Reference books? Give me Wikipedia - Times Online Options

[Newsfeed]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1">Reference books? Give me Wikipedia
Times Online, UK -10 minutes ago
There is more than an echo of that arch patrician, Lady Ludlow, in the scathing criticism being directed against the internet and its unlimited diet of free ...


View the article

[thekohser]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1">Reference books? Give me Wikipedia
Times Online, UK -10 minutes ago
There is more than an echo of that arch patrician, Lady Ludlow, in the scathing criticism being directed against the internet and its unlimited diet of free ...


View the article

This "journalist" has been PWND by a comment from me. It's under moderation at present.

Greg

[guy]

I made a comment last night but it hasn't been posted.

[thekohser]

It would appear that the Times and/or the author are only allowing comments that either endorse the author or are, at worst, ambivalent in tone.


Article author, Magnus Linklater

Wikipedia is a wonderful entry point on most subjects. However, proper academic study (as is presumably required on any degree course) would of course require further reading and analysis. Would you really expect a student to complete an honours dissertation based entirely on internet-gleaned information?

Thomas, London,

Regarding the blunting of curiosity, there are two points here. Firstly, these tools need to be harnessed, and being able to sift though the rubbish is a step in this process (I also have a bit of a feeling that the oft mentioned lies and innaccuracies found on line, due to anyone's ability to contribute, is greatly exaggerated, as most people, quite frankly, can't be bothered).

Secondly, I don't feel that these technologies have blunted my curiosity. Quite the oppsite in fact, it has allowed me to have a much broader understanding of many issues due to the eease with which I can inform myself. Also, we should not underestimate the effect that economic barriers to entry can have on one's curiosity. The example of ITunesU, where lectures and discussions appear from American and Canadian universities online and can be downloaded as podcasts, has afforded to me the opportunity to learn from some of the best thinkers of our time.

It's really all about harnessing the technology at hand.

Remy, Pully, Switzerland

The University of Brighton (ho,ho!) was Brighton Poly, and should have remained so.

Magnus Linklater is quite right. I have learned so much about the poet John Clare from the internet, ten times as much as a trip to even my biggest local library could have provided. From the many googled pages on his works I have been able to select facts and ideas about the poet, just as I would have done with a library book or hefty encyclopedia in front of me, but without the travel, the reserving, the carrying about.

Professor Brabazon, in her elitist approach, mirrors her forefather who designed the Bristol Brabazon airliner for rich travellers. Only one prototype was built. It was a commercial failure. Let’s hope the professor’s injunctions receive a similar cold shoulder.


Allan, Skipton, UK

The difficulty is that wikipedia and similar requires leaders in the fields to contribute and there is no incentive so to do. Discussions with colleagues indicate that there is a marked disparity between the sciences (where this is done) and the arts (where it is not). In fact many articles on the arts are more or less unaltered from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (try the article on Roman law for an example), where there may have been major changes in the fields.

The real problem is the thinking skills though: a student of mine cited several websites rather than the recommended reading. As the course had just started, he was unable to discern that the websites recycled each other's information, were always far too oversimplifed and often plain wrong. To bar access to google and wikipedia at the start of a course (as Prof Brabazon suggests) enables one to give students a good grounding in understanding material before leaving them to sift good from bad online.

John Scott, London,

Well Prof Brabazon (she of many letters behind her name as her entry on University of Brighton shows) has already got her Wikipedia entry updated with reference to her article on 13 January! Guess this kind of timeliness has no value to her!

Dipl.Ing. Ph.D., Staines, UK

Please note that you do not necessarily *have* to pay a subscription to gain access to the Oxford DNB. If you have your library card, simply enter the number into the relevant field and you have access to the whole dictionary from wherever you may be sitting at the computer.

As regards the "equality of information to everyone", while internet information is equally available, it is by no means equally good. For those who know enough to choose a reliable source, fine: but the less-skilled googler has no objective standard of accuracy to help with selection from thousands of search results.

I am reminded of a conference speaker who said the WWW is both the world's best and worst library: immense size, complete lack of text control. The cost of book-production does at least provide some kind of filter on quality.

Jane Wickenden, Wincanton, England

I more or less agree with Linklater's main points, and not only am I a retired bookseller, but also old enough to have been reared solely on ink and paper information sources. I still find browsing through a print reference just as stimulating and tangent-inducing as browsing Wiki or Google results, if not more so. In real life, I utilize both kinds of information sources - print and online as needed.

AntonyM, Mendocino, CA USA

Peer-reviewed in anything other than the hardest of sciences should really be paradigm-reviewed instead. Give me wikipedia any day. The ability to go off at tangents and come across things you have never heard of is fantastic.
Anyway, what or where is the University of Brighton? It isn't in Wikipedia.

