In my last post, I raised the question of students & their use of Wikipedia. One of the most vocal critics of Wikipedia and student use pointed me to a website that listed criticisms of Wikipedia. I said I would follow up on those criticisms, so here goes. My comments are under each heading.
- Wikipedia contains incorrect, misleading, and biased information.
- This isn’t a real shocker. Of course it contains incorrect, misleading, or biased information. There are a lot of things that do. As I pointed out in one of my comments in last post, there are a lot of books in the library that could be considered incorrect, misleading, or biased. And, is it not the point of many academics to persuade their readers to believe one thing – i.e., their thesis statement. Where does Holocaust denial literature fall into this? The author of the above criticisms complains that there is a “disrespect for expertise and scholarship.” I’m not sure why this is a problem since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone wanted to publish a new theory on why X happens, Wikipedia isn’t the best avenue for that – try a journal. An encyclopedia, according to Webster is “a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject.” It is not a source for original research as Wikipedia clearly states as one of its policies
- Wikipedia’s articles are used to spread gossip, abet character assassination, and invade the privacy of the general public
- Sure, Wikipedia may report rumors about people, but my guess is that those people are more often than not celebrities, not the general public. (I don’t have a Wikipedia page as far as I know.) That does not give anyone the right to speculate on someone’s life or assassinate their character. But, the problem I have with this statement is that I have faith that those rumors will be cleaned up sooner rather than later. Maybe that’s my problem. I have more faith in the collective public than Gomi, the author of this list, does. There are exceptions to every case like John Seigenthaler’s mischaracterization. One thing that was not touched upon is that many times there are interested parties that engage in a discussion over what should/n’t be included in a person’s biography. That’s what the discussion page is for.
- Wikipedia over-emphasizes popular culture and under-emphasizes scholarly disciplines
- As I said in the comments, this is more of a reflection of the culture in which we live. It is not the fault of the encyclopedia. It is an open forum.
- Wikipedia violates copyrights, plagiarizes the work of others, and denies attribution to contributions.
- So do students. So does the average person according to John Tehranian’s article Infringement Nation. I think that one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it encourages people to cite their sources. This is an important skill for all students to use when writing a university level paper.
- Wikipedia, frequently searched and prominently positioned among results, spreads misinformation, defamation, and bias far beyond its own site
- Why is this Wikipedia’s problem? If I were to put up a website that said that the Sun revolves around the earth and someone took that to be the truth, the joke is on them. It is not my responsibility (nor is it Wikipedia’s) for what happens to the information from the website. At the bottom of the page Wikipedia says “All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)”
- Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge
- As I said before, if a scholar wants to be involved in Wikipedia and can provide documentation on why X is wrong in a specific article, I’d venture a guess that that information will be accepted. However, if a scholar wants to posit new information on a Wikipedia page, that’s best left for a traditional publisher be it book or otherwise. Yes, it is unfortunate that scholars don’t have more power when it comes to editing an article on Wikipedia. But, it’s not set up to be a top-down flow of information. As a former professor used to say to me “I lay pearls before you swine.” Sorry, Wikipedia has flipped that around and said that the collective mind serves this particular venue better than scholars alone. There are, of course, problems with that as Stephen Colbert illustrates in his “Wikiality” video. Why is this a problem for Gomi? Does s/he have bad feelings for being kicked off of Wikipedia because of an authority that wasn’t respected? If you don’t like how Wikipedia does business then don’t do business there.
- Wikipedia’s culture of anonymous editing and administration results in a lack of responsible authorship and management
- Funny thing is that the author of this list is him/herself anonymous. Nothing like talking out both sides of your mouth. Some encyclopedias that are in print format do not have signed articles. Why is s/he not complaining about that? I suppose since contributors are listed at the beginning of such an encyclopedia that would be sufficient for him/her. Yes, those IP addresses are stored. And, for those who choose to create an account, they can make their real name known if they choose to do so. Another interesting fact is that by logging IP addresses, I can imagine that if one person is making changes via different user accounts one could figure that out as an administrator.
