Power of Wikipedia + Lack of Accountability = Bad News, Does anyone disagree with that? Options

[Kato]

Let's cut back to the chase:

• Due to the power Wikipedia has attained in the world of information, and the fact that this power is wielded without the standards of accountability society traditionally requires, Wikipedia's model presents serious problems. (examples are plenty of the problems that this lack of accountability has created)

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

[wikiwhistle]

Let's cut back to the chase:

• Due to the power Wikipedia has attained in the world of information, and the fact that this power is wielded without the standards of accountability society traditionally requires, Wikipedia's model presents serious problems. (examples are plenty of the problems that this lack of accountability has created)

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

No I don't disagree, but also:-

due to the visibility of wikipedia articles, and the accessibility of information on the internet, wikipedia articles may create problems for companies and individuals that want to manage their image, if they have received any undesirable press. (This to me may be a strength of wikipedia- but obviously for the subjects themselves, it's often not a good thing.)

An example is Nelson's homeopathy - an employee made the article and it was quite pro-Nelsons, but because there was an article up it means problems they've had with providing anti-malaria homeopathy tablets are brought into the open again. I bet the bloke regrets it now. It's a two-edged sword.

I suppose how this relates to your point is that sometimes the things said about BLP's, companies etc, the subjects complain about them not because they are false, but because they are true but they don't want them more widely known. Would you disagree?

[Rootology]

due to the visibility of wikipedia articles, and the accessibility of information on the internet, wikipedia articles may create problems for companies and individuals that want to manage their image, if they have received any undesirable press. (This to me may be a strength of wikipedia- but obviously for the subjects themselves, it's often not a good thing.)

I believe I've said before that Wikipedia is more an information aggregator than always an encyclopedia. If a company or government has bad press (or good press) it is not an inherently bad thing for it be centralized, for people to get all the known facts in one central place. BLPs are a mess, but for articles on civic or private organizations, commercial or otherwise, this practice actually serves the community's interests. By community, I mean the world.

Groups and businesses have no business controlling their "image" beyond the means that the local United States government, where Wikipedia is hosted, allows them. They have in this country, thanks to Freedom of Speech, thankfully little control over such things. Wikipedia is a great service in this regard.


A relevant court case as well, for how this could relate to BLPs (separate and distinct from any Section 230 discussions, before someone brings that up):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

This post has been edited by Rootology: Wed 28th May 2008, 5:45pm

[Jon Awbrey]

I believe I've said before that Wikipedia is more an information aggregator than always an encyclopedia. If a company or government has bad press (or good press) it is not an inherently bad thing for it be centralized, for people to get all the known facts in one central place. BLPs are a mess, but for articles on civic or private organizations, commercial or otherwise, this practice actually serves the community's interests. By community, I mean the world.

Groups and businesses have no business controlling their "image" beyond the means that the local United States government allows them. They have in this country, thanks to Freedom of Speech, thankfully little control over such things. Wikipedia is a great service in this regard.

Yet another example of wikiwishful thinking in the extreme.

A general rule of critical systems thinking is this:

• Any abuse that can occur, does occur.

Wikipedia is deliberately designed to permit the maximum possible abuse.

Most respectable publishers in the real world earn that respect by being vastly most honest than Wikipedia. They say, This is who we are and this is our point of view. Wikipedia is a platform for people who cannot or will not be that honest.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 28th May 2008, 5:54pm

[Rootology]

Most respectable publishers in the real world earn that respect by being vastly most honest than Wikipedia. They say, This is who we are and this is our point of view. Wikipedia is a platform for people who cannot or will not be that honest.

And I and any sane person has to reject any argument that basically slags the idea of user-created content via the Internet. The Internet, and its tradition of letting "anyone" compile a page like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

Is a fine tradition. Before the Internet, the mass media and print media/"reputable" publishers controlled any and all information flow. You can thanks to the internet enable private oversight of groups, with independent websites that can be a clearinghouse of information on corporations, governments, and groups. In any general sense, such things are good things. This argument you've presented is basically that only reputable experts should be doing such things: nonsense. As long as it's legally allowed, it's fine and a great service. Do Wikipedia articles get slanted sometimes in this regard? Yeah, but they can be fixed by anyone eventually. Can a private website that does the same thing be fixed by anyone, even if it's legal? No.

