Wi-Can Trust Wikipedia, The Concordian Options

[Newsfeed]

Wi-Can Trust Wikipedia

The Concordian (subscription)
By Myles Dolphin Ever since Wikipedia's inception in 2001, professors and academics alike have often doubted the accuracy of its numerous entries. Concordia communication studies librarian Sonia Poulin is part of that camp: “Wikipedia is not an … ”

[thekohser]

Oh, Mister Dolphin... how stupid you make yourself sound.

[thekohser]

Dolphin's interpretation of "Flagged Revisions":

In 2009, continued vandalism prompted Wikipedia to implement a new feature called ‘Flagged Revisions.’ Originally used as a pilot project on the German version of Wikipedia, users are required to be authenticated before being able to edit, and need to provide references. For certain entries, the changes “must be verified by an experienced volunteer before publication,” according to an article in PC World. Entries are placed in a holding queue until they are approved by someone Wikipedia considers a ‘trusted editor.’ Furthermore, “systems administrators can block access to the site by certain users who have repeatedly been vandalizing entries.” Clearly, many measures are put into place to prevent vandalism and erroneous information from being posted.

[dogbiscuit]

Flagged Revisions is an extension to the MediaWiki software (see mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs and mw:help:Extension:FlaggedRevs). It permits the managers of a particular MediaWiki installation to define certain conditions by which trusted editors can rate an article's "revisions" (i.e. its page versions, the individual entries in the article's history) and to "flag" one of those revisions (i.e., to set it as the default revision to show upon normal page view).

The extension can be configured in a number of ways. On the English Wikipedia, several proposals have been discussed and considered for trial (see Community proposals for various options). The proposal for flagged protection and patrolled revisions has gained consensus for a trial implementation; a two-month trial of pending changes (new name for flagged protection) closed without a clear consensus to continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions

Of course, his reliable secondary source trumps my original research from a primary source.

Contrary to some media reports, flagged revisions were not enabled in 2009 on the English Wikipedia. A considerably less restrictive version was tested in a trial in 2010–2011.

[carbuncle]

Also, there was nothing in that piece about Wiccans!

I was pretty sure that "Myles Dolphin" was a pseudonym, but they have a Twitter account stating their desire to become a Middle-East correspondent, so I'm assuming it is a real name and not what someone calls their tattoo.

[thekohser]

Dolphin just sent me an e-mail:

...sounds like you have a vendetta against Wikipedia. Better get that checked out. How's the e-book coming? Getting rich off that? You're known for intellect, humor and diplomacy, aren't you. I haven't seen an example of any of that yet. What happened to Christ's spirit of compassion? If you have a problem with Wikipedia, bring it up with them, but otherwise, fuck off.

Another 'pediot.

[thekohser]

After a protracted e-mail exchange with Dolphin that went from heated to more genial, I felt moved to contact the chair of his Journalism Department. Not to "tattle" on his use of language, but to discuss the "teachable moment" that seemed to be at hand.

Dolphin's publication policy is that writers not engage in the comment field of their story, thus his e-mail to me. He also feels like there is "clearly no middle ground" between his view of Wikipedia and mine, and so he no longer wished to discuss the subject.

I note that the original article on The Concordian seems to have either been taken down, or the link is non-working at the moment. Anyone else still seeing the article? This site confirms that the page is down.

[carbuncle]

After a protracted e-mail exchange with Dolphin that went from heated to more genial, I felt moved to contact the chair of his Journalism Department. Not to "tattle" on his use of language, but to discuss the "teachable moment" that seemed to be at hand.

Dolphin's publication policy is that writers not engage in the comment field of their story, thus his e-mail to me. He also feels like there is "clearly no middle ground" between his view of Wikipedia and mine, and so he no longer wished to discuss the subject.

I note that the original article on The Concordian seems to have either been taken down, or the link is non-working at the moment. Anyone else still seeing the article? This site confirms that the page is down.

It appears to be a server problem not limited to that one article, so assume it is temporary. In the meantime, enjoy this.

[EricBarbour]

In the meantime, enjoy this.

Jesus, what an ass. One of those hipster dorks who tries to have a "conversation" with his little buds in Twitter.

They pulled ALL of the articles--only the top-level page is still working. It could be an XSS problem, or they could be trying to silence Mr. "Dolphin"s critics. Can't tell.

I recall that Concordia is notorious for political turmoil, the administration is very conservative and the student body isn't. And of course, the Fabrikant massacre, which really sets Concordia apart from other Canadian outlets for higher education.....

[thekohser]

It appears to be a server problem not limited to that one article, so assume it is temporary. In the meantime, enjoy this.

Well, not to worry. VulvaVonGoldsnatch has Dolphin's back.

[SB_Johnny]

It appears to be a server problem not limited to that one article, so assume it is temporary. In the meantime, enjoy this.

Well, not to worry. VulvaVonGoldsnatch has Dolphin's back.

We need horsey to jump in here, because I'm drawing a blank.