Wikipedia used for libel.

[Diamond]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I quite agree on the latter. But then, SkepticWiki isn't really a Wiki, since the idea of a Wiki is (from Wikipedia):

free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Source

---

Well no, Claus, that's the conception of what Wikipedia believes itself to be because it allows anyone to edit any article (that hasn't been locked by the admins, that is).

If you look at the EvoWiki for example, they also do not allow anonymous editing and take fairly tight control of what can be edited and in what way. Is the EvoWiki a blog? Is SkepticReport a blog if no-one is allowed to edit its articles?

The criticism of Robert McHenry goes right to this point: if Wikipedia allows anyone regardless of expertise or ability to edit any article at any time and publish the results instantly without any preview of accuracy, scholarship, or any checkable validity then it cannot be an encyclopedia. In other words "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is an oxymoron, and to my mind, a dangerous delusion.

 

[Darat]

I guess really what bothers me most is to hear someone talking about libel in a thread about Wikipedia, who is in charge of the effort to make a SkepticWiki, who makes statements that professional scientists are engaged in seeking "...to hide their data and methodology from the normal processes of replication and skeptical review which happens everywhere else in science..."

...snip...

For goodness sake stop being so silly - if you are going to post about Diamond use his name - it will make your post a lot more readable e.g:

I guess really what bothers me most is to read Diamond posting about libel in a thread about Wikipedia because he is in charge of making a SkepticWiki, and makes statements that professional scientists are engaged in seeking "...to hide their data and methodology from the normal processes of replication and skeptical review which happens everywhere else in science..."


It also makes your intent and reasoning much easier to follow, after all we invented names for a reason.

 

[Darat]

I quite agree on the latter. But then, SkepticWiki isn't really a Wiki, since the idea of a Wiki is (from Wikipedia):

...snip...

You are confusing "wiki" with "Wikipedia", the Wikipedia article on a "wiki" says it is :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
...snip...

A wiki (IPA: [ˈwiː.kiː] <wee-kee> or [ˈwɪk.iː] <wick-ey> (according to Ward Cunningham) is a type of website that allows users to add and edit content and is especially suited for constructive collaborative authoring.

The term wiki also sometimes refers to the collaborative software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation of such a website (see wiki software).

....snip...

Some wikis, notably Wikipedia, allow almost completely unrestricted access so that people are able to contribute to the site without necessarily having to undergo a process of 'registration' as had usually been required by various other types of interactive web sites such as Internet forums or chat sites.

 

[Mojo]

To me, this is libel of exactly the kind that is being complained of in Wikipedia, which has been posted by the very person complaining of it, who is in a position of responsibility for creating a resource that appears to me to be in grave danger of being compromised on at least one issue as a result of this individual's bias.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers, and divines".

 

[CFLarsen]

You are confusing "wiki" with "Wikipedia", the Wikipedia article on a "wiki" says it is :

Hmmm, no, I'm not.

In a Wiki, anyone can edit anything, even content. That means the original article as well. If so, SkepticWiki isn't a Wiki.

Not that it matters much - it's just a bit misleading, that's all. It's quite alright to have strict editorship (if that's not a word, it is now) on a project like SkepticWiki.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well no, Claus, that's the conception of what Wikipedia believes itself to be because it allows anyone to edit any article (that hasn't been locked by the admins, that is).

Ahh.....thereby nullifying the idea that anyone can edit anything.

If you look at the EvoWiki for example, they also do not allow anonymous editing and take fairly tight control of what can be edited and in what way. Is the EvoWiki a blog? Is SkepticReport a blog if no-one is allowed to edit its articles?

No, it's an online magazine. A blog allows anyone to post comments. SkepticReport doesn't allow that.

The criticism of Robert McHenry goes right to this point: if Wikipedia allows anyone regardless of expertise or ability to edit any article at any time and publish the results instantly without any preview of accuracy, scholarship, or any checkable validity then it cannot be an encyclopedia. In other words "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is an oxymoron, and to my mind, a dangerous delusion.

I quite agree. It's not even a collaboration, it's a war.

 

[Schneibster]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers, and divines".

The phrase you're hunting for is "conflict of interest."

 

[Darat]

Hmmm, no, I'm not.

In a Wiki, anyone can edit anything, even content. That means the original article as well. If so, SkepticWiki isn't a Wiki.

Not that it matters much - it's just a bit misleading, that's all. It's quite alright to have strict editorship (if that's not a word, it is now) on a project like SkepticWiki.

According to Wikipedia you are wrong. You must have missed this bit from my post (underline by me):

Some wikis, notably Wikipedia, allow almost completely unrestricted access so that people are able to contribute to the site without necessarily having to undergo a process of 'registration' as had usually been required by various other types of interactive web sites such as Internet forums or chat sites.

So according to Wikipedia (which one must grant it authority on itself) the the idea that anyone can edit anything at any time is not part of what it means to be "a wiki" although some wikis do embody that concept.

 

[Darat]

The phrase you're hunting for is "conflict of interest."

A conflict of interest? Care to explain what the conflict of interest there is between Diamond and his SkepticWiki and Wikipedia? (Since you haven't explained this conflict of interest in your two previous posts.)