Any argument that boils down to "Less power to the people" is representative of repressive mindsets that only traditional methods of getting information, controlling information, and distributing information are valid. A world where anyone can get a message out is a good thing. Anything that breaks the control of governments, religions, corporations, or groups over information about themselves is a good thing.

Does that mean that in some cases "experts" or "traditional" authorities may get disempowered, marginalized, or be brought down to the level of talking heads or data points for the casual observer, instead of the word of information God? Sure. This is also not a bad thing, because the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

A great example is when Burma recently cracked down on the news media over their abusive treatment of protesters, and camera phone and citizen journalism told the entire world via the Internet. Wikileaks, and their potential to safely expose corporate or government malfeasance, is another great example. The arguments in thread aren't Wikipedia specific at all, but over whether the idea of anyone being able to compile and distribute information that some would like to see decentralized and scattered, or unavailable, is a good thing.

This post has been edited by Rootology: Wed 28th May 2008, 6:23pm

[Angela Kennedy]

... This argument you've presented is basically that only reputable experts should be doing such things: nonsense. As long as it's legally allowed, it's fine and a great service. Do Wikipedia articles get slanted sometimes in this regard? Yeah, but they can be fixed by anyone eventually. Can a private website that does the same thing be fixed by anyone, even if it's legal? No.

Any argument that boils down to "Less power to the people" is representative of repressive mindsets that only traditional methods of getting information, controlling information, and distributing information are valid. A world where anyone can get a message out is a good thing. Anything that breaks the control of governments, religions, corporations, or groups over information about themselves is a good thing.

Does that mean that in some cases "experts" or "traditional" authorities may get disempowered, marginalized, or be brought down to the level of talking heads or data points for the casual observer, instead of the word of information God? Sure. This is also not a bad thing, because the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

A great example is when Burma recently cracked down on the news media over their abusive treatment of protesters, and camera phone and citizen journalism told the entire world via the Internet. Wikileaks, and their potential to safely expose corporate or government malfeasance, is another great example. The arguments in thread aren't Wikipedia specific at all, but over whether the idea of anyone being able to compile and distribute information that some would like to see decentralized and scattered, or unavailable, is a good thing.

I think the 'democratization of knowledge/power to the people' argument does not apply to wikipedia. There are clear power structures in place that prevent people 'getting messages out'. My own example is at the Simon Wessely page - if you look at the archived talk page (it's long though ) you will get the idea. Here it was impossible to 'get a message out' because of the way the page is constantly being 'protected' by openly POV administrators (JzG and JFW) who used the Wikipedia system to get what they wanted.

Whatever people's views on this subject, it is I think a good example of adverse real-world effects of the 'powers' of Wikipedia. JFW and JzG actively wanted to portray ME/CFS sufferers (an already beleagured and abused group of ill people) in a certain, highly negative way (as is already happening in the real world), using unsafe evidence to do so (and also repressing sources that present legitmised criticism of the subject's work). The power they have at Wikipedia enabled this, especially as their actions were ultimately endorsed by Jim Wales himself. It might not matter if it was on a one -man- rant type of blog - but this outfit claims to be an encyclopaedia, and comes up high on google searches, is promoted in the news etc.

Throughout 2007, anyone looking up the subject would have been led to believe that he has been 'personally harassed' by an irrational ME/CFS community (including myself, a known and academic critic of the subject's WORK), a claim that is completely unsubstantiated (and in my case at least, completely false). The fact that this claim is also being promoted in other media (leaflets, a couple of books) is also a very big problem (one I've been documenting and challenging in the real world), but here, on WR, we are talking about Wikipedia as a domain of public knowledge production, which claims authority in this field, and is promoted by other powerful media.

Of course, there are legions of examples where people are prevented from 'getting the message out' by the structure and power relations at Wikipedia. This happens regardless of whether the 'message' is correct or not.

There is also the problem of 'systemic bias' and the particular personal ideologies of key people at Wikipedia (with all the associated problems) trumping other ways of looking at the world etc. etc. a big old subject that one.

Wikipedia is not a good example of 'democratisation of knowledge' - even though I've seen this claimed one way or another many times. It is just NOT the encyclopaedia 'anyone can edit'. A personal blog is probably a better example of that!

[thekohser]

... Do Wikipedia articles get slanted sometimes in this regard? Yeah, but they can be fixed by anyone eventually.

I thought the University of Minnesota disproved this fanciful notion of Wikipedia's ever-improving quality?