Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 19, No. 486.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
www.princeton.edu/humanist/
Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu
[1] From: Michael Fraser <mike.fraser_at_computing- (28)
services.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 19.480 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world
[2] From: "Amsler, Robert" <Robert.Amsler_at_hq.doe.gov> (14)
Subject: RE: 19.480 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world
[3] From: luismfernandez_at_cable.net.co (3)
Subject: Re: 19.480 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world
[4] From: Patrick Durusau <patrick_at_durusau.net> (28)
Subject: Errors not limited to Wikipedia (or the absence of
peer review)
[5] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk> (14)
Subject: shouting theatre in a crowded fire
[6] From: Ryan Deschamps <Ryan.Deschamps_at_dal.ca> (62)
Subject: Re: 19.480 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world
[7] From: mattj_at_newsblip.com (45)
Subject: Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world
[8] From: Joseph Jones <jjones_at_interchange.ubc.ca> (14)
Subject: Wikipedia
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:21:29 +0000
From: Michael Fraser <mike.fraser_at_computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 19.480 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world
>--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:28:31 +0000
> From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman_at_bi.no>
>
>There is now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory
>information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting
>this as a reference source in universities and university-level
>professional schools. The same is true of inaccurate or false
>assertions in many articles.
Huh? On this basis you might as well ban the use of the entire Web,
much of the popular media, and, I daresay, a significant proportion
of so-called scholarly works. We are surrounded by 'lies' (or perhaps
'stories'?), many of which are much more subtle than those discovered
in wikipedia. Surely, the key is (as it has perhaps always been) to
provide students with the tools to undertake a critical analysis of
all sources, narratives, discourses (and not least the hermeneutical
baggage which lies within)?
Michael
--- Dr Michael Fraser Co-ordinator, Research Technologies Service Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 6NN Tel: 01865 283 343 Fax: 01865 273 275 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/rts/ http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mikef/ --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:25:24 +0000 From: "Amsler, Robert" <Robert.Amsler_at_hq.doe.gov> Subject: RE: 19.480 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world There may be a way for Wikipedia to authenticate it's articles. That would be to require any posted information to be have a second or even third independent contributor agree to its content before the articles were made public, the way newspapers supposedly do to validate a reporter's scoops. The current model is flawed, but considering how much useful information is on Wikipedia, I'd hate to see it disappear. It is an excellent idea to suggest that students obtain independent confirmation of anything from Wikipedia through another source at this point; it might even be a good exercise to have them deliberately attempt to refute something on Wikipedia to drive the point home. It would also not seem unreasonable for Wikipedia to require its contributors to register via a confirmed email address, although given the deviousness of spammers, it is hard to believe that would prevent malicious individuals from concealing their identity some other way. --[3]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:27:04 +0000 From: luismfernandez_at_cable.net.co Subject: Re: 19.480 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world Which means that anyone can defame people through=20 internet companies like that, and they=B4ll get=20 away with murder. That=B4s hideous. Luis --[4]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:27:47 +0000 From: Patrick Durusau <patrick_at_durusau.net> Subject: Errors not limited to Wikipedia (or the absence of peer review) Willard, The New York Times on 12/6/2005 had an interesting article that demonstrates rather pointedly that errors are not limited to Wikipedia or the absence of peer review. In 1940 Dr. Freedberg discovered the bacteria that has been confirmed as the cause of stomach ulcers. Unfortunately for the millions of people who could have easily been cured of their ulcers and avoided surgery to remove part of their stomachs, he was discouraged from pursuing that line of research. The entire idea was quashed by a peer reviewed paper in 1954 that reported finding no bacteria in a large number of stomach speciments. At least until 1984 when two Australians, Dr. Barry J. Marshall and Dr. J. Robin proved the bacterial cause of ulcers. They are due to receive Nobel prices for their work next Sunday. Rather than taking Ken Friedman's approach of prohibiting Wikipedia in his courses, why not offer credit/recognition to students who submit corrections to errors in Wikipedia articles on the subjects of their research? That might tend to encourage critical evaluation of both Wikipedia as well as more conventional resources. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Patrick_at_Durusau.net Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! --[5]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:28:27 +0000 From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk> Subject: shouting theatre in a crowded fire It's curiously satisfying to reach the point at which the virtual world now requires the services of great legal minds. I quote Louis Michael Seidman's beautiful sentence summarizing the Holmesian idea: "The task of the law is to devise a set of incentives that will determine conduct in a fashion that produces the most good" ("Points of Intersection", 1996, p. 105). With Wikipedia's not unforeseeable troubles I think we can rest assured that we have arrived. But who is our Holmes? Yours, WM Dr Willard McCarty | Reader in Humanities Computing | Centre for Computing in the Humanities | King's College London | Kay House, 7 Arundel Street | London WC2R 3DX | U.K. | +44 (0)20 7848-2784 fax: -2980 || willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/ --[6]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:29:56 +0000 From: Ryan Deschamps <Ryan.Deschamps_at_dal.ca> Subject: Re: 19.480 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world >--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:28:31 +0000 > From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman_at_bi.no> > > >Friends, > >There