How can we ensure quality of information in an open environment like Wikipedia
1. |
 |
||
2. |
 |
||
3. |
|
||
4. |
|
||
5. |
 |
||
6. |
|
||
7. |
|
||
 |
Add a new answer! |
Page 1 of 1
Topic Details
This topic was started by andyj 
on August 9th, 2006. 51 grupies have voted on one or more of the 7 answers.
Tags: knowledge, technology, websites, wikipedia
Comments |
Leave a comment
I think the problem here is that 'quality of information' is literally impossible in Wikipedia. Even if you were to get every well-intentioned, educated, and just plain helpful person on the entire planet involved, it would still also be used by people spreading personal agendas, general vandalism, and propaganda.
The only way to stop the vandalism and POV problems is if there are enough people to revert edits. But, even if that improves the quality, that'd make it no longer an open environment. See the contradiction?
"I think the problem here is that 'quality of information' is literally impossible in Wikipedia."
- Possibly True!
But are there any circumstances/communities/environments/mechanisims other than Wikipedia where consistent quality of informationmay be produced?
"...it would still also be used by people spreading personal agendas, general vandalism, and propaganda."
As apposed to.... What? Do you honestly believe that "traditional" encyclopedias have any less bias? Shit, I'd argue they have MORE - At least with Wikipedia, someone can make edits to the obvious omissions and errors, rather than them passing into our culture as fact.
I'm not saying that any (let alone all) real encyclopedias are free from bias, but I've seen some patent nonsense in wikipedia. (and I doubt I'm ever going to see "Paintball is gay!" in a real encyclopedia, or excerpts of two highschool kids calling eachother pedophiles, or... well, you get the idea)
Total fabrications, inconsistencies, 'weasel words', and numerous other problems plague a great deal of wikipedia articles. Numerous articles even directly contradict eachother. Outright propaganda (not bias, but actual propaganda and hate literature) is slipped in constantly.
Simply put, a 'real' encyclopedia will only make money if they have at least a smidgen of fact-checking. Wikipedia tends to strive on the principle of 'every schmuck putting in their two cents'. The average dolt can edit. But, um, that ignores the fact that the average dolt is kinda a moron. :D
Anyways, I'm getting wordy. The point is, the only way the quality could be improved is if the open aspect were limited. So, with the current relatively open model, it's physically impossible to *ensure* quality.
Your accusations are worthless without some linkage to back it up; Care to share some specific examples of "bad" entries in the Wikipedia?
Uh... I don't know why you're being so combative on the issue...
Or why you think that my personal observations are "worthless" unless I give you a detailed account of everything I've ever seen there...
But, for example, in the article on terrorist incidents, people keep adding entries that aren't actually terrorism, just for the sake of taking potshots at muslims. Anything that resembles a criticism of Israel (by way of being neutral) is deleted.
More flagrantly, the paintball article has frequently been vandalized, ranging from little things like adding "paintball is gay", to having the entire article wiped, to kids slipping in bizarre personal accusations about eachother's habits. That's in addition to more basic ideas like fanboys insisting that absolutely no aspect of people dressing up in camo, and shooting eachother, at all resembles violence or warfare.
Two articles mention the character "Vincent" from FF7. One lists Lucretia as his mother. One lists her as his ex-lover. Since he didn't have an oedipus complex, one was certainly false.
An article on Aeris/Aerith had her name changed to, uh, another word for a buttocks, for EVERY occurrence of her name.
First off, there is no way to stop vandalism so long as it remains open. The only way to stop it is to lock things down.
There is no way to "ensure quality" so long as there's vandalism.
This requires no specific evidence, it's outright fact. If you don't like that, then choose a different universe; one that follows your nonsensical views.
Extreme bias is rampant, far beyond what is found in a 'real' encyclopedia. If you didn't know this, then you've never even seen the site.
It will continue to be used as a soapbox. The only way to stop it is to lock it down. If it's locked down, then it may have quality, but won't be open. If not locked down, then it will continue to be a soapbox at best.
Do you need more examples? Personally, I think they're irrelevent, because total freedom and total control are mutually exclusive concepts.
Incidentally, take a look here: http://en.wikipedia....ldid=68490722
There are only two options: Curb that sort of behaviour, making it less open, or allow it to continue, decreasing quality. This isn't rocket science.
Pardon sounding combative - That wasn't my intention.
Ok, so you've just pointed out how articles CAN be vandalized, and even linked to a PAST revision of the article for Aerith that contained some inacuracies. However, I'm still not sure what that proves, except to point out that the Wikipedia community has been excellent at correcting these errors. Of COURSE anyone can edit anything, that's Wikipedia's strength. And for a split second here or there, an erroneous edit may be "live", until somebody sees it in the new changes queue and corrects it.
Again, I would like to challenge you to find a major error in a LIVE Wikipedia article (not a past revision), and provide us with a link to review.
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just trying to point out that these errors will be few and far between, and overall, the accuracy and quality of WP entries rivals and exceeds most "traditional" encyclopedias...
Oookay... first off, a link isn't necessary. Why? Because my primary argument is that it's either open, or has potential for quality; never both simultaneously.
Whenever vandalism is reverted, that is proof of it being less open. See the problem? The only time vandalism is controlled is when the service becomes less open. ie. the only way to improve the quality of hte information is to NOT have it an open environment.
But, still, you want examples anyways... it isn't necessary, but I'll oblige anyways.
I wish I could find the two articles concerned with FF7, but there are a *lot* of separate articles and it's hard to reign them in... One had Vincent listed as Lucrecia's son. One had him listed as her ex. (ew) But, can't find the link, so I'll have to go with my second-choice.
http://en.wikipedia....ist_incidents
They exclude listings of "state terrorism", and if you look at the talk page, you'll see why. Numerous editors don't think that it's possible to commit terrorism if a government's the one doing it. That's hardly NPOV. And yet, look at the 2006 incidents. Hamas is still listed under 2006, in spite of the fact that they were the palestinian government. That is, american or israeli governmental acts of terrorism don't count; but if they're palestinian, they do. Proof positive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintball
Though now drastically cleaned up, it still reeks of propaganda. Some parts are glaringly obvious, others less so. Note that they specifically mention that some tournament-level 'markers' bear little resemblance to firearms, but neglect to mention that you can get an AK-47 replica marker. Or that there's a line of markers where you actually slap in a clip of shots, and it even ejects casings to be as realistic as possible. (including aluminum casings if you really want it to SOUND like a real assault rifle) Or, that they now have propane-powered markers that, strictly speaking, ARE firearms. Take a look on the talk page, and you'll see some real nonsense that goes behind the article. (for example, paintball doesn't resemble war, because soldiers suck at it.)
Do I need to keep going?
I hope not, because it isn't the specific occurrences that matter most. It's the general irrefutable premise: ENSURING quality in an article requires control, either by administrative members, or by a high number of editors.
An open environment requires little to no control.
Asking how you can ensure quality, and maintain an open environment, is like asking how you can turn left and right simultaneously. It's mutually exclusive.
Through compromise, you can have a little quality, and a small degree of openness; or any other mix therein. But you can't have both ends of the spectrum simultaneously.
Fascists.