Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ News Worth Discussing _ Disputes Over Content of Wikipedia Articles Reflect a Country's Geopolitical ... ...
Posted by: Newsfeed
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720142009.htm
Science Daily (press release)
ScienceDaily (July 20, 2011) — Disputes over the content of articles in the internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia can serve as an indicator for the political stability of a country. This was proposed based on a "Wikipedia Dispute Index" developed by...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720142009.htm
Posted by: thekohser
What a http://www.disputeindex.org/. Seems like a useless tool.
Posted by: lilburne
What a http://www.disputeindex.org/. Seems like a useless tool.
Does it also follow that the more disputed pages link to a science article the less stable the science theory is?
Posted by: Gary_Niger
What a http://www.disputeindex.org/. Seems like a useless tool.
No matter what country I hover over, it still says "Canada."
Posted by: EricBarbour
Svalbard is colored black, which I presume means its article is a battleground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard doesn't look like a battleground to me.....neither do the articles in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Svalbard.
Ditto for North Korea.
Typical ScienceDaily story--sloppy.
Posted by: communicat
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720142009.htm
Science Daily (press release)
ScienceDaily (July 20, 2011) — Disputes over the content of articles in the internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia can serve as an indicator for the political stability of a country. This was proposed based on a "Wikipedia Dispute Index" developed by...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720142009.htm
It's an interesting proposal, but I think world knowledge might be better served by a scientific study of wikipedia's biased worldview as a whole. Censorship might indeed be ‘antithetical to the philosophy of Wikipedia’, but my own experience as a former wikipedia editor over a period of 18 months is that censorship through systemic bias is actually the norm in certain politically-charged wikipedia topic areas. Wikipedia is dominated editorially by stridently conservative Americans, most of its administrators are American, and the dominant, conservative political and historical narrative that motivates them is essentially "American". The end result is that certain articles are heavily biased to favour an insular, mainstream American point of view; whereas content, if it is to be truly encyclopaedic, is supposed to incorporate a balanced range of views on any given subject. Even American views that deviate from the mainstream paradigm are deemed "fringe" and/or "unreliable". What a load of crap.