Wikipedia

EVENT

I recieved a comment from alan1 under Watching Closely... 3:

I was wondering if anyone else saw that recent USA Today piece that was highly critical of Wikipedia? I do not in any way mean to critique Connor or his analysis, as I feel that he is uniquely qualified to talk about the GM issue and that, for the most part, Wikipedia is the greatest thing to ever happen to the web. And I have confidence that it is accurate in the vast majority of cases. It just, for me anyway, raises a number of questions unrelated to GM about how we, as a technologically connected society, gather, disseminate, and control information (think Fox News). I found the peice on news.yahoo.com under their Opinion section, titled "A false Wikipedia 'biography'".

This is an insightful point, or rather, a galvanizing invitation to discussion. While I'm unable to devote a lot of time to the question right now, I'm happy to make a couple general observations and then see how the conversation progresses in the comments.

A quick description of Wikipedia for the unfamiliar. It's billed as "the free encyclopedia," and is surely more comprensive than any other database ever compiled. The list of contibutors is likely in the tens of millions (if not more) because, essentially, anyone with internet access is enabled to contribute. Anyone can search for an article by entering the term in the search box, and anyone can write or edit an article simply by clicking on "edit this page."

Does this have the possiblity for abuse? Certainly. There are no specific confirmations that an article is run through before going live, so there is literally no verification of the accuracy of an article. The Yahoo News article presents a scenario of a highly-damaging and person fabricated bio. This could to anyone... any of you, for example, could create an article on "Connor Coyne" and talk about how I was caught using inappropriate charms on a goat.

There are safeguards of a more indirect nature, though I doubt most users take advantage of them. Chief among these are the discussion pages and histories. Every update is archived along with the ICP of the computer from which is was logged. In this way if an entry is contentious or its content is disputed, anyone accessing Wikipedia can see what changes are made, when and from which computer. These, of course, are no guarantees, but in my experience they've come pretty close. The most convincing articles come replete with external authoritative sources (often online) and the contributors who include these features are typically most active in maintaining an entry. (I have this relationship myself with the article on Flint, Michigan, which I've largely written myself, and which I continue to monitor for inaccuracies). The presence of an active and rigorous contributors in recent revisions of any entry, then, gives a very high correlation to accuracy.

Still, given such an array of possible quandaries, what is the advantage of Wikipedia?

It's the size of the project and, since its created by a massive body of contributors, willingness to extrapolate on subjects typically outside the range of more traditional reference sources. For example, I've never found a published encyclopedia with an article on "CBGB" but Wikipedia gives me all the information I need to know.

I use Wikipedia for casual reading and reference. If I'm making an argument or posting on this blog, I'll typically fall back upon a more established source to confirm my data. In the case of the recent GM postings, I've used Wikipedia to confirm specific figures about which I've already had a specific idea. For example, I knew that Delphi was spun off of AC Delco in the late nineties, but I used Wikipedia to determine the exact year.

I recommend use of Wikipedia as long as one is aware of its limitations, and doesn't rely upon it for anything absolute. Bear in mind that more frequently visited articles (New York City, or Saddam Hussein) will be visited more frequently and be more carefully scrutinized, and therefore corrected more consistantly. The more obscure the article, then, the more important it is to independently corroborate facts and impressions.

END OF POST.