Using Wikipedia as a source

[Freakshow]

So the Wikipedia model is inferior because people make mistakes or omit things ? Wow, you sure don't get the point, do you ? That's about as thick-headedly stupid as someone who claims science is inferior to religion because scientists make mistakes.

So what IS "the point"?

And yes, it is inferior because it has a much higher chance of having mistakes than encyclopedias that go through extensive review by experts BEFORE the articles are made available to the public.

 

[luchog]

It is already the only encyopedia of any significance on the web.

Hardly. The web Britannica is far more significant and useful. Wikipedia is merely the most populist and well-known. It has neither the reliability nor the stability to be significant. But real encyclopediae, like Britannica, cost real money to use.

There is one, and only one, reason that Wikipedia is as popular and widely used as it is.

It's free.

All else (accessibility, ease of use, etc.) being equal, free will win out over quality nearly every single time. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout history, particularly recent history. If Britannica, or any other encyclopedia with a similar reputation, was freely available, Wikipedia would barely be a blip. Just another technological curiousity, of interest only to geeks and tech-utopians. Much like desktop Linux has been for the last 5 years.

 

[drkitten]

So the Wikipedia model is inferior because people make mistakes or omit things ? Wow, you sure don't get the point, do you ?

No, the Wikipedia model is inferior because there are no checks for accuracy in the model, despite the fact that anyone who didn't just fall out of a tree knows that people make mistakes and omit things.

 

[geni]

But it will always be that way. Until someday a process is put in that has articles reviewed by multiple experts on the subject BEFORE they are published and available for viewing by the public. If that day never comes, this will always be a problem.

A few year back people were saying it would not work at. Predicting the future of wikipedia is I feel imposible. particular since no one is quite sure what the presence of wikipedia is.

 

[geni]

No, the Wikipedia model is inferior because there are no checks for accuracy in the model, despite the fact that anyone who didn't just fall out of a tree knows that people make mistakes and omit things.

Yes there are. ~7000 of them back when anyone last counted.

 

[drkitten]

Yes there are.

So one incompetent person writing an article is fact-checked by 7000 other unqualified people?

My lord, the defense rests.

 

[geni]

Hardly. The web Britannica is far more significant and useful. Wikipedia is merely the most populist and well-known. It has neither the reliability nor the stability to be significant. But real encyclopediae, like Britannica, cost real money to use.

It's alexa rank is not exactly impressive:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/t...6m&size=medium&y=t&url=www.britannica.com#top

There is one, and only one, reason that Wikipedia is as popular and widely used as it is.

It's free.

Encarta is free these days. I can't get a trafic rank for it since alexa bundles it with MSN.

All else (accessibility, ease of use, etc.) being equal, free will win out over quality nearly every single time. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout history, particularly recent history. If Britannica, or any other encyclopedia with a similar reputation, was freely available, Wikipedia would barely be a blip.

1911 edition is availible and free. Doesn't seem to be being massively sucessful.

Just another technological curiousity, of interest only to geeks and tech-utopians. Much like desktop Linux has been for the last 5 years.

There was a version of the german wikipedia that cost money (was being the correct term they as sold out. aparenty there is a market for an ofline version).

There are also attempts at a wikipedia 1.0. The bad news is that I happen to know that one such project is being run by the moonies.

 

[geni]

So one incompetent person writing an article is fact-checked by 7000 other unqualified people?

My lord, the defense rests.

Who says unqualified? And formal qualificantions don't mean a hudge amount. There are plently of homeopaths out there with qualification that can't match my knowlage of the scientific lititure relateing to homeopathy. There are many areas where you can't even get people with formal qualifications.

 

[joobie]

Yes there are. ~7000 of them back when anyone last counted.

so when i create an article 7000 accuracy checks are performed before it appears to the public? when after? when complaints arise? judging by the amount of articles marked needing cleanup this is hardly a quick process.

1911 edition is availible and free. Doesn't seem to be being massively sucessful..

wow, a 100 year old encyclopedia isn't massively successful. that's real surprising. by the way - when you say it's not successful, are you counting every wikipedia article that consists of a 1911 brittanica article? i've seen quite a few.