- Wikipedia’s numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted
- Well, in my relatively few years of existence, I have come to accept the fact that life is not fair. So, unfortunately things don’t always go your way. I’m sure many of us have complained about a sibling being treated differently than you were. Inevitably your parents’ response was – life’s not fair.
- Wikipedia’s quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt
- If you read further, “ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent, operates on non-existant [sic] or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access to all editors” Gomi makes it sound like ArbCom is the CIA or KGB. There are always going to be people who hold power over others. I’m sure that wherever Gomi works there is some sort of heirarchy in which he/she is not included in all of the decisions. It is always nice when administrators include you in decisions that affect you, but those luxuries are not always given.
- The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently independent from Wikipedia’s remaining founder and his business interests
- I don’t know how Gomi knows how poorly (or not) Wikipedia is managed. Maybe s/he should share this information before making a blanket statement like that. I think that this page, this page, and this page (Wikimedia Fdn.) provide ample opportunities for someone to raise a question about Wikipedia. Remember, you don’t have to have a userID to make suggestions about specific pages. Gomi also complains about the hiring “incompetent and (in at least one case) criminal employees.” Again, how does Gomi know this? Does s/he have knowledge to share. Isn’t this going against his/her rule of not defaming a person?
So that’s that, I’ve tried to address the specific criticisms as best I can in the amount of time that I have. For more information, please check the last post that I made on this subject. It got a lot of attention because WordPress decided to post it on their News page so I got a lot of publicity and a lot of comments worth reading. So, hop on over there to read some of their comments and critiques of Wikipedia. And, be sure to criticize my criticisms. I’d like to hear from you on why I’m wrong (or right).
17 Comments
January 14, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Consider this the devil’s advocate’s approach. Note I disagree with every single thing I say from here on out.
1. “Incorrect info” counter-claim: Wikipedia has more incorrect information than similarly popular or noteworthy resources. It’s held in high regard despite having a disproportionate amount of errors.
2. “Character assassination” counter-claim: John Seigenthaler would disagree. Ironically, I found him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_Wikipedia%27s_biography_of_John_Seigenthaler_Sr.
3. “Pop culture” counter-claim: Have you seen the Colbert Report page? Have you also seen the entry for the Barbary Wars?
4. “Thought theft” counter-claim: Plagiarism and citing the work of others are opposites. It’s the lack of citation that’s the problem.
5. “Prominence” counter claim: If Wikipedia is prominent, it is its responsibility to be accurate and fair. Web sites supporting geocentrism are not, in fact, at the top of the Google results when you search “earth” and “sun.” Wikipedia has a responsibility to be accurate, and it’s falling behind.
6. “Scholarly” counter-claim: Scholars, by definition, know what they’re talking about. They also are familiar with biases, ambiguities and half-truths supported by the “hive mind” mentality, but with no historical basis. Scholars should have more influence.
7. Rest of the counter-claims: I’m not bothering with these. Anyone else, feel free to pick up where I left off.
http://awaitingtenure.wordpress.com
January 14, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Real encyclopedias are written by scholars who do their best to craft accurate articles.
The Internet is full of sites that make no such pretensions.
But Wikipedia is not one of them. Wikipedia strives to compile “the sum of all human knowledge,” not the sum of all baloney.
And yet scholars who are subject-matter experts find it exasperating to contribute to articles on Wikipedia.
January 14, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Discourse and criticism are, of course, a give and take. You appear to accept Wikipedia uncritically, or at least your position is that none of my points have merit.
Yet your Wikipedia seems very different from mine: your is a product of the “collective public” and a “reflection of the culture”. The Wikipedia I see is a massive community more interested in giant role-playing game than accurate encyclopedic information. In your Wikipedia, the minions learn that “life’s not fair”, whereas in the one I see there is an abusive cabal that makes a mockery of their fantasies of a consensus process.