J Quigley, France

[Jonny Cache]

Yet Another Case Of Clueless Anecdotal Reportage (YACOCAR) about how the Nazis build roads or something. The really nice thing about these Op-Ediot Pieces is that you can write a gadshillion of them without ever having to get your feet wet or your hands dirty.
Pfff!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 16th January 2008, 1:56pm

[Moulton]

So much for peer review of journalism masquerading as scientific research.

[Jonny Cache]

Comment Awading Moodæration —

You do an injustice to professional educators who have dedicated their lives and their sacred honours to sharing what they have learned with others, concerned above all with what you call "the way they have been taught to think". It is precisely that concern with "learning how to learn", more than the transient content of the day, that brings them to object to Wikipediot Ways.

You would discover this for yourself if you probed deeper into the e-culturation process that goes on behind the scenes of Wikipedia's article pages. Many dedicated educators have waded into the waters of trying to do just that, all to so little avail that they eventually become disillusioned with the Wikipediot Fray. That hard experience, not some kind of imperious sniffing, is the source of their criticism. Given their continuing calling to educate and inform, it becomes their duty to take up the critical stance and analyze What Went Wrong.

That is what you would see here, if you saw it clearly.

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 16th January 2008, 3:48pm

[Moulton]

He's prolly allergic to cynicism and snarkery.

[Jonny Cache]

He's prolly allergic to cynicism and snarkery.

So who's sniffing now ???

Good thang there's a pill for that —

Or maybe a gnosis spray …

Jonny

[Moulton]

'Snot Funny.

[guy]

It would appear that the Times and/or the author are only allowing comments that either endorse the author or are, at worst, ambivalent in tone.

Indeed. My post was obviously rejected.

[Jonny Cache]

It would appear that the Times and/or the author are only allowing comments that either endorse the author or are, at worst, ambivalent in tone.

Indeed. My post was obviously rejected.

Obviously a case of the pundit calling the critic sniffy.

So post a copy here, if you have one.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 16th January 2008, 10:44pm

[JukoFF]

I can't speak for the other comments, but it's hardly surprising that a comment with emotive language like "you do an injustice ... sacred ... etc" and the word "Wikipediot" didn't get included. Whatever the validity of their claims, at least the published commenters all know how to argue a point in a reasoned manner. Half of the post would make no sense to somebody who hadn't been reading the WR, and no amount of convoluted poetic imagery can fix that.

[Jonny Cache]

I can't speak for the other comments, but it's hardly surprising that a comment with emotive language like "you do an injustice … sacred … etc" and the word "Wikipediot" didn't get included. Whatever the validity of their claims, at least the published commenters all know how to argue a point in a reasoned manner. Half of the post would make no sense to somebody who hadn't been reading the WR, and no amount of convoluted poetic imagery can fix that.

Did you even read the article? Go back and apply your finely honed emotive analysis to that. I responded in kind, but nowhere near as snarkey in tone. And I do not use words like "injustice" or "sacred" lightly. But it's no surprise if sniffy pundits like Magnus Linklater cannot take what they dish out. It's only a surprise when they can.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 18th January 2008, 2:44am

[JukoFF]

Did you even read the article? Go back and apply your finely honed emotive analysis to that. I responded in kind, but nowhere near as snarkey in tone. And I do not use words like "injustice" or "sacred" lightly. But it's no surprise if sniffy pundits like Magnus Linklater cannot take what they dish out. It's only a surprise when they can.

Jonny

How DARE you call my analysis emotive, you moron! [sic]

I have to disagree as you clearly did use the word "injustice" and "sacred" lightly - you used them in a context, where as you say, criticism of Wikipedia was pretty absent, and then failed to give any explanation as to why you used those words so, er, heavily. Sure, you weren't snarkey, just more unapologetically ferocious.

I agree that Magnus Linklater's overthesaurused writing style makes me feel at least as ill as your retorting comment, but that's not a justification. The difference is that he made a point, and backed up and explained it. You actually managed to dodge the whole area of interest of his article - that is, Wikipedia content - and jumped straight into the "behind the scenes" politics. Why should the denizens of the press and the world at large care about Arbcoms and IRCs if whatever they wanted out of Wikipedia gets to them?

I still maintain that any comment with the word Wikipediot in it without elaboration is probably enough for immediate moderation. They have to maintain some degree of quality, and that word ticks both the "crank" box and the "incoherent" box.

[thekohser]

Did you even read the article? Go back and apply your finely honed emotive analysis to that. I responded in kind, but nowhere near as snarkey in tone. And I do not use words like "injustice" or "sacred" lightly. But it's no surprise if sniffy pundits like Magnus Linklater cannot take what they dish out. It's only a surprise when they can.

