The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia, Chronicle of Higher Education Options

[mbz1]

And yet another wikipidiot wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ldid=477057967:

So all MesserKruse did was leave two dozen edits and messages. That's a pretty low frustration tolerance. He spent less time on this than he would marking an undergraduate paper. Conversely, he didn't learn the Wikipedia style of comments, citation, etc. So Wikipedia's response wasn't that ridiculous after all.

It is really amazing, that the user who wrote this believe that an advise to take a look at wikipedia civility policy in response to a very polite post at an article's talk page "wasn't that ridiculous".

[dogbiscuit]

Then, in 2011, he came back and finaly got the procedures right

Note the battleground mentality. Surely the idea about encouraging people to Be Bold and Anyone Can Edit is not to treat newcomers as idiots to be tolerated until they have got through the rights of passage into Wikidom, but that if someone has information people should be helping them get that information in.

Instead we have "What is in Wikipedia must be right and we will not tolerate newcomers suggesting otherwise." where the drawbridge goes up and a few warning shots are fired rather than considering that this person could be helpful.

Wikipedians need to remember that policy is to encourage people to edit, not to discourage. Still, Hasten the Day!

[Mister Die]

The fact that Wikipedia to begin with allows people whose way of obtaining "sources" is to search Google along with, if they want to appear more "academic," Google Books, demonstrates that any controversial subject is bound to be a nightmare once you get an editor or two who really don't like the content of the article or any recent changes to it and insist that Google-fu is more reliable than some weird old dirty books that they cannot or are unwilling to obtain.

[Emperor]

The fact that Wikipedia to begin with allows people whose way of obtaining "sources" is to search Google along with, if they want to appear more "academic," Google Books, demonstrates that any controversial subject is bound to be a nightmare once you get an editor or two who really don't like the content of the article or any recent changes to it and insist that Google-fu is more reliable than some weird old dirty books that they cannot or are unwilling to obtain.

Exactly. What kills me is when people use the term "research" to describe dinking around on the internet.

[Fusion]

they have got through the rights of passage into Wikidom

I look forward to Eric Barbour and HK making fun of dogbiscuit in the way that they just have of Radek.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=298073

Of course anyone can make a slip however well they speak English!

[thekohser]

they have got through the rights of passage into Wikidom

I look forward to Eric Barbour and HK making fun of dogbiscuit in the way that they just have of Radek.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=298073

Of course anyone can make a slip however well they speak English!

Seems like "Fusion" has a Mike Baxter way of fixating on the small stuff.

[Fusion]

they have got through the rights of passage into Wikidom

I look forward to Eric Barbour and HK making fun of dogbiscuit in the way that they just have of Radek.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=298073

Of course anyone can make a slip however well they speak English!

Seems like "Fusion" has a Mike Baxter way of fixating on the small stuff.

That from someone who is forever quibbling about apostrophes!

[Jon Awbrey]

Here it is 2012 … and some academics are just now finding this stuff out about Wikiputia …

It is important to understand that the Wikipediot Weltansuckung is a whole nuther Point Of View on all and sundry matters, an i-land unto itself, detached from reality as normal folks know it … and it will above all defend itself to the death.

See the Wikipedia Review for further e-lightenment —

http://wikipediareview.com/

— Jon Awbrey • 18 Feb 2012

[SB_Johnny]

The fact that Wikipedia to begin with allows people whose way of obtaining "sources" is to search Google along with, if they want to appear more "academic," Google Books, demonstrates that any controversial subject is bound to be a nightmare once you get an editor or two who really don't like the content of the article or any recent changes to it and insist that Google-fu is more reliable than some weird old dirty books that they cannot or are unwilling to obtain.

Exactly. What kills me is when people use the term "research" to describe dinking around on the internet.

Over time, google will probably have a lot of older documents ("Public Domain" and all that) relating to all sorts of things. There's probably all sorts of documents out there that refer to homosexuality as a mental disorder, how eugenics is a great thing, the inferiority of Africans, etc. Presumably those are all reliable sources as well.

[Emperor]

The fact that Wikipedia to begin with allows people whose way of obtaining "sources" is to search Google along with, if they want to appear more "academic," Google Books, demonstrates that any controversial subject is bound to be a nightmare once you get an editor or two who really don't like the content of the article or any recent changes to it and insist that Google-fu is more reliable than some weird old dirty books that they cannot or are unwilling to obtain.

Exactly. What kills me is when people use the term "research" to describe dinking around on the internet.

Over time, google will probably have a lot of older documents ("Public Domain" and all that) relating to all sorts of things. There's probably all sorts of documents out there that refer to homosexuality as a mental disorder, how eugenics is a great thing, the inferiority of Africans, etc. Presumably those are all reliable sources as well.

Yes there were differences years ago but there are problems with the way people write today, and critical reading skills are as important as ever.