 

[Mojo]

The phrase you're hunting for is "conflict of interest."

No, that was the phrase that you were hunting for when you posted:

...the resource this individual is in charge of can be seen as in competition with Wikipedia...

What I was hinting (rather too obliquely) at was that what Diamond has posted elsewhere, and indeed whether he has libelled anyone elsewhere, has no real bearing on the validity of any argument he has advanced in this thread. I also found it ironic that someone with that particular quotation in his sig was complaining about inconsistency on the part of another poster.

 

[drkitten]

Regarding the comparison of accuracy rates in that Nature article, I have to say that Wikipedia doesn't come off so badly when you take into account that a copy of the Britannica on DVD-ROM costs US$50--while a multi-volume hardcopy volume costs a staggering US$1100--and still contains mistakes. In terms of value for money, I'd say Wikipedia comes out ahead.

Well, let's see.

Wikipedia is free, unstable, only machine-readable, and contains more than 30% more errors than Britannica.

The on-line Brittanica is stable, also only machine-readable, and contains a third fewer errors -- and is available for an essentially nominal cost,

I'm not sure how you can decide that Wikipedia "comes out ahead."

 

[drkitten]

In a Wiki, anyone can edit anything, even content. That means the original article as well.

I disagree. I'm a participant on several registered-participants-only wikis. Just as an example, a conference in Canada I attended a year or so ago has an official wiki for continued discussion of the issues raised at the conference -- access to the wiki is restricted to conference participants (and invitees, I believe -- if I thought that you and the research community would benefit from your access
to the wiki, I could pull strings and get you an account).

I'm also involved in a wiki-based collaborative software development effort; again, participation is limited to the participants.

They're specifically NOT blogs, because we allow -- indeed, enourage, editing of the original source documents -- blogs are essentially write-only media.

If they're not blogs, and they're not wikis, then what are they?

 

[CFLarsen]

According to Wikipedia you are wrong. You must have missed this bit from my post (underline by me):

Some wikis, notably Wikipedia, allow almost completely unrestricted access so that people are able to contribute to the site without necessarily having to undergo a process of 'registration' as had usually been required by various other types of interactive web sites such as Internet forums or chat sites.

So according to Wikipedia (which one must grant it authority on itself) the the idea that anyone can edit anything at any time is not part of what it means to be "a wiki" although some wikis do embody that concept.

They talk about registered users being able to edit everything. True, I didn't make that clear, but can't everyone just sign up?

 

[CFLarsen]

I disagree. I'm a participant on several registered-participants-only wikis. Just as an example, a conference in Canada I attended a year or so ago has an official wiki for continued discussion of the issues raised at the conference -- access to the wiki is restricted to conference participants (and invitees, I believe -- if I thought that you and the research community would benefit from your access
to the wiki, I could pull strings and get you an account).

I'm also involved in a wiki-based collaborative software development effort; again, participation is limited to the participants.

They're specifically NOT blogs, because we allow -- indeed, enourage, editing of the original source documents -- blogs are essentially write-only media.

If they're not blogs, and they're not wikis, then what are they?

True, it's not a blog, it's blog that can be edited. It's a step between a wiki and a blog.

 

[Darat]

True, it's not a blog, it's blog that can be edited. It's a step between a wiki and a blog.

Claus the one people I would expect to know what a "wiki" means is the Wikimedia foundation and they also disagree with your definition of what a wiki is. (I say this because on their site they require a login to edit a page and also link to the Wikipedia definition of a wiki.)

Nowhere can I find that Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation say that a wiki has to be open to editing by anyone and everyone to be classed as a wiki.

Can you please provide a source for the definition you are using that states a wiki must be editable by anyone and everyone to be considered a wiki?

 

[drkitten]

True, it's not a blog, it's blog that can be edited. It's a step between a wiki and a blog.

I have no response except to say : no, it isn't.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does." -- Inigo Montoya

 

[Melendwyr]

Well, let's see.

Wikipedia is free, unstable, only machine-readable, and contains more than 30% more errors than Britannica.

The on-line Brittanica is stable, also only machine-readable, and contains a third fewer errors -- and is available for an essentially nominal cost,

I'm not sure how you can decide that Wikipedia "comes out ahead."

In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, the Hitch Hiker's Guide has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects.

First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words Don't Panic inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.

-- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus the one people I would expect to know what a "wiki" means is the Wikimedia foundation and they also disagree with your definition of what a wiki is. (I say this because on their site they require a login to edit a page and also link to the Wikipedia definition of a wiki.)

Nowhere can I find that Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation say that a wiki has to be open to editing by anyone and everyone to be classed as a wiki.

Can you please provide a source for the definition you are using that states a wiki must be editable by anyone and everyone to be considered a wiki?

It's not my definition. I'm going with what I saw on the Wikipedia site.

Did you see my post (#133)?

 

[Darat]

It's not my definition. I'm going with what I saw on the Wikipedia site.

Did you see my post (#133)?

I did but as far as I can find neither Wikimedia or Wikipedia sites have any defintion of a wiki that refers to any limitations or lack of them regarding editing that is used to define if something is a Wiki or not.

 

[Blue Monk]

Just saw this and thought some in this thread might find it interesting.

Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica