SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Wednesday, June 1 - 2:20pm

Link

Edit

I've found Wikipedia to be an excellent resource. We should recruit Mr. Wales for discussions on this website...

Post 1

Wednesday, June 1 - 2:34pm

Link

Edit

There's one aspect of the Wikipedia that I've never understood. If anyone can edit it, then isn't it likely to be full of largely incorrect information? I can't see what the value of such a concept is.

Post 2

Wednesday, June 1 - 2:50pm

Link

Edit

Mark,

I've helped work on a few Wikipedia articles - yes a few trolls and/or nutters do cause trouble from time to time, but the vast majority of contributors take it seriously and the system allows us to revert any article to a previous version, effectively deleting the unwanted changes. I did get into the workings of the system a little when I did the SOLO Objectipedia entry here on Jimmy Wales if you'd like to take a look at that :-)

MH

Post 3

Wednesday, June 1 - 3:16pm

Link

Edit

Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia online. Thanks to spontaneous order.

Of course, a centrally managed encyclopedia is not the same as a State, but we can learn quite a bit about the world from the wonderful and wonderfully anarchistic nature of Wikipedia.

Post 4

Wednesday, June 1 - 3:37pm

Link

Edit

Matthew,
I didn't see in Mark's post any reference to trolls and nutters ... I interpret him to be asking how one can rely on the accuracy and cogency of articles that are produced, in many cases by people of unknown or potentially dubious qualifications. What helps to ensure (as the free market does, for example) that quality over time will be improved rather than simply changed?

Question for Joe: How has it 'changed the way the internet works'? That's rather a broad claim for an on-line encyclopedia, no matter how different its methods may be.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 6/01, 3:43pm)

Post 5

Wednesday, June 1 - 4:06pm

Link

Edit

Jeff and Mark,

Sorry for any misinterpretation on my part. My reference to trolls and nutters was to people deliberately editing articles to add inaccurate information.

At the end of the day, how do you know that any given encyclopedia is accurate? My sense is that Wikipeida articles are generally reliable because most of the people who care enough about a particular subject to contribute to an article tend to know a fair bit about that particular subject. You will often find that Wikipedia articles actually have links to external articles and list sources of further information, so it's not all that difficult to verify anything dubious.

MH

Post 6

Wednesday, June 1 - 4:06pm

Link

Edit

Having worked in the internet industry for over 8 years, I've seen the phrase "change the way [X] works" countless times - it's rarely the case. Wikipedia is cool, but not paradigm altering, in my opinion. Like other posters, I have trouble accepting the accuracy of articles on Wikipedia. Maybe over time I'll grow more confident, but the times I've used it I treat like any other blog - just one person's opinion.
(Edited by Jordan Zimmerman on 6/01, 4:07pm)

Post 7

Wednesday, June 1 - 4:13pm

Link

Edit

I've looked up some controversial stuff in Wikipedia, and they seem to do a fairer job than the standard encyclopedias.

Post 8

Wednesday, June 1 - 4:44pm

Link

Edit

Matthew,
I find the idea behind it intriguing and am optimistic for its future, but remain skeptical for now. (I've noticed a tendency on SOLO to link to it as some sort of authoritative source, which it most definitely is not.)

'At the end of the day', you have to use your own judgement based on experience and other sources, but other sources (such Encyclopedia Brittanica and others) :
a) have been in business a very long time -- bogus information would tend to be weeded out (Note: tend to, no guarantees)
b) are (usually) written by experts in the field who gained their expert status by acquisition of degrees, years of research experience, publications in peer reviewed journals, significant awards (Nobel prizes and such), etc.

I wish Wiki well, but am in 'wait and see' mode.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 6/01, 4:47pm)

Post 9

Wednesday, June 1 - 4:48pm

Link

Edit

Do you question the accuracy of Wikipedia? Select a specific topic that you know in depth, and look it up on there. Tell us if you think the Wikipedia entry is accurate or not. I've personally found it to be reliable.

Post 10

Wednesday, June 1 - 5:45pm

Link

Edit

I've checked some stuff, and it looked good. Of course, there is no guarantee.

I read an interesting write-up on it once, where it profiled a specific set of material that was contributed by someone who, though a so-called "amateur," was nonetheless a de facto expert on this one (I think) artist. The material is supposedly quite authoritative.

Jeff - I understand your POV and it has merit. But I think the flip side is that there are probably thousands (? just a guess) of people who could probably qualify for a PhD in various subjects, and they are willing to contribute their knowledge on that subject. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percentage of the articles are actually contributed by PhD's who are still early in their career.

Time will tell, but one argument that is put forth is that because it is dynamic and self-correcting, it could prove to be more accurate than traditional dead tree tomes.

Post 11

Wednesday, June 1 - 7:44pm

Link

Edit

Wikipedia's model works well on most topics. I suppose this is because people with correct information will be more likely to correct a sloppily written mistaken entry than for sloppy people to go out of their way to un-correct factual info. The problem isn't so much sloppiness and errors, but real intentional disagreement between factions.

There have, for example, been pissing contests on terms where fans/critics or just people with disparate definitions would keep changing or deleting the material each other posted. Looking at it now, the Objectivists appear to have fought back as the 'Objectivist philosophy' entry has at times been dominated by negative critiques, but is now more balanced. In another area, it looks like the left-anarchists have now completely kicked out the market anarchists from 'anarchism'. These may be quite different in another week or month.