is now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory >information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting >this as a reference source in universities and university-level >professional schools. The same is true of inaccurate or false >assertions in many articles. <snip> >The article posted to Humanist by Norman Hinton and recent >cases -- one concerning the prime minister of Norway -- leads >me to conclude that Wikipedia has no way to prevent >this from happening. This is made all the worse by the fact >that Wikipedia is an automatic flow-through resource for >other on-line sources. > >Wikipedia is unacceptable as a research tool. > >I have informed my students that they may no longer use >Wikipedia as a reference or source on papers in my courses. > >Students and student research are an important validation >mechanism for Wikipedia. > >If enough of us prohibit Wikipedia as a reference source in >our courses, programs, and schools, the message will >eventually get through. > >When it does, Wikipedia will find an appropriate way to monitor >contributions. If they do not, the reputation of Wikipedia will >sink to that of another crank web site. <snip> None of my profs were very accepting of any encyclopedia as a citation in a written work. Even with the more scholarly of encyclopedias (eg. Routledge), I have been countered quite proficiently (and justifiably so) for not pursuing my definitions with background work. "FFP," as my Reference Prof in library school always advised me: fit for purpose. Wikipedia is a tool to get "access" to the norms and language of a particular topic -- it is the prism through which a person can see the spectrum of an area of study. It is not a spectrometer (a tool chemist's use to understand a substance through the light it emits). Wikipedia can help the neophyte get an idea of Derrida's depth before jumping into _Disseminations_, but it won't help you swim through it. The better recourse is to encourage critical thinking of resources and to provide a certain degree of what the librarians call "information literacy" -- that is, a basic understanding of how to pursue (previously uncovered) knowledge. When I worked the reference desk, I saw too many knowledgable students wade through databases (that appeared to bias some brands of knowledge more than others by the way) searching for something on their topic, when they just simply did not understand the language of inquiry. Understanding the language is no small detail in a info search. If you are looking for how well a test produces "consistent results" and you do not understand the statistical concept of "reliability" you will not find what you are looking for in a scholarly database. I think someone ought to take a crack at a holistic model for information searches that looks at the role of a resource like wikipedia or (any world wide website for that matter) and puts it in the context of the research paper. Ryan. . . Ryan Deschamps --[7]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:31:15 +0000 From: mattj_at_newsblip.com Subject: Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world Patrick wrote: >I can understand that for high school or even freshman compositions >but shouldn't humanists be holding themselves to a higher standard? >And if they do, shouldn't they suggest corrections to entries in >Wikipedia, much as they would for a mistake found in the OED? I am an avid user of wikis, and I think Wikipedia is the start of something great. Well, it already is great, in certain contexts. For a range of technical topics, and as in index of pop culture, it is unmatched by any other sources. Even in many political contexts, many excellent, well-balanced articles have been collectively developed (see "Abortion"). At the same time, Wikipedia cannot be considered authoritative at this time. You can make corrections, but someone else can reverse them tomorrow. The proper attitude to take, I think, is that Wikipedia is a smart friend. This friend knows a great many things, and on most topics he's got his facts right. On a small number of topics, though, he's got some rather strange theories. If you needed to write a paper, you might talk to your smart friend to get some background on a topic, but you would hardly cite him in your bibliography. Rather, you'd use his comments as a primer, a jumping-off point for real research. In general, then, I agree with Ken that Wikipedia is unacceptable as a reference for university work. However, I would allow it for topics (such as pop culture) that are not addressable with other reference materials, provided the student acknowledged the provisional nature of the material on Wikipedia. (As a practical matter, a student should also include the specific version of an article used, which can be found on the History tab of the article. Instead of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion , one should cite it like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=30351566 ) I believe advances in social software techniques (in which I have some background) will tend to lead toward articles of higher and higher quality, with less chance of backsliding. Jimmy Wales' recent decision to forbid anonymous authoring is a simple example. Seals of approval by outside authorities, attached to specific article versions, have been in discussion for some time. This would let students view Wikipedia through a filter, combining authoritative review with the collaborative power of the Wikipedia community. This can be done on top of Wikipedia now, without any approvals needed from Wales or others. If a community of scholars wanted to do this, it could be started immediately and provide a great benefit to the world. -Matt Jensen NewsBlip Seattle --[8]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:31:56 +0000 From: Joseph Jones <jjones_at_interchange.ubc.ca> Subject: Wikipedia Proper academics are getting in a tizzy about the evils of Wikipedia. Good information is where you find it, and so is bad. I've just been reading a new refereed article by a "major scholar" who is wrong on a verifiable point of fact (as on others elsewhere in his work.) Maybe the theoretical contributions that his field respects can stand independent of those details. Even bad information can provoke useful thoughts. Having the sense to know the difference between good and bad is the key. Is it the teacher's job to help the student develop sense, or to attempt to keep the student safe by prescribing what can be considered? Wikipedia is an experiment in open-source knowledge development. Not the first experiment that has raised the hackles of the guardians of tradition. Joseph Jones http://www.library.ubc.ca/jonesReceived on Wed Dec 07 2005 - 03:05:29 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Dec 07 2005 - 03:05:30 EST