We also differ on the definition of “encyclopedia”. While you quote Websters you conveniently omit the comparative definition as embodied in (e.g.) Britannica, et al. You seem to think that what might be called “Jimbo’s Big Bag o’ Trivia” constitutes a reference work, whereas in mine I prefer sufficient scholarly contribution and editorial control to make the result trustworthy.
While Wikipedia might be useful for determining the cast members of “Gilligan’s Island” or the merits of various Pokemon cards, I prefer a real reference work for most other enquiries. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion.
January 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm
So what if it isn’t a “real” encyclopedia by your definition? What makes you the arbiter of quality information? Who’s to say that the information provided is the most important thing? Maybe it is the citation information that’s most important to me. Why is that a bad thing?
I am sure that somewhere in the recorded knowledge that is found on a general academic library shelf there is a disagreement on the date of birth of a famous person. What if that scholar uses that one instance where s/he believes May 7, 1803 to be the date of birth but at least one other book believes it to be May 9. And, what if May 7 gets in the traditional encyclopedia but it turns out that later research verifies the May 9 date? Point is – people make mistakes. Yes, I would have a higher faith in an encyclopedia entry written in Britannica. But, just because it is in Britannica does not make it gospel truth.
You are right that there is a lot of frivolous stuff on Wikipedia or as you call it, baloney. What can we do about that? The best way to do that is to get involved. Become part of the debate. It’s like politics – don’t complain if you don’t like who is in the White House if you didn’t vote.
I’d also like to point interested parties to a very well put together set of videos on Wikipedia done by John Hubbard at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. John is the Web Services & Electronic Resources Coordinator there. The title of these videos is “Why Wiki?” The synopsis is as follows: “A Wiki is a website which visitors can modify. Wikipedia, an open encyclopedia, has become a very popular research site in recent years. This online video course will introduce you to the benefits and disadvantages of the new and controversial publication format.”
View it online here: http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/courses/wiki/
Be sure to bring a cold beverage and have a comfortable seat because it’s a little more than 1 hr long.
January 14, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I won’t respond to your diatribe. This issue that you miss is trust. Trust is more important than absolute accuracy. Britannica, because of its process, has it. Wikipedia, because of its process, lacks it. Thus it will always be.
What makes me the arbiter of quality information. Certainly not “the” arbiter, but an arbiter, and what makes me such is that I am an educated adult, apparently a minority on Wikipedia.
January 14, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Now I see why Eric Jennings may only be an ASSISTANT librarian. His logic in argumentative writing is so entirely slipshod, I couldn’t make it through the entire blog post without laughing. You would think that a librarian — even an assistant to one — would be able to use Google to learn about Carolyn Doran before clumsily debunking the person (Gomi) who painstakingly went to such effort to drill some sense into the librarian’s assistant.
Good Lord.
January 15, 2008 at 12:09 am
Let me rephrase that last comment (originally in response to Moulton not Gomi) in a more civil manner. Who gets to be the arbiter of information on the internet? Fortunately or unfortunately the internet is the wild west. So, we must be ever more critical of information found on the internet (that includes Wikipedia). See the ACRL Information Literacy Standards that I have already suggested need more implementation.
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm
If you read some of my comments and the original post, you will see that I have called for more criticism (not less) of information – online or in print. That was the point of the whole “Should Wikipedia be used by Students article.” It wasn’t me trying to say “yes” wikipedia should, or “No” it shouldn’t. It was about being more critical of all information that we take in consciously and unconsciously.
I do not believe that I have ever said that Wikipedia should be used as an authoritative source for a research paper at a college or university. If that’s not saying something critical about Wikipedia, then I don’t know what is. In fact, I discourage students from using any encyclopedia as a source for a research paper. They can and should use encyclopedias for a quick overview and to gather citations on a topic of interest. They should not use it as a major research source in my opinion.
Again, I do not disagree that there is a lot of garbage on Wikipedia. Then again, there’s a lot of garbage on the internet too. If there wasn’t a Wikipedia there’d be something else. At least that’s what I think. There’s a lot of books out there that are garbage. But one man’s garbage is another man’s gold. Who are we to judge an interest in Gilligan’s Island or Pokemon? I may think that golf is a dull sport and doesn’t deserve time on ESPN let alone it’s own channel. But, to each their own.
