jeez, Slack, I said it was better than Brittanica on what I looked at. Is it wrong to make that comparison? I think I specified at the top that it's no good for anything controversial (Buthelezi). Wiki is a fantastic first stop. You have to read critically. Not good for fast-moving research or controversial questions. Not an authority to cite. Wiki has been good to me. Jeez, Slack, I said it was better than Brittanica on what I looked at. Is it wrong to make that comparison?

I think I specified at the top that it’s no good for anything controversial (Buthelezi).

Wiki is a fantastic first stop. You have to read critically. Not good for fast-moving research or controversial questions. Not an authority to cite. Wiki has been good to me.

]]> By: Doctor Slack http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186395 Doctor Slack Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:53:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186395 And for every good outcome, there's a trainwreck like the WikiPedia article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangosuthu_Buthelezi" rel="nofollow">Mangosuthu Buthelezi</a>, which includes a little trivia you wouldn't find in other encyclopedias but also very suspiciously fails to mention the political violence that made him and the IFP so notorious in the Nineties. (Note the <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/65/bu/Buthelez.html" rel="nofollow">Columbia Encyclopedia</a> <i>does</i> manage to get this right.) Sorry, but the added trivia just isn't added value in this case, and there are more than enough cases like it to confirm me as an anti-Wikian. There are the smaller annoyances, too, which add up. Venturing out of modern history and into the classics, and picking an article more or less at random, we have an epic entry on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#From_the_Republic_to_the_Principate_.2831_BC.E2.80.93AD_14.29" rel="nofollow">The Roman Empire</a>, which helpfully informs us in the span of three early paragraphs that "the question about who was the first emperor has never found a definitive answer" and that "Octavian . . . is widely accepted as the first emperor." That kind of thing is constant background noise that makes reading WikiPedia irritating even when there's nothing wrong, per se. The practice of constantly measuring WikiPedia against Britannica puzzles me, because a large chunk of its material comes from public domain editions of Britannica. (Cf. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumentius" rel="nofollow">This</a> article on Frumentius.) And for every good outcome, there’s a trainwreck like the WikiPedia article on Mangosuthu Buthelezi, which includes a little trivia you wouldn’t find in other encyclopedias but also very suspiciously fails to mention the political violence that made him and the IFP so notorious in the Nineties. (Note the Columbia Encyclopedia does manage to get this right.) Sorry, but the added trivia just isn’t added value in this case, and there are more than enough cases like it to confirm me as an anti-Wikian.

There are the smaller annoyances, too, which add up. Venturing out of modern history and into the classics, and picking an article more or less at random, we have an epic entry on The Roman Empire, which helpfully informs us in the span of three early paragraphs that “the question about who was the first emperor has never found a definitive answer” and that “Octavian . . . is widely accepted as the first emperor.” That kind of thing is constant background noise that makes reading WikiPedia irritating even when there’s nothing wrong, per se.

The practice of constantly measuring WikiPedia against Britannica puzzles me, because a large chunk of its material comes from public domain editions of Britannica. (Cf. This article on Frumentius.)

]]> By: John Emerson http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/comment-page-3/#comment-186369 John Emerson Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:53:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/04/wikipedia/#comment-186369 OK, I've just compared Wiki with the 1960 Brittanica on the Bulgars and the Volga Bulgars. This is an area peripheral to my major interest where I am able to read critically. The Wiki is more detailed than the Brittanica and has a useful map which the B does not. There are traces of nationalist interference but they've been subordinated. (In the EB there are gross barbarian stereotypes). The Wiki article points you to other related articles more usefully than the EB. I spotted a handful of doubtful points in the Wiki, one of which was shared with the EB. Nothing really wrong. In two places a problem came from relying on a single ancient source -- one of which was new to me, and I'm glad to know what it said (it was properly attested). I would really recommend the Wiki over the EB. For someone with time and a university library, I wouldn't recommend either, but encyclopedias are by definition imperfect compared to libraries. OK, I’ve just compared Wiki with the 1960 Brittanica on the Bulgars and the Volga Bulgars. This is an area peripheral to my major interest where I am able to read critically.

The Wiki is more detailed than the Brittanica and has a useful map which the B does not. There are traces of nationalist interference but they’ve been subordinated. (In the EB there are gross barbarian stereotypes). The Wiki article points you to other related articles more usefully than the EB.

I spotted a handful of doubtful points in the Wiki, one of which was shared with the EB. Nothing really wrong. In two places a problem came from relying on a single ancient source—one of which was new to me, and I’m glad to know what it said (it was properly attested).

I would really recommend the Wiki over the EB. For someone with time and a university library, I wouldn’t recommend either, but encyclopedias are by definition imperfect compared to libraries.

]]>