It was Wikipedia, after all, that felt it was necessary to tell readers that the Philadelphia region has lots of African Americans, high crime, and poverty all in one breath.

Anyway that's beside the point... most Wikipedians couldn't research themselves out of a paper bag and we all know that. If you're really defending Google-fu as a way of resolving important disagreements good luck with that.

[Jon Awbrey]

Researchers who wish to study the warping, er, development of the Wikipediot Point Of View (WPOV) over time, especially with regard to the privileging of secondary and second-rate sources over primary sources, would do well to begin at the beginning. Here are a couple of links to a study that I began way back when I had nothing better to do —

• No Original Research : Historical Datapoints @ Wikipedia

• No Original Research : Historical Datapoints @ Wikipedia Review

— Jon Awbrey • 19 Feb 2012

[SB_Johnny]

Jimbo apparently thinks it's to his advantage to ride the wave on this one. ASCIIn2Bme helpfully takes up the cause of allowing Jimbo to point to "community resistance" when his suggardaddies donors bring it up and ask why nothing's being done about it. Nice strategy there.

[HRIP7]

I was waiting for some drone to make this argument:

Putting that kind of external pressure on an article, even if he is factually correct and has sources to back up his argument, sounds like a pretty basic case of conflict of interest to me.

Is this an poor attempt at humor? It almost reads like parody.

It's a natural extension of having a belief that any knowledge of a subject disqualifies you from editing and COI is a way of expressing that. One day, we will see the combination of COI, OWN and 3RR and we will find that anyone who has made more than three edits to an article will be banned from Wikipedia for taking undue interest in what they are editing.

One argument that has so far been neglected is that the article in the Chronicle was a clear WP:CANVASSING violation. It was clearly a non-neutral message, and it was directed at a select audience – scholars – that might be supportive of the poster's stance, and has led to an influx of new editors who had no prior interest in the article.

Discussion is still rumbling on on the Foundation list. Mike Godwin has involved himself with a few posts.

[iii]

I was waiting for some drone to make this argument:

Putting that kind of external pressure on an article, even if he is factually correct and has sources to back up his argument, sounds like a pretty basic case of conflict of interest to me.

Is this an poor attempt at humor? It almost reads like parody.

It's a natural extension of having a belief that any knowledge of a subject disqualifies you from editing and COI is a way of expressing that. One day, we will see the combination of COI, OWN and 3RR and we will find that anyone who has made more than three edits to an article will be banned from Wikipedia for taking undue interest in what they are editing.

One argument that has so far been neglected is that the article in the Chronicle was a clear WP:CANVASSING violation. It was clearly a non-neutral message, and it was directed at a select audience – scholars – that might be supportive of the poster's stance, and has led to an influx of new editors who had no prior interest in the article.

Discussion is still rumbling on on the Foundation list. Mike Godwin has involved himself with a few posts.

It's getting some airtime on NPR. From Andrew Lih:

(Wednesday) I'll be on NPR's Talk
of the Nation radio show with Timothy Messer-Kruse himself, to talk
about his experiences.

Tune in, and feel free to send questions/comments my way (that are helpful!)

Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get more people to realize that having the unwashed in charge of one of the highest ranking sites on Google is not a good thing.

[mbz1]

Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get more people to realize that having the unwashed in charge of one of the highest ranking sites on Google is not a good thing.

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain to me what does " the unwashed" mean in your statement? I am not familiar with this idiom or expression. Thank you.

[thekohser]

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain to me what does " the unwashed" mean in your statement? I am not familiar with this idiom or expression. Thank you.

Let me help you with that; see definition #2. "Ignorant, plebian."

[lilburne]

"The Great Unwashed" but it might also refer to the personal hygiene of of adolescent geeks: SOAP being a Microsoft technolgy.

[SB_Johnny]

Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get more people to realize that having the unwashed in charge of one of the highest ranking sites on Google is not a good thing.

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain to me what does " the unwashed" mean in your statement? I am not familiar with this idiom or expression. Thank you.

It means "dirty".

It's an old expression, originally referring to people who couldn't afford to have servants draw them a bath on a regular basis (pulling up enough pails of water out of a well to fill a tub, not to mention heating it to a comfortable temperature and having plenty of expensive soap and perfume was actually quite a chore before running water).

In this case, I think it just refers to slackers who (a) live with their parents and waste their days playing around on the interwebs, and (b) rarely shower, because they rarely go out on dates.

[iii]

Keep the pressure on and maybe we can get more people to realize that having the unwashed in charge of one of the highest ranking sites on Google is not a good thing.

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain to me what does " the unwashed" mean in your statement? I am not familiar with this idiom or expression. Thank you.

The others covered it well, but I always felt, accused as I am of being an elitist for saying that experts should be in charge of the production of reliable content, that this old idiom is both in-line with my accusers' claim of my attitude while also literally describing Wikipedians' hygiene.

[HRIP7]

NPR audio and transcript here.