Trust is a big issue Gomi, you are absolutely correct. But, why should we trust an academic when they have their own biases that can be recorded? Simply type in Arthur Butz to a search engine to find out more about this faculty (I’m not sure if he’s currently there or not) member at Northwestern University.
Finally, I’d like to point out that unfortunately the people on the website with which you’re (Wikipedia Review) affiliated have broken one of the rules you laid out in your criticism of Wikipedia – personally attacking. Frankly, Jonny Cache can call me a “moron” if he chooses to do so. He’s perfectly free to do that. However, I would expect more of you through this discussion that we’ve been having which has been relatively civil.
See the following link for more information if you’re interested:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15279&st=0&
Also, why were some of the responses on that page not included on this comment section? It would have helped those who did not have access to the URL above.
January 15, 2008 at 12:13 am
Thanks for the kind words Gregory. I see that a reasoned discussion is not a trait that you like to employ when criticizing someone else. I would expect that if someone makes an accusation such as the hiring of criminals they should back that information up. I should not have to make the extra effort to do so. It is the burden of the prosecutor to make the case – just like when you write an article in school, you need to back up your thesis statement with facts (i.e., citations).
January 15, 2008 at 3:13 am
Well…we could argue and argue until our keys fall off of our keyboard, but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia, for all its faults, is a very useful tool. And if it isn’t useful already, I don’t understand how one cannot eventually see that it at least has much potential to be more useful.
I think it can even be a symbol of our changing times. With the explosion of the internet, the nature of information and how it is discovered, verified, and/or used is changing. Shouldn’t we look to embrace, use, be a part of, and learn to utilize this change better?
This problem is all over the place. The music industry, for example. Look where that’s getting them (even though it’s slowly turning around).
I for one, will continue to use, engage, and participate in Wikipedia…bite me. Or call me ignorant, or stupid, or whatever.
Change is gonna come. Deal with it — and not by trying to drive it down and bury it six feet deep.
January 15, 2008 at 3:59 am
oh yeah…thanks for your posts on this Eric.
January 15, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Well, you have at least come around to the idea that criticizing Wikipedia might be a worthwhile activity. That is the purpose of Wikipedia Review.
The argument that Wikipedia is useful for something is hard to refute. I would even agree that there is a domain at the intersection of topics of high popular interest and low controversy on which Wikipedia may approach reliability. Gilligan’s Island and Pokemon fall into that category, but I am elitist enough to state outright that while these may be “facts”, they are not “knowledge”.
Where Wikipedia is especially pernicious is on popular controversial topics. Pity the poor student who goes to Wikipedia looking for unbiased insight into the Palestinian-Israeli problem, or Northern Ireland, or India-Pakistan, or any of dozens of other places where the power of the rabble battles the power of the cabal, without dispassionate scholarship anywhere in evidence.
I believe it was T.S. Eliot who asked “Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?” He might have been talking about Wikipedia.
January 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I don’t think that I have ever been against the idea that we should be critical of Wikipedia. If you read my first post, I included this statement:
“Maybe instead of debating the merits of Wikipedia we (myself included) should be doing more to instill critical thinking skills into all students. It’s easy to rail on them for not having those skills, but what are we doing to foster them?”
In other words, without teaching students critical thinking skills (or in libraryland “information literacy”) how can we be upset if they use information that may not be the most reliable? Critical thinking goes way beyond just Wikipedia and should be used whenever we need to assess information.
January 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Information literacy is exactly the issue I’m concerned about. There is no doubt that the Internet is the ultimate embodiment of Theodore Sturgeon’s Law: “98% of everything is crap”, and this should be tattooed in mirror-image on the forehead of every student wishing to use the Internet for scholarly inquiries.
My issue with Wikipedia (well, one of them) is that it bears the patina of false authority. Its articles masquerade as encyclopedia articles, and the fact that some of them are broadly correct hides the insidious falsity of many more.