Jonny

How DARE you call my analysis emotive, you moron! [sic]

I have to disagree as you clearly did use the word "injustice" and "sacred" lightly - you used them in a context, where as you say, criticism of Wikipedia was pretty absent, and then failed to give any explanation as to why you used those words so, er, heavily. Sure, you weren't snarkey, just more unapologetically ferocious.

I agree that Magnus Linklater's overthesaurused writing style makes me feel at least as ill as your retorting comment, but that's not a justification. The difference is that he made a point, and backed up and explained it. You actually managed to dodge the whole area of interest of his article - that is, Wikipedia content - and jumped straight into the "behind the scenes" politics. Why should the denizens of the press and the world at large care about Arbcoms and IRCs if whatever they wanted out of Wikipedia gets to them?

I still maintain that any comment with the word Wikipediot in it without elaboration is probably enough for immediate moderation. They have to maintain some degree of quality, and that word ticks both the "crank" box and the "incoherent" box.

What of the other two or three of us who also submitted comments that were rejected? I did not use (to my memory, since I didn't think I would have to copy and save it before hitting "Submit") any snarky or obscure language in my comment. I doubt that other contributors did, either.

Your screed against Jonny Cache is just a typical mis-direct, so that we focus on other things besides journalists who can't take the heat, but love pontificating in the kitchen.


And, as I look now, I see they've upped the number of vetted comments to 24, from eight. None of the comments (that I've quickly skimmed) could be said to object to the author's position. I think this is repulsive editorial control, and I do intend to write to a more senior editor of the Times Online.

Anyone -- pro-Wikipedia or anti-Wikipedia -- should be disgusted by that. I would encourage you also to contact the Times.


Editor: online.editor@timesonline.co.uk

Comment: comment@thetimes.co.uk

Letters: letters@thetimes.co.uk

I suggest you copy them all. Who knows how far up this censorship policy extends?

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Fri 18th January 2008, 3:07pm

[Moulton]

Yet another instance of Gravitas.

[JukoFF]

What of the other two or three of us who also submitted comments that were rejected? I did not use (to my memory, since I didn't think I would have to copy and save it before hitting "Submit") any snarky or obscure language in my comment. I doubt that other contributors did, either.

Your screed against Jonny Cache is just a typical mis-direct, so that we focus on other things besides journalists who can't take the heat, but love pontificating in the kitchen.


And, as I look now, I see they've upped the number of vetted comments to 24, from eight. None of the comments (that I've quickly skimmed) could be said to object to the author's position. I think this is repulsive editorial control, and I do intend to write to a more senior editor of the Times Online.

Anyone -- pro-Wikipedia or anti-Wikipedia -- should be disgusted by that. I would encourage you also to contact the Times.

As Jonny's post was the only one I could read, I just wanted to point out that at least in HIS case, rejecting the comment really doesn't say anything about anyone's handling of criticism.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and suppose that yours was restrained and relevant. Good luck with your quest for a response, although I doubt you'll get one. It's a case of crossed purposes, see. The Times, being a global stage, publishes comments because they may be interesting reading and relate to the reader. You write the comment because you want exposure for your opinion. Nobody objectively cares about your opinion, just because you are a visitor to the Times website, just as nobody cares about a lot of stuff which is regardless allowed onto Wikipedia. By complaining, you are lamenting the loss of your side of the bargain, not having your opinion published. If you really want them to listen, you have to believably contend that their comments section is not as interesting and discursive by not including your comment.

At any rate, don't get too upset at the journalist who started it. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't visited the article since he wrote it. The comments moderation is almost certainly done by a cross-site moderator, not unlikely to be based in Bangalore. The majority of the people who read the opinion pages are like-minded readers who are interested in the writer's perspective - not people who are looking for someone who disagrees with them. Regardless of the published ratio, I'm sure they had far more pro and neutral comments submitted than negative. Maybe yours just wasn't up to the same writing standard.

[Kato]

Nobody objectively cares about your opinion, just because you are a visitor to the Times website...

That's just not true. Comments sections, Letters To the Editor and other Readership Feedback forums are very popular and keenly read. They always have been, since they were first introduced to the medium. In many well established Newspapers they are given pride of place.

Media organizations publish varying responses by routine and good practice. The BBC Website is the best example, and they are bound by the Broadcasting Act to do so.

[Nya]

To suggest, as Linklater does, that the "great unwashed" can make better use of the Internet than they can of a library is so patently ridiculous I'm surprised he printed it. What member of the world's poor does not have access to a library, yet has a computer, electricity, an internet connection, and is literate in one of the languages that boast reasonably comprehensive Wikipedias? What bizarre planet does this man come from?