The Independent article Options

[EricBarbour]

Is Wikipedia Cracking Up?

Some stupidity here, such as placing the WMF office in "the heart of Silicon Valley".
And since when is Sue Gardner "ferocious"?

Still, there is much here to warm the cynical heart.

How big is the problem really? Reid Priedhorsky, who studies Wikipedia and similar social projects at the University of Minnesota, estimated in a recent paper that the chances of any one visitor seeing a damaged Wikipedia page are about one in 140, as the average time it takes to repair damage is less than three minutes, and even less for heavily tracked pages. However, there are still more than 100,000 damaged pages at any given time, vandalism appears to be on the increase and it is impossible fully to measure the scale of the problem.

"It's the monster in the closet. You know that it has not grown bigger than the closet and busted down the door, but you don't know exactly how big it is in there," Priedhorsky said. However, the most startling fact about Wikipedia remains how accurate it is, not how inaccurate.

"As a researcher, I'm baffled that it works, but Wikipedia is one of the wonderful things that has happened in the 21st century. Many hands make light work. There are millions of people who edit Wikipedia, and many of them track changes to the pages they are interested in. I have 43 pages on my watchlist, for example, covering subjects I know things about. Any controversial edit is likely to be quickly seen by many people."

What opponents fear most from the new "flagged revisions" rule is that it could put off a new generation of writers and editors, slamming this extraordinary global phenomenon into reverse.

Quick, someone print this out and send it to Sue Gardner.....

[dogbiscuit]

What was interesting about this article was:

- the writer had more than a superficial awareness of Wikipedia.
- It covered the first 3 pages of the Life section with a big full colour headline.
- I only got bored half way through - the positive stuff was later on so the general reader will get the bad bits first.
- The Independent purports to be a serious newspaper.

For The Review, it tells us that the message is getting through. It is hard to say how much we influence these debates, but with the slightly incestuous relationship of The Review, The Guardian, The Register and Wikipedians responding to those "threats" it all goes to create a wider awareness.

I think the best we can hope from this is that significant institutions are so appalled at the lack of sane governance that Wikipedia is forced to put in place some semi-professional management of content - even if it is at arms length.

We know that the worst thing about approved revisions is that there has been no real thought as to how this process will be gamed, so the obvious vandalism will go, but the potentially more damaging subtle vandalism will become harder to deal with - you try and revert it and you end up battling the author and the approver - and the approver is not going to want to admit that he was duped into agreeing some nonsense was OK. Simple loss of face is the greatest danger of approved revisions.

[Mike H]

And since when is Sue Gardner "ferocious"?

Understated sexism, perhaps? That a woman can handle a business at all? I believe the term we use here that's not so polite, PC or printable is "ball-buster."

[Jon Awbrey]

A guy with 43 pages on his watchlist is described as having "more than a superficial awareness of Wikipedia"?

Somedays I just can't tell the n00bs from the b00bs without a turing test …

Ja³

[dogbiscuit]

A guy with 43 pages on his watchlist is described as having "more than a superficial awareness of Wikipedia"?

Somedays I just can't tell the n00bs from the b00bs without a turing test …

Ja³

Not feeling very literate this morning Jon - I guess you didn't survive reading more than half before you drifted off either? For a real world article, as opposed to one of those "in the know blog things", the journalist's perception is getting there - and the 43 thing does make sense in context of the quotation.

For an article that is aimed at the general public, I thought it a brave stab on what is, after all, a pretty dull topic for a paper - Shock! Horror! Computer nerds make a hash of life again!!

[Jon Awbrey]

A guy with 43 pages on his watchlist is described as having "more than a superficial awareness of Wikipedia"?

Somedays I just can't tell the n00bs from the b00bs without a turing test …

Ja³

Not feeling very literate this morning Jon — I guess you didn't survive reading more than half before you drifted off either? For a real world article, as opposed to one of those "in the know blog things", the journalist's perception is getting there — and the 43 thing does make sense in context of the quotation.

For an article that is aimed at the general public, I thought it a brave stab on what is, after all, a pretty dull topic for a paper — Shock! Horror! Computer nerds make a hash of life again!!

Okay, okay, it was Priedhorsky who had the 43-item watchlist, but that just shows you what he knows.