The false authority of Wikipedia derives from its process, that of “anyone (except experts in the field in question) may edit”, coupled with the inevitable rise of a Know-Nothing priesthood defending this dubious distinction. An argument that Wikipedia would not exist without the rabble is now beside the point: Wikipedia exists, and in order to make it a useful scholarly tool rather than a playground for the kakistocracy that process must change, or watch it devolve back into chaos.
January 15, 2008 at 4:22 pm
The responses outlined to Criticisms of Wikipedia are informative and useful. It is refreshing to see a response that addresses the topic rather than the person! The argument presented by Gomi and Kohs does not seem to take into consideration the information seeker’s ability to evaluate information. There seems to be present a sense of paranoia and panic in this criticism of Wikipedia. Are the critics suggesting developing a “Ban Wikipedia” website, much like the banned book list? The original posting to this blog about Wikipedia addresses how educators can use Wikipedia as a teaching tool and as an opportunity to improve critical thinking skills in students. Sign me up for the side of teaching versus banning EVERY time!
January 15, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Eric, I’m sorry I was rather caustic with you. I have to make sure my targets are awake before I enlighten them, you know?
I don’t ask for much from Wikipedia, in terms of change. It’s simple, really. Demand real-world personal identification of all content contributors. Then, the Wikimedia Foundation needs get out from behind Section 230 (you may need to look that one up — I’m not going to explain it in a blog comment) and call itself a publisher, not an interactive computer service.
Then they become an encyclopedia, and everyone is happy. Those who are not happy would have the chance to have their day in court against the known person or persons who authored a disagreeable section in this encyclopedia.
What purpose is the anonymous editing serving? To me, it is only serving vandals and unseemly characters who are not confident enough or proud enough to stand behind their work.
What purpose is the Section 230 protection serving? To me, it is serving the legal interests of a Foundation Board who wishes to remain — literally — irresponsible when it comes to the content of its million-dollar product.
Until these changes are made, the site is quite certainly a joke, all dressed up in fancy “encyclopedia” clothes. Debating around the edges of “how it’s improving over time” and “how it’s useful for some purposes but maybe not others” is just prolonging the agony.
Talk to Taner Akcam about the paranoia and panic in our criticism of Wikipedia. Learn about what happened to him at the airport, then you tell me that Wikipedia’s “plus side” outweighs the “down side”.
Count the number of indefinitely-blocked accounts that have been ushered out of Wikipedia (my estimate is that it’s over 100,000), then you tell me that Wikipedia benefits more from anonymous log-in than it would from identity verification.
If online poker sites can authenticate a real person behind the keyboard, so could Wikipedia.
End of screed. I’m sure you’re an intelligent and accomplished librarian. Just wake up a little, okay?
January 15, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Nice…so these guys weren’t all resistant-to-change, old farts…
As a college student, I agree with Eric on the usefulness of Wikipedia right now. Sure, there are great sources mixed in with too many horrible ones…but I don’t think wikipedia has to be relegated to just a teaching tool.
And for that to happen, I think it’s undeniable that it has to change. Wikipedia is fairly new. New stuff usually isn’t anywhere near perfect. So yeah, a lot of changes, like Gregory Koh’s suggestions, need to be made to help it reach its potential. I don’t think we should cast it aside and give up on it though. That would be stupid.
May 25, 2009 at 7:45 am
To whom it may concern confidentially,
I would like you to read the following links which verify the fact that Wikipedia editors take pride in breaking their own rules, and other editors or administrators seem to treat them as if they are privileged sacred cows, or are lapdogs and yesmen who are afraid to criticise them, and, or turn a blind eye to their misconduct, or condone it, or reward it here
http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa%27sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor297379
If you scroll down the same page you will see the absolute brazen, shameless and disgraceful way that they have the audacity to refer to themselves as ‘rule abiding’.
Some of the editors also tell deliberate, flagrant lies which I have described, and you can verify e.g. here
http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa%27sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor9433
and here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa%27sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor5652