The Wikipedia bomb

[Darat]

It's been tried. It didn't work. We have a lot of tricks avaiblible. Pretty much every form of attack you can think of has been tried at least once. In the last few months I've seen maybe two new types of attack. Both were varations of existing attacks.

Which countries have tried this policy and failed?

 

[geni]

Which countries have tried this policy and failed?

Countries haven't yet (members of at least one parliment have but that is a differnt issue). Various groups have. Once you work out the cost of paying someone to edit wikipedia (more than one in fact) you soon see that there are other things you can buy at that price that would be to your advantage.

 

[tsg]

Then why do they call themselves something that today is used to mean somthing that does have an authority e.g. "an encyclopedia". Sorry but they are claiming they have a certain authority if they make the claim they are an encyclopedia.

In which case this is going to deteriorate into a semantic argument about which definition of "encyclopedia" is the correct one and the one they meant. Not interested.

 

[tsg]

Wrong.

Of course. How could I have been so stupid. Your logic is inescapable.


Look, I'm going to leave you with one last bit of advice (take it or leave it, I care not which) and then I'm done with this discussion. When you overstate the dangers involved, nobody believes there is any danger.

You've got no evidence that what you claim will happen is even possible let alone likely and that the consequences are as severe as you seem to think they are. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. As someone else already stated, for your claims to be true somone would have to post a patently false article that is a) noticed by a lot of people, b) none of whom are knowledgable about it, and c) picked up by other reputable publications that don't do any fact checking of their own. Unlikely at best.

You might even have a valid point, but I have no desire to listen you rant any longer, so it's completely lost on me and you're going to turn others off the same way. If your goal really is to fix this supposed problem, then talk about it rationally. Otherwise you're just another woo.

 

[JayT]

Paradox

Then why do they call themselves something that today is used to mean somthing that does have an authority e.g. "an encyclopedia". Sorry but they are claiming they have a certain authority if they make the claim they are an encyclopedia. ...

The paradox of the Internet is that while being one of the best sources of reliable information, it is simultaneously one of the most unreliable sources of information.

Just because something is called an encyclopedia, doesn't mean it contains authoritative information. Some are full of pseudoscience too and provide no worthy information at all.

Wikipedia has given me no significant problems with accuracy so far, but like most people, I've only examined a very, very tiny portion of its total content.

It is nothing less than an art in itself in knowing what to believe or what seems to be believable and how to do essential follow up research to ascertain the likely reliability of the information you find. That comes only from experience and a genuine desire for knowledge.

Anyone who relies entirely on a single authority is a very inept or lazy researcher. Competent research requires at least some degree of cross verification. No source should be presumed to be absolutely infallible regardless of its reputation. Bogus data has been known to slither into even the most prestigious journals from time to time.

Since I specialize in science, math, programming and logic I don't tend to be fooled as easily as most when it comes to bogus data, pseudoscience and superstitious nonsense, whether from Wikipedia or some other source. I'm certainly not infallible, but I'm definitely not easy to fool either. I've learned quickly from my mistakes and even more by studying the mistakes of others as well.

So far, my biggest gripe with Wikipedia is that many advanced technical articles lack references to some of the data presented. Being a hard core factualist steeped in rigid scientific discipline, I prefer to see some references to other related research on the same subjects.

The general public is abysmally ignorant and gullible and nearly devoid of anything that closely resembles critical thinking. As nasty as that sounds, it's a simple fact of reality that observations of the odd things that people believe in too readily quickly verify. Ugly, but true. This fact is what makes Wikipedia a bit hazardous for public consumption and why it should be policed periodically.

It would be unfair to discredit Wikipedia in its entirety as being too treacherous to rely on at all. Simply don't except it or any other source as the final absolute authority on any subject and always carefully cross check the important facts via other sources prior to making any important decisions based on the information.

What I find most disgusting is that there are so many legions of information vandals that try so hard to ruin things and corrupt the information and abuse the freedoms the internet provides.

 

[Diamond]

Of course. How could I have been so stupid. Your logic is inescapable.

Easy.

