Comments on: Knols, wikis and reality http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/ 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: Muninn » Of Knols, Trolls, and Goblins http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-222667 Muninn » Of Knols, Trolls, and Goblins Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:26:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-222667 [...] I will respond to some of the critiques of Crooked Timber’s John Quiggin made in his posting Knols, wikis and reality and if:book’s Ben Vershbow rough notes on [...] [...] I will respond to some of the critiques of Crooked Timber’s John Quiggin made in his posting Knols, wikis and reality and if:book’s Ben Vershbow rough notes on [...]

]]> By: Timothy J. Carroll http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221977 Timothy J. Carroll Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:35:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221977 Good dissection of the two entities. I used your article as a link <a href="http://www.memeticians.com/" title="memeticians" rel="nofollow">on my website</a> in a similar article. <a href="http://www.memeticians.com/2007/12/its-what-we-know.php" title="It's What We Know" rel="nofollow">This is my take</a>. I hope you approve, as I am a loyal reader of Crooked Timber. All the best! tjc Good dissection of the two entities. I used your article as a link on my website in a similar article.

This is my take.

I hope you approve, as I am a loyal reader of Crooked Timber.

All the best!

tjc

]]> By: bemused http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221882 bemused Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:59:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221882 I agree with Robin Green. "Trusting" wikipedia is the same problem you are faced with in reading any online (or paper) source of information. The thing about wikipedia is that there is typically a lot more ability to see the back story on why an article is the way it is. Also, anyone reading an article on gun control who hasn't recently arrived from Syrtis Major ought to begin with an attitude of mistrust when reading any single article, whatever the source. The scorn for Wikipedia from academics exhibits a strange lack of familiarity with other and older pop sources of information (c.f. World Book). I agree with Robin Green. “Trusting” wikipedia is the same problem you are faced with in reading any online (or paper) source of information. The thing about wikipedia is that there is typically a lot more ability to see the back story on why an article is the way it is. Also, anyone reading an article on gun control who hasn’t recently arrived from Syrtis Major ought to begin with an attitude of mistrust when reading any single article, whatever the source.

The scorn for Wikipedia from academics exhibits a strange lack of familiarity with other and older pop sources of information (c.f. World Book).

]]> By: MNPundit http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221859 MNPundit Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:22:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221859 Whats IOW? I'm a law student not a corporate lawyer so it's just a gentleman's agreement as it were. Can't have the benefits without doing your part to contribute where you can. If you're going to complain and not fix the problem if you have the ability to do so, then what good does complaining do? Whats IOW?

I’m a law student not a corporate lawyer so it’s just a gentleman’s agreement as it were.

Can’t have the benefits without doing your part to contribute where you can. If you’re going to complain and not fix the problem if you have the ability to do so, then what good does complaining do?

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221837 abb1 Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:29:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221837 I agree that they are getting longer and that it's unpleasant, but luckily a typical one has the summary and table of content that usually allows you avoid reading a bunch of irrelevant details. But yeah, that is a problem. They already have 'discussions' separated from the main entry; maybe they should break the main entry into two: 'essentials' and 'details'. Or something. I agree that they are getting longer and that it’s unpleasant, but luckily a typical one has the summary and table of content that usually allows you avoid reading a bunch of irrelevant details.

But yeah, that is a problem. They already have ‘discussions’ separated from the main entry; maybe they should break the main entry into two: ‘essentials’ and ‘details’. Or something.

]]> By: notsneaky http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221821 notsneaky Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:39:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221821 Walt, Yeah, but too much detail can be a bad thing. And I agree with terence that the writing style has suffered. This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balassa-Samuelson_effect used to be a fairly simple article on a pretty straight forward subject - why are price levels lower in poor countries. It's been all kinds of expended and now has all kinds of unnecessary crap and bad faux-academic writing (e.g.<i>If the Balassa-Samuelson (BS) hypothesis is largely responsible for the deviation from purchasing power parity it is asked why the effect's principal assumption is true;</i> - it is asked? By whom? This isn't the usual 'English as a second language' thing either. It's just plain ol' bad writing) And I've been seeing a lot more of this around lately. Walt,
Yeah, but too much detail can be a bad thing. And I agree with terence that the writing style has suffered.

This:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balassa-Samuelson_effect

used to be a fairly simple article on a pretty straight forward subject – why are price levels lower in poor countries. It’s been all kinds of expended and now has all kinds of unnecessary crap and bad faux-academic writing (e.g.If the Balassa-Samuelson (BS) hypothesis is largely responsible for the deviation from purchasing power parity it is asked why the effect’s principal assumption is true; – it is asked? By whom? This isn’t the usual ‘English as a second language’ thing either. It’s just plain ol’ bad writing)

And I’ve been seeing a lot more of this around lately.

]]> By: terence http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221807 terence Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:33:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221807 Not Sneaky: Yeah I sense that too. The biggest deterioration often being in the writing style of some of the high interest entries. This appears to stem from endless back and forth edits from the various opposing camps which leads to choppy pieces. Also, some people just can't - it seems - accept that their own pet project doesn't need to be <i>everywhere</i>. The - relatively short considering - entry on Keynes currently, for example, has a section on Kenyes's vs Hayek. Interesting perhaps, but, included in a relatively brief summary it's unnecessary and detracts from the flow of the article. It also gives one the sense that someone out there just doesn't consider any entry on economics complete if there isn't at least one reference to Austrian economics in it. Lyndon LaRouche's name also pops up from time to time in economics entries which, to my admittedly non-expert eyes, seems as likely to be a product of the persistence of his fans rather than any actual contribution to the subject. Not Sneaky:

Yeah I sense that too. The biggest deterioration often being in the writing style of some of the high interest entries. This appears to stem from endless back and forth edits from the various opposing camps which leads to choppy pieces.

Also, some people just can’t – it seems – accept that their own pet project doesn’t need to be everywhere. The – relatively short considering – entry on Keynes currently, for example, has a section on Kenyes’s vs Hayek. Interesting perhaps, but, included in a relatively brief summary it’s unnecessary and detracts from the flow of the article. It also gives one the sense that someone out there just doesn’t consider any entry on economics complete if there isn’t at least one reference to Austrian economics in it.

Lyndon LaRouche’s name also pops up from time to time in economics entries which, to my admittedly non-expert eyes, seems as likely to be a product of the persistence of his fans rather than any actual contribution to the subject.

]]> By: Walt http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221805 Walt Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:19:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221805 Interesting, notsneaky. My impression is the opposite. The articles are getting so detailed it's hard to be a casual contributor in any area in which you are not an expert. Interesting, notsneaky. My impression is the opposite. The articles are getting so detailed it’s hard to be a casual contributor in any area in which you are not an expert.

]]> By: notsneaky http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221804 notsneaky Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:06:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221804 My sense - and that's all it is - is that Wikipedia has actually gotten worse over the past six months or so. To much popularity or whatever. My sense – and that’s all it is – is that Wikipedia has actually gotten worse over the past six months or so. To much popularity or whatever.

]]> By: Melinda http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221801 Melinda Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:57:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221801 Engels said:<blockquote>IOW if you can point to an error in wikipedia then you must not have fixed it, ergo you are in breach of your “implicit” user agreement. As gagging clauses go, I don’t think many corporate lawyers could do better than that.</blockquote> As I see it, that's yet more incentive not to use Wikipedia. Engels said:
IOW if you can point to an error in wikipedia then you must not have fixed it, ergo you are in breach of your “implicit” user agreement. As gagging clauses go, I don’t think many corporate lawyers could do better than that.

As I see it, that’s yet more incentive not to use Wikipedia.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221798 engels Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:24:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221798 <i>Did you fix it? If you know there are errors then fix them and source them. That’s the implicit agreement people make for using the wiki.</i> IOW if you can point to an error in wikipedia then you must not have fixed it, ergo you are in breach of your "implicit" user agreement. As gagging clauses go, I don't think many corporate lawyers could do better than that. Did you fix it? If you know there are errors then fix them and source them. That’s the implicit agreement people make for using the wiki.

IOW if you can point to an error in wikipedia then you must not have fixed it, ergo you are in breach of your “implicit” user agreement. As gagging clauses go, I don’t think many corporate lawyers could do better than that.

]]> By: MNPundit http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221786 MNPundit Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:02:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221786 "The other situation in which the process fails in these open, collaborative efforts is that of highly specialized topics which receive very little review. I’ve seen a number of errors in Wikipedia articles on somewhat obscure topics, and this is actually pretty consistent with AWFUL Linux device drivers for gizmos that aren’t in wide use. Relying on community review for quality assumes community review." Did you fix it? If you know there are errors then fix them and source them. That's the implicit agreement people make for using the wiki. I detest Colbert's "wikiality" because the people on the site actually have an interest in using correct information. I edit wikipedia articles because 1) I'm a geek 2) I read an interesting news story that adds something to something I find interesting or even not interesting. I wrote about half of the current Johanna Goldsmith article and the entirety of the "Boys of Summer(comic)" article from a sense of duty and because I knew about these topics and others didn't. We're trying to archive all human knowledge over there, so every little bit has its purpose. “The other situation in which the process fails in these open, collaborative efforts is that of highly specialized topics which receive very little review. I’ve seen a number of errors in Wikipedia articles on somewhat obscure topics, and this is actually pretty consistent with AWFUL Linux device drivers for gizmos that aren’t in wide use. Relying on community review for quality assumes community review.”

Did you fix it? If you know there are errors then fix them and source them. That’s the implicit agreement people make for using the wiki. I detest Colbert’s “wikiality” because the people on the site actually have an interest in using correct information.

I edit wikipedia articles because 1) I’m a geek 2) I read an interesting news story that adds something to something I find interesting or even not interesting. I wrote about half of the current Johanna Goldsmith article and the entirety of the “Boys of Summer(comic)” article from a sense of duty and because I knew about these topics and others didn’t.

We’re trying to archive all human knowledge over there, so every little bit has its purpose.

]]> By: TheDeadlyShoe http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221785 TheDeadlyShoe Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:57:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221785 The gun politics article on wiki has always been exceptionally bad. It's true Knol has an advantage in this area, but the same reasons the wiki article is so bad would lead to a similarly biased Knol being top-ranked. And 80-90% of searches probably won't go beyond the first Knol, anyway. The gun politics article on wiki has always been exceptionally bad. It’s true Knol has an advantage in this area, but the same reasons the wiki article is so bad would lead to a similarly biased Knol being top-ranked. And 80-90% of searches probably won’t go beyond the first Knol, anyway.

]]> By: benj http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221780 benj Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:37:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221780 Just reiterating what other posters are saying, the screen cap makes it look like Knoll will be more of an "open peer reviewed article database" than a wikified 'pedia. Just reiterating what other posters are saying, the screen cap makes it look like Knoll will be more of an “open peer reviewed article database” than a wikified ‘pedia.

]]> By: Robin Green http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-221774 Robin Green Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:17:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/15/knols-wikis-and-reality/#comment-221774 Let me be more explicit about the level of novelty involved here: from what I've read so far, it looks they'll be a mashup of personal web pages (which have been around since forever), blogs, and social bookmarking/rating. And that's really about it. Useful, yes, but certainly not earth-shattering, and not even very innovative. Let me be more explicit about the level of novelty involved here: from what I’ve read so far, it looks they’ll be a mashup of personal web pages (which have been around since forever), blogs, and social bookmarking/rating. And that’s really about it. Useful, yes, but certainly not earth-shattering, and not even very innovative.

]]>