 

[geni]

so when i create an article 7000 accuracy checks are performed before it appears to the public? when after? when complaints arise? judging by the amount of articles marked needing cleanup this is hardly a quick process.

No probably a couple of people cheack it before any memeber of the public sees it. The various cleanup tags are an effective warning

wow, a 100 year old encyclopedia isn't massively successful. that's real surprising. by the way - when you say it's not successful, are you counting every wikipedia article that consists of a 1911 brittanica article? i've seen quite a few.

I was told that free would always win out. 1911 EB is more free than wikipedia (it's public domain wikipedia is GFDL) so logicaly a site based on pure 1911 text should have a pretty good alexa rank. Can you name one? There is also the catholic encylopedia.

There are wikipedia articles taken from EB 1911. For the most part they are in need of a solid cleanup and NPOVing.

 

[luchog]

I was told that free would always win out.

Amazing what you can prove when you revise history. I'll quote it again, since you seem to have misread it the last time: "All else ... being equal, free will win out over quality nearly every single time."

The 1911 Britannica is neither equal, nor of a sufficiently superior quality. It is far too out of date, and therefore missing a critical amount of important information. And it's accessibility is not nearly the equal of Wikipedia. Such a comparison is ridiculous at best, and borders on disingenuous.

A legitimate comparision would be the current Britannica, since Wikipedia makes a pretense at a similar level of comprehensiveness. Columbia and Encarta, though more accurate due to the peer-reivew process, contain only "capsule" or brief articles; and do not attempt to provide extensive information beyond a simple precis. So a comparison there is not entirely appropriate either.

Interestingly, though Wikipedia does include a lot of material from other online encyclopediae, the open format still results in much of that information containing errors; or even outright misinformation and bias.

The value of an encyclopedia is not in how many people read it (if popularity was an indication of value, that would mean that Stephen King was of greater value to English-language literature than William Shakepspeare); but in the accuracy and extent of it's information. The Britannica is less popularly used because it requires a not-insubstantial sum to access more than a brief excerpt; whereas Wikipedia is more popular, not due to the quality of it's information, because it costs nothing to use. It's quite clear in both cases that you pretty much get what you pay for.

 

[geni]

Amazing what you can prove when you revise history. I'll quote it again, since you seem to have misread it the last time: "All else ... being equal, free will win out over quality nearly every single time."

The 1911 Britannica is neither equal, nor of a sufficiently superior quality. It is far too out of date, and therefore missing a critical amount of important information. And it's accessibility is not nearly the equal of Wikipedia. Such a comparison is ridiculous at best, and borders on disingenuous.

But I wasn't compareing it to wikipedia.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/t...yclopedia.org/&y=t&url=www.britannica.com#top

It appears that being free is not enough on it's own.

Interestingly, though Wikipedia does include a lot of material from other online encyclopediae, the open format still results in much of that information containing errors; or even outright misinformation and bias.

Umm no the bias has a tendancy to be due to it's source. The errors tend to be due to age.

The value of an encyclopedia is not in how many people read it (if popularity was an indication of value, that would mean that Stephen King was of greater value to English-language literature than William Shakepspeare); but in the accuracy and extent of it's information.

Since it is pretty much manditory at school level I suspect that Shakepspeare is more widely read. Wikipedia wins hands down on extent of information (with the exception of biographies of only mildly notable 19th century figures)

The Britannica is less popularly used because it requires a not-insubstantial sum to access more than a brief excerpt; whereas Wikipedia is more popular, not due to the quality of it's information, because it costs nothing to use. It's quite clear in both cases that you pretty much get what you pay for.

People seemed to be prepared to buy quite a lot of copies of the german wikipedia at €10 each (10,000 in 2 days I still don't know why). Brockhaus is of course somewhat concerended by this.

The world is changeing. Britannica is not longer the source of all knowlage. On the academic side it is suffering from the same problem as review journals. There just isn't the same level of need when I can do a seach of the chemical lititure in minutes that would once have taken hours and a much higher level of skill. There is no longer much social status in owning a copy of britannica and little Jonny is far more likely to use google to do his homework than dig out an encyopedia.