All you need is lots of straw. Then building body, arms, legs and head you produce a lifelike facsimile of the original argument. Then attack the figurine that you've just created.

Declare yourself the winner.

See? it's not hard.

Look, I'm going to leave you with one last bit of advice (take it or leave it, I care not which) and then I'm done with this discussion. When you overstate the dangers involved, nobody believes there is any danger.

I base my speculation on historical precedent. Now we can argue the toss about whether history means anything as a way of predicting or guiding future events, but that's where I stand.

You've got no evidence that what you claim will happen is even possible let alone likely and that the consequences are as severe as you seem to think they are. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. As someone else already stated, for your claims to be true somone would have to post a patently false article that is a) noticed by a lot of people, b) none of whom are knowledgable about it, and c) picked up by other reputable publications that don't do any fact checking of their own. Unlikely at best.

I have no evidence. Absolutely correct. Did I say I had any evidence? What I have said is that I regard it as very likely that there are many false statements and even false articles that no-one has yet noticed. It's perfectly possible for anyone to plant false information into Wikipedia and no-one out of the hundreds of thousands of eyeballs notice. Ask John Seigenthaler.

What if the subject never notices, or cannot notice because he or she is dead? Or the article makes reference to a historical event that no-one can check?

As I say, I root my speculative prediction based on the lessons of history. I don't pretend to have evidence.

You might even have a valid point, but I have no desire to listen you rant any longer, so it's completely lost on me and you're going to turn others off the same way. If your goal really is to fix this supposed problem, then talk about it rationally. Otherwise you're just another woo.

Please spare us all the sermonizing. I don't pretend to have a fool-proof, shock-proof answer. That doesn't disqualify me or anyone else arguing about it. I've conversed with Bob McHenry and he doesn't have an answer either.

You may not have noticed but fraud is practiced in every area of life, for profit, for promotion of belief, for fun, for malicious intent. Wikipedia is not immune and cannot be immune. And nobody is taking responsibility.

Frauds are not at all obvious or blatent. I have no idea why anyone should think that encyclopedic fraud should be easy to spot.

 

[Diamond]

Actually a good long fuse for the bomb would be WikiNews.

 

[geni]

Actually a good long fuse for the bomb would be WikiNews.

Alexa rank of 17,044 and a tougher review process than wikipedia (smaller volume of content) means that it is not a logical target. If you want to spring a massive hoax wikimedia projects are a really poor choice you have little control and if you try and work in a high profile area you are going to be dealing with people who know a fair bit about the area. Frankly a broadsheet newspaper would be a better choice.

 

[tsg]

blah blah blah

You seem to have misunderstood.

You've already lost me.

I care not.

 

[Diamond]

You seem to have misunderstood.

You've already lost me.

I care not.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Now here's a message from our sponsors:

Indeed, the most common complaint against Wikipedia is that it is unreliable; since anyone can publish or edit any article instantly, there’s nothing except the diligence of other contributors to keep favoritism, misinformation, vandalism, or sheer stupidity out of the encyclopedia’s pages. But Wikipedia’s “staff” of volunteers is “better than any full-time staff you could imagine, because there are so many people involved,” Sanger says. Any malicious or mistaken entry “is going to be instantly noticed” and corrected.

Yep. Providing of course on the meaning of "instant"

But there’s a second complaint against Wikipedia that bothers Sanger more deeply—the fractiousness among Wikipedians themselves. Sanger says participants often become embroiled in “revert wars” in which overprotective authors undo the changes others try to make to their articles. He says he’s afraid that this kind of behavior drives away academics and other experts whose contributions would otherwise raise Wikipedia’s quality.


Sanger may be speaking from the heart. He left Wikipedia in 2002 when funding for his position ran out and no longer contributes, in part because of the lingering sting of some particularly nasty revert wars. He now lives in a suburb of Columbus, and lectures in the philosophy department at Ohio State University, his alma mater. To build a public encyclopedia, you don’t need faith in the possibility of knowledge, he says. “What you have to have faith in is human beings being able to work together.”

Technology Review - interview with Larry Sanger, January 2005
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/issue/forward30105.asp?trk=nl