The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Abortion and why, since my boy fiddled my Wikipedia entry, I've ... - Mail on Sunday
Newsfeed
post Fri 11th April 2008, 1:22am
Post #1


Postmaster General
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,272
Joined: Mon 3rd Sep 2007, 9:29pm
Member No.: 2,885




<img alt="" height="1" width="1">Abortion and why, since my boy fiddled my Wikipedia entry, I've ...
Mail on Sunday, UK -47 minutes ago
Who put me there or why, I have no idea. But if you look me up on Wikipedia, the world's most frequently consulted reference work on the internet, ...


View the article
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 11th April 2008, 1:31am
Post #2


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This is a well-written column that is both funny and serious. One of the serious parts touches on the impossibility of NPOV.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Fri 11th April 2008, 9:05am
Post #3


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



It's wonderful. I'm flagging it for posterity.

And the most wonderful thing is that this article was referenced in his Wikipedia entry and - guess what - the link was removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204880229
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 11th April 2008, 12:53pm
Post #4


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I don't know whether to laugh or to hold my head in my hands in utter despair.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 11th April 2008, 7:35pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



The offending edit lasted for 12 days.

I thought Wikipedia vandalisms were "almost always" reverted "very quickly"?

In January, the Henrik-o-Meter says that the Tom Utley article was getting 5 or 6 page views per day. Maybe it was only 3 or 4 per day, back when Wikipedia was less popular in July 2007.

Still, that's easily 30 or more visitors who saw the nonsense, versus the one reader who actually did something to correct it.

This seems to be a trend that I'm establishing with these stories about vandalism. We frequently see 20 to 50 people walk idly past a vandalism without "sofixit"ing it. Why?

IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM. IT'S NOT THEIR ARTICLE. IT'S NOT THEIR ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Wikipedia: The World's Most Irresponsible Encyclopedia.

Seriously, do Wikipediots think this is a "good" ratio of damaged views-to-corrective actions? To me, 40 to 1, or even 20 to 1, are not statistics to be proud of, considering it's purported to be a self-correcting reference.

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Fri 11th April 2008, 7:44pm
Post #6


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 11th April 2008, 8:35pm) *

The offending edit lasted for 12 days.

I thought Wikipedia vandalisms were "almost always" reverted "very quickly"?

In January, the Henrik-o-Meter says that the Tom Utley article was getting 5 or 6 page views per day. Maybe it was only 3 or 4 per day, back when Wikipedia was less popular in July 2007.

Still, that's easily 30 or more visitors who saw the nonsense, versus the one reader who actually did something to correct it.



Maybe it was mainly the young vandal checking up on the page smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Fri 11th April 2008, 8:38pm
Post #7


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 11th April 2008, 7:35pm) *

This seems to be a trend that I'm establishing with these stories about vandalism. We frequently see 20 to 50 people walk idly past a vandalism without "sofixit"ing it. Why?

IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM. IT'S NOT THEIR ARTICLE. IT'S NOT THEIR ENCYCLOPEDIA.

That's one of the reasons. Ironically, people are much more likely to fix vandalisms on articles they "WP:OWN".

For the rest, good editors get tired of endlessly reverting overindulged childish tagging. It would be so easy to remove most vandalism by sprotecting all articles, or having articles promoted to "viewable by general public" only be nameusers with a vetted history. But if you argue this, you'll get shouted down by people who really believe that most of WP's good content comes from IP users who are so committed that they write like angels and know vast amounts about one thing, which they are dying to dump on the WP, but would not be committed enough to register with a username and password if you required them to. But has this experiment been performed? No. But that's okay. Wikipedia believes it, and that's enough. They believe on faith, and most of them don't have to deal with the consequences, because they don't clean up poop in the trenches.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 11th April 2008, 8:51pm
Post #8


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



As a science educator, I was astonished to discover how much antagonism I encountered among Wikipedians to the principles of scientific methods of inquiry and verification.

Then again, my sample of Wikipedians is largely limited to those who were signatories to the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th 12 17, 4:43pm