Perhaps you are right and price is the only decideing factor. If that is the case then in 10 years if you want a good encyopedia it is going to have to be a good wikipedia.

 

[luchog]

The world is changeing. Britannica is not longer the source of all knowlage. On the academic side it is suffering from the same problem as review journals. There just isn't the same level of need when I can do a seach of the chemical lititure in minutes that would once have taken hours and a much higher level of skill. There is no longer much social status in owning a copy of britannica and little Jonny is far more likely to use google to do his homework than dig out an encyopedia.

Perhaps you are right and price is the only decideing factor. If that is the case then in 10 years if you want a good encyopedia it is going to have to be a good wikipedia.

A lot of this simply isn't parsing. Britannica isn't a good source for highly specialized information, but neither is Wikipedia. And I am not sure where the "social status" non-sequitor came from. You are aware that the full, current Britannica is available online, right?

As for Johnny using Google to do homework, that's a fairly well-known phenomenon; one which is being fingered as a primary cause for the recent decline in scholarship and fact-checking in scholastic papers, even at the secondary education level. Many students are simply indiscriminately accepting easy Google results as being as authoritative for their research as more traditional sources; and appear to be lacking the critical thinking skills to weigh the credibility of various sources resulting from their searches. Which also explains the popularity of Wikipedia.

 

[God]

Great thread... I've been thinking about this myself. I think it's good for a quick overview, and you all are simply a reminder to look elsewhere (including wikipedia) for more serious research on a subject.

 

[geni]

A lot of this simply isn't parsing. Britannica isn't a good source for highly specialized information, but neither is Wikipedia.

Back near it's founding Britannica could pretty much claim to be. Wikipedia contains a worrying amount of highly specialized information (rather a lot of which is on trains and maths no I don't know why)

And I am not sure where the "social status" non-sequitor came from. You are aware that the full, current Britannica is available online, right?

One of Britannica's original selling stratigies was the social status in owning a copy.

As for Johnny using Google to do homework, that's a fairly well-known phenomenon; one which is being fingered as a primary cause for the recent decline in scholarship and fact-checking in scholastic papers, even at the secondary education level.

Any Proper studies into this?

Many students are simply indiscriminately accepting easy Google results as being as authoritative for their research as more traditional sources; and appear to be lacking the critical thinking skills to weigh the credibility of various sources resulting from their searches.

Evidence?

Which also explains the popularity of Wikipedia.

Not really. I don't care how many students we are helping with thier homework that would not give such a high alexa rank (anyway back when anyone last checked Goatse was one of our most popular articles which I don't think has anything to do with what people's homework is).

 

[luchog]

Back near it's founding Britannica could pretty much claim to be. Wikipedia contains a worrying amount of highly specialized information (rather a lot of which is on trains and maths no I don't know why)

It no longer is, nor does it claim to be, unlike Wikipedia. And I've already mentioned my experiences with Wiki with regard to their specialized info.

One of Britannica's original selling stratigies was the social status in owning a copy.

Which is relevent, how exactly?

Any Proper studies into this?

Yes, but I'm not finding them online at the moment. I will try and dig up the citations when I get a chance.

Not really. I don't care how many students we are helping with thier homework that would not give such a high alexa rank (anyway back when anyone last checked Goatse was one of our most popular articles which I don't think has anything to do with what people's homework is).

It also pretty well demonstrates that, unlike your previous assertions, it isn't quality of information that is Wiki's drawing point.

 

[geni]

It no longer is, nor does it claim to be, unlike Wikipedia. And I've already mentioned my experiences with Wiki with regard to their specialized info.

In what areas?

Which is relevent, how exactly?

It's part of the reason britanica is in finacial trouble

Yes, but I'm not finding them online at the moment. I will try and dig up the citations when I get a chance.

Ok I'll wait.

It also pretty well demonstrates that, unlike your previous assertions, it isn't quality of information that is Wiki's drawing point.

How? Sure bredth of coverage is also a drawing point.