I did read the whole thing, 3 times now … but sorry, all I get — and all I think the general public gets from these blurbs — is Yet Another Maybe It Ain't Immaculate But It's Still A Miracle Piece (YAMIAIBISAMP).

Of course, that's what Jimbo's Walefare Program for Lazy Journalists is all about.

Jon

[dogbiscuit]

A guy with 43 pages on his watchlist is described as having "more than a superficial awareness of Wikipedia"?

Somedays I just can't tell the n00bs from the b00bs without a turing test …

Ja³

Not feeling very literate this morning Jon — I guess you didn't survive reading more than half before you drifted off either? For a real world article, as opposed to one of those "in the know blog things", the journalist's perception is getting there — and the 43 thing does make sense in context of the quotation.

For an article that is aimed at the general public, I thought it a brave stab on what is, after all, a pretty dull topic for a paper — Shock! Horror! Computer nerds make a hash of life again!!

Okay, okay, it was Priedhorsky who had the 43-item watchlist, but that just shows you what he knows.

I did read the whole thing, 3 times now … but sorry, all I get — and all I think the general public gets from these blurbs — is Yet Another Maybe It Ain't Immaculate But It's Still A Miracle Piece (YAMIAIBISAMP).

Of course, that's what Jimbo's Walefare Program for Lazy Journalists is all about.

Jon

You don't have the paper edition. Front page of the Life section is simply a big graphic entitled Is Wikipedia Cracking Up? Page 2 is the embarrassing Jimbo looking a nerd in his red Chinese outfit. Page 3 is the "It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, riven by boardroom rebellion – and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web? Stephen Foley reports" in big type. I doubt most readers could be bothered to go further with the tl;dr article.

The first third page (the rest is graphics) is a list of problems with articles. It is only when we get to Mr Priedhorsky that things get anything like a positive spin - with the intro of "It's the monster in the closet." before his critical faculties subside - though we are yet to discover that Jimbo begat this monster out of "smut and soft porn". The last page manages to summarise every Wikipedia scandal and basically says that the Foundation are a bunch of amateurs. Probably a little uncritical of Gardner who has not managed to bring sanity to the organisation - but at least she hasn't been sucked into a Jimbo scandal yet.

The big thing I think is bad about the article is the highlighted "As a researcher, I'm baffled that it works" which does point to the questionable credibility of the guy, as he has not grasped some of the things which here have become a given that do not work (unless you count working as "The world's greatest and fastest defamation machine."). It does not balance the whole "holding nose" stance of the article.

[Jon Awbrey]

You don't have the paper edition. Front page of the Life section is simply a big graphic entitled Is Wikipedia Cracking Up? Page 2 is the embarrassing Jimbo looking a nerd in his red Chinese outfit. Page 3 is the "It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, riven by boardroom rebellion — and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web? Stephen Foley reports" in big type. I doubt most readers could be bothered to go further with the tl;dr article.

The first third page (the rest is graphics) is a list of problems with articles. It is only when we get to Mr Priedhorsky that things get anything like a positive spin — with the intro of "It's the monster in the closet." before his critical faculties subside — though we are yet to discover that Jimbo begat this monster out of "smut and soft porn". The last page manages to summarise every Wikipedia scandal and basically says that the Foundation are a bunch of amateurs. Probably a little uncritical of Gardner who has not managed to bring sanity to the organisation — but at least she hasn't been sucked into a Jimbo scandal yet.

The big thing I think is bad about the article is the highlighted "As a researcher, I'm baffled that it works" which does point to the questionable credibility of the guy, as he has not grasped some of the things which here have become a given that do not work (unless you count working as "The world's greatest and fastest defamation machine."). It does not balance the whole "holding nose" stance of the article.

We like it when he read da φunnies — 'cuz he do da voices …

Do Da … Do Da …

Ja³

[Moulton]

We like it when he read da φunnies — 'cuz he do da voices …

Do Da … Do Da …

Ja³

I suppose DogBiscuit is old enough to have heard of Fiorello LaGuardia, but it would surprise me if he knew what you were talking about.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Tue 3rd February 2009, 8:43pm

[Jon Awbrey]

We like it when he read da φunnies — 'cuz he do da voices …

Do Da … Do Da …

Ja³

I suppose DogBiscuit is old enough to have heard of Fiorello LaGuardia, but it would surprise me if he knew what you were talking about.

That's why I use all those Greek characters — to make it harder to read da φunnies …

Ja³