My whole argument has been this: Wikipedia has been very useful to me, and while I know that there are certain problems (which I have acknowledged several times), we should at least recognize that Wikipedia is a valuable resource. You refuse to do this, and I now think I understand why.

Let it drop. Or at least narrow your attack to one which is defensible.

And you might consider not asserting without evidence that people who disagree with you are cultists.

I waited until #137 to get personal. Your monomaniac persistence is what turned me. I usually get personal much quicker than that, as we all know. And I didn’t call you a motherfucker, which I do whenever appropriate.

If Wales is secretly profiting from others’ work, I would see a problem in that. Frankly, though, if I were doing Wikis I wouldn’t care. Wiki would be a gratifying outlet for me I don’t presently have.

I also agree about the slander aspect. Thou I wish that Seth had been quicker to disclose his personal grudge.

But a lot of energy has been put into badmouthing Wiki as a resource, and it’s all wrong. There’s been this tendentious comparison to a nonexistent ideal resource, and I find that annoying.

The inverse of elitism is a manipulative populist argument, and Wikipedia has a lot of that.

Additionally, in my own field (oceanography) Wikipedia at least makes an effort to explain complex processes at a basic level. One of the advantages of Wikipedia’s open editing policy is that it keeps scientists like myself from hiding behind jargon. And if some teenager wants to help me increase scientific literacy by pointing out where I’m unclear or mistaken- that’s okay with me!

An interesting sidelight. My wife recently finished a book on the history of the written word. It is amusing how many of the reactions to Wikipedia parallel elite reactions to the introductions of such technologies as the printing press, or the Korean phonetic script. “It makes (fill in the blank) too easy! Anyone can do it!” Academic elites like myself need to be careful that our focus on the truth isn’t just another power play.

One of the deepest, non-cult (:-)) dislikes I have about Wikipedia is how, as you outline, it tries to escape intellectual responsibility by cost-shifting onto the reader. It’s a general web-2.0 formula where the organization gets a bunch of people to sound-off and have an argument, portrays the result as some sort of great civic achievement, and then in response to intellectual criticism says it’s up to the readers to figure out who was spouting nonsense, and if you don’t like that, you’re against democracy. I don’t think academics and people who value being accurate over being popular should promote that sort of thing.

[Note it’s consistent that Wikipedia works great for comics and TV because on those topics the most obsessive person is in fact very likely to be the most objectively correct!]

Madness? THIS .. IS .. WIKIPEDIA! ;-)

Seriously, these articles tend to attract people in denial as much as “true believers” (and quite a few reasonable, critically minded people), which – as you can see, for instance, on Talk:Project MKULTRA, tends to produce intense discussion about the validity of the sources. This is actually a highly useful process—random websites on the topic you will find will make no such effort. And if you do want to read a book on the topic, Wikipedia will provide you with plenty of references.

In the resulting article, I also find countless references to the Washington Post, the NYT, the Congressional Church Committee, the US General Accounting Office, and so forth. You don’t have to give a damn about Wikipedia to read and understand those sources. So, your reaction above .. “run away!” .. seems to be far from rational.

We should always be critical readers of everything that tries to change our perception of reality, no matter where it is published. Wikipedia has simply made this a necessary part of the reading process, rather than an optional one.

You’ve just proven one of my main reasons for calling Wikipedia a cult. Because if people criticize Wikipedia, they’re met with personal attack. Not by everyone, of course – but it happens enough that it’s a very clear cult-reaction.

Look at the algorithm:

1) A Wikipedia critic is likely to get some nastiness from some of Wikipedia’s more fanatical acolytes.

2) Per request above, should one disclose this possible aspect?

Got ‘em – either they didn’t disclose, or they can be invalidated on personal grounds. This should tell you something about what’s so socially wrong about Wikipedia.

There are legit issues about Wiki, but no one will ever know about them from you.

I completely agree that the slander-and-disinformation question should be addressed.

a) While not strictly a conflict-of-interest, it’d be nice if you had disclosed how extensively you’re involved in Wikipedia. Just saying.

b) The methodology problem is not complicated. Moreover, as has been pointed out, this was not a peer-reviewed study. Making a literal ad-hominem argument to support it – which is in fact the classic “OK Name” fallacy (if a big name can be associated with it, it must be true) – is the sort of behavior that reinforces my idea that Wikipedia a cult.

Erik (#135) – that’s long, but briefly:

No, no, no, run away. That’s madness. Those are the sort of topics where one should read honest-to-god BOOKS, written by EXPERTS, not the gibbering paranoia of the sort of person who is likely to camp out on that kind of article. I wouldn’t even consider it a “starting point”. You’re showing exactly why Wikipedia can be dangerous to a knowledge-seeker, where the crowd is likely to be insane.

“generally a fairly welcoming bunch” – yeah, if one drinks the Kool-Aid. If not, it can be unpleasant (full disclosure – I really didn’t like Wikipedia’s PR flack boasting about throwing me off a mailing list, which I bona-fide think was due to my irreverently talking about some legal liability strategizing that Wales didn’t want discussed. So I’m biased there, I declare it).

The topic of “getting rich off Wikipedia” is too complex to be discussed fruitfully in a comment box. While it is indeed a non-profit, that does not prevent various higher-ups from using it in more complex ways to enrich themselves. Indeed, it’s rather depressing how much exploitation of others has to be done for just a few people to make money – but this is hardly unknown in human history.