I'm sure there are many things that fall under that definition. Wiki is one of them:
You sign up, you get to edit everything. Even the article.
Wikipedia used for libel.
- Thread starter luchog
- Start date
I'm sure there are many things that fall under that definition. Wiki is one of them:
You sign up, you get to edit everything. Even the article.
Nowhere in the definition does it say that you get to edit "everything."
To (re-)quote from Darat's post:
Note the phrasing : "contribute to the site." There is no implication, stated or implicit, that the contributions must be unrestricted, even if the access is "almost completely unrestricted."
Similarly, his original definition
simply demands that users be allowed to add and edit, but there's no implication that they be allowed to add and edit with no restrictions whatsoever.
But more to the point (before we're left with a greasy spot on the ground where a dead horse used to be) -- if your personal understanding of the word "wiki" demands that all users be allowed free rein to edit and immediately publish whatever tripe they want, unconditionally, so be it. But in this case, a "wiki" is an inherently stupid idea and obviously unsustainable. Even Wikipedia has found this out, the hard way, which is why they have all of these rules and administrative machinery to preserve the basic structure and integrity of their articles.
Wikipedia's capacity to ban users, for example, is "obviously" a restriction on people's ability to add and edit content. Equally obviously, so are the various rules such as the three-revert rule. But without these capacities and rules in place, Wikipedia would be unworkable.
The question then becomes -- what degree of rules is most appropriate if what you want to produce is a high-quality repository of reliable knowledge? The history of science, as well as the history of Wikipedia itself, strongly suggest that some sort of mandatory quality screening by people knowledgable in the field is an essential component of those rules. If you want to call a wiki-with-imposed-quality-control no longer a wiki,.... well, it's your language and your idiolect. I suppose it's no worse than some of the things that an Englishman calls "food" or an American calls "culture."
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there aren't controls and, e.g., that edited content can't be restored to its natural beauty. I'm saying that if I sign up, I can edit what I want. I'm not saying that it will remain there.
Read what I say, but don't read more into it than I actually say.
Read what I say, but don't read more into it than I actually say.
And I'm saying that that's specifically not necessarily true.
If you sign up, you can edit -- but only what the wiki administrators allow you to edit, which may not be everything.
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
OK, so by this reasoning if my friend tells me, "Open your mouth and close your eyes, and I'll give you something to make you wise," and dumps dirt in my mouth the first two times, I shouldn't conclude that he'll do the same thing the third time. Great. I'll keep that belief of yours in mind.
www.penny-arcade.com/comic
In a few days, that will no longer work. So: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16
In a few days, that will no longer work. So: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16
I've not run into constrictions when I've edited stuff there.
I haven't edited much, though.
I don't think this is true.
First, I would like to point out that although Diamond may be the founder, chief architect, and dare I say "publisher" of SkepticWiki, that does not mean that the articles published will reflect his biases. In fact, I certainly hope that they don't. There are a number of other people on-board his project, Your Little Droog being among them -- and as far as I tell, Diamond takes his responsibility to fact-check other people's articles as seriously as tjhey take their responsibility to fact-check his. This aspect of mutual checking by a panel is one of the important aspects of the peer-review system, in that there is an implicit check on the whims and biases of the overall editor.
I don't think bias on the part of the editor-in-chief necessarily damns a publication, and in fact I would go further and claim that such bias is unavoidable. Editors-in-chief are just as human as the rest of us. What can be avoided is letting this bias dominate in the work. You've shown no evidence that Diamond's biases as an individual are reflected in the work produced by Diamond as an editor-in-chief.
Second, I don't see why or how the issue of "conflict of interest" enters into it. SkepticWiki isn't competing with Wikipedia (and Diamond would be a fool to think it could). SkepticWiki was founded in large part because Diamond was concerned about the accuracy of articles in Wikipedia (and specifically that some aspects of Wikipedia prevented the presentation of critical analysis from a skeptical, fact- and evidence-based point of view). If anything, I would say that this discussion only strengthens the validity of his concerns.
That's because Wikipedia chooses to allow relatively unrestricted editing.
Wikipedia -- not wikis in general.
And as this thread has pointed out, Wikipedia's policy choices may not be the wisest.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
As has been repeatedly, that is not the conclusion that the study came to. Read the actual methodology and results.
So could you explain how either being free or being editable is inconsistent with being a "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically."?
Perhaos his income is lower than yours. Plus as has been mentioned Wikipedia is constantly update. Also I don't know this, but isn't Wikipedia bigger? Actually containing the infomration you seek is fairly important too.
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
Sorry. I can't be everywhere at once. :c(I see neither Diamond nor Melendwyr bother to read my posts. Am I really that boring and/or generally wrong in my content?
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
Now this is a cogent argument, and was what I was trying to get Diamond to say: first, either that s/he is biased and has perhaps not reviewed all the facts, or that s/he has evidence to support hir claims; second, that no matter what those beliefs may be, they would not affect SkepticWiki. However, the fact is, s/he has NOT said so. And having had dirt dumped in my mouth twice once upon a time, I'd say that a healthy aversion to having it happen again is a reasonable response.
The fact is that s/he has made infamous, if not libelous or slanderous, accusations against an entire scientific discipline and refused to answer when challenged to provide evidence or retract the claim. (Whether they are libel or slander depends upon their truth, and although I do not BELIEVE there is such evidence, that does not mean that there in fact is not. Whether such conduct (deliberate concealment of results and methodology) would be infamous is not in dispute, I think.) I fail to see the difference between this and the situation being discussed about Wikipedia, with one exception: when challenged, the individual backed down from the claim (not that I think Diamond should, unless s/he cannot produce supporting evidence; but SOME response is, I think, when making such an accusation, reasonable to expect).
Have you ever heard the phrase, "not merely propriety, but the appearance of propriety?" I have no means to judge whether this resource is likely to be reliable but to review it, and to examine the character (insofar as it is possible to do so) of the contributors to it. When I find a red flag raised in regard to the presumably chief contributor, I find myself asking whether reviewing it is a waste of time, and that is not a good question to be asking before I devote a bunch of time and effort to it.
In regard to the conflict of interest, it is not necessary that Diamond be attempting to replace Wikipedia; if the goal is merely to supplement perceived lacks in it, which according to this discussion are the result of slanderous or libelous statements in it, then the practice of making statements oneself which in the absence of credible evidence appear to be libelous or slanderous does not lend credence to the idea that one's efforts to correct the situation are likely to be any better. If, on the other hand, the goal is to engage in critical and skeptical analysis, then the practice of making such statements is added to the practice of not responding when challenged on them, which obviates any possibility for analysis of any kind. The effort can easily be compromised by this problem, and I have at this point nothing but your word (which I do not question, but which is not the word of the principal) to oppose to my perceptions in this instance, and you'll pardon me if I don't think that sufficient; the main lack, IMO, is the word of the principal, which s/he has refused to give, rather than any deficiency on your part. I don't know of anyone who refuses to give their word on such a matter unless they know they could not keep it.
Elind
Philosopher
The only surprise is that more woowoos and doodooheads haven't discovered this potential to vandalize something sooner.
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
Nahh, it's OK. My own fault for posting the dreaded "last post of the page", which is scientifically proved that only 2% of the thread's contributors will read.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209