« Reviewed in the NY Times: A blog worth checking out | Main | U.S. House Votes to Revise U.S. Patriot Act »

June 04, 2005

Wikipedia

The June 6, 2005, issue of Time magazine has an article about the Wikipedia and its founder Jimmy Wales. (Note that you may need to be a subscriber to Time to get to the online article.)

Wikipedia is a free open-source online encyclopedia containing over 1.5 million articles in 76 languages, include 576,000+ articles in English. The concept is that groups of people thinking and working on the same topic bring more knowledge than does any particular individual. It is an alluring idea that has a great deal of merit for certain narrowly defined applications. It originated as a mechanism to create online technical manuals for software developers in 1995.

The Wikipedia, however, has serious flaws as a medium of scholarly communication. Here are a few of them:

I really want to like the Wikipedia. Every few months I go to the site and check out several articles in topics on which I have a great deal of personal knowledge (mostly music). I have to admit that although the content is not outright incorrect, it is very incomplete. For example, the entry on the English composer Benjamin Britten (1913-1976) has a "Selected list of works" that includes a citation for a very early (and decidedly minor) piece of background music for a BBC film of 1936, and the trivial "Fanfare for St. Edmundsbury" but does not include a listing of any of the voice and piano song cycles, such as "Winter Words" based on poetry of Thomas Hardy, or any of the five Canticles, any of which is more significant than some of the other works listed, not just in my opinion, but by any number of more scholarly and authoritative sources about Britten.

The Wikipedia may be an enchanting entertainment for the interested amateur, but I still have to dismiss it as a serious tool for scholarship.

Posted by tdr at June 4, 2005 10:35 AM

Comments

Tim, I am going to play devil's advocate on this one. I would say that wikipedia is a beautiful resource for all of the reasons you mention:

"Since the very nature of the Wikipedia is that articles are updated, it is impossible to know the state of "completeness" or accuracy at any given stage." - I think it would be foolish to assume any work is "complete". Now matter how thick the book, there is always more information, a new perspective, or a different opinion. I think this is similar to when one thinks themself "educated" when they get a degree. Learning is a never ending process. The advantages of being able to udpate wikipedia on the fly far outweigh any downsides.

“Since anyone can add to and edit Wikipedia articles, it is possible for the author of a paper to add his or her own content/conjecture to a Wikipedia article to support that individual's position.� - If it is valid, others often lend supporting evidence. If it is not, others will strike it down. I do not see this point as a downside.

“Wikipedia articles are written by people who are interested, not necessarily by people who are scholars, in a particular topic.� - Given the choice of paying a PC tech with a degree to fix my PC or a PC tech that loves the field, I choose the one with love any day. They often understand the field in an intuitive way that ones with degrees do not, and they do it with enthusiasm. Same with professors. I would rather be taught by one with personal interest in the field verses one that has a degree. Perhaps this is just a difference in perception of the value of formal education.

“Although Wikipedia could be considered to have the ultimate peer review (i.e., anyone can change content), that is its ultimate downfall: why should I trust anything that is there.� - This question is even more relevant when a book is written by a small group or an individual. Why trust anyone anywhere at all?

“Like the elephant constructed by committee, there is no overall viewpoint in articles, thus lending to a lack of feeling of authority in the articles and odd holes in the coverage, even within a single article.� - Exactly. It is perfect!

I wonder how much of a generational difference there is in acceptance of information from wikipedia. Growing up on the net and with technology, I have a very different perspective. I feel like your points are my points, but I see them all as benefits and not negatives. Given wikipedia is still "new" I expect there to be holes, but it is only a matter of time before it is the most complete resource ever to have existed.

Posted by: Aaron Shaffer at June 6, 2005 08:12 AM

Aaron-- The most striking deficiency in my mind is one that was in my argument that you don't mention: In published scholarly reference sources, there is a way to track back and verify the information from a carefully compiled bibliography and citations that support the facts and articles. The Wikipedia does not have that apparatus, so there is no way of verifying the accuracy or inaccuracy of any of the statements, particularly if no one else ever changes or edits the article. To go back to my example about Benjamin Britten and the list of "Selected Works." It is true that they are "Selected," however, there is no basis on which to judge how or why they were selected. If the author had even made the statement "I chose these works because they are my favorites [or any other reason inserted here]" I would have less problem.

I also don't think your comparison of fixing a PC by someone who loves doing it with someone who has a degree is necessarily valid, since you are talking about a series of technical skills that, I agree, don't have too much to do with formal education. (By the same token, if you hired an electrician to wire your house who "really loved doing electrical work" but who didn't have any education or licensing, and your house burned down because he forgot to ground the electrical panel [note: I'm making this up] for me that would lead me to believe that there is value in formal process, education and verifiable training. It may not make it perfect, but it lends something of a "Gook Housekeeping Seal of Approval" to the activity. The realm of scholarship and knowledge creation, however, depends on a broader perspective and on analysis and synthesis.

I guess my bottom line is that just because someone (or a lot of people, for that matter) says something is true, and really believes it and writes it somewhere doesn't necessarily make it so, and serious scholarly endeavor requires that one be able to back up one's statements with verifiable facts and evidence.

There is always going to be new research, new evidence and new reasons to revise the knowledge about a particular topic; it is the responsibility of the scholar to present the evidence WHY the new knowledge is significant in a way that others can verify, rather than simply asserting and re-writing the work of others.

BTW, I will overlook the "age-ist" comment about generations and technology, since I've been using all sorts of technology (including networked technology) for MANY years, and since there are many scholars much younger than me who are extremely adept at technology, but share similar opinions to mine about the Wikipedia. :)

Posted by: Tim Robson at June 6, 2005 09:49 AM

Tim, I think generational differences are valid and need not be derogatory in any way. In general, I notice a blind acceptance of new technology by younger people while those with more experience are usually more hesitant (likely the voice of wisdom speaking through them?). My comment was more questioning why or how my viewpoint might be skewed do to my age limitations (it is a limitation) and the digitally immersive environment my generation experienced from childhood.

I think my overall comment was more of an emotional reaction to (legitimate) criticism of something I love. Your points about bibliographies and carefully tracing information to its source are valid. I agree wikipedia is not solid academic information (yet), but I do believe it has enormous potential to be what we want it to be.

Posted by: Aaron Shaffer at June 6, 2005 11:12 AM

Aaron, I was just teasing about the "age-ist" stuff. I think that the concept of the Wikipedia is a fantastic idea; it's just that its "credentials" need to be strengthened. The idea of posting pre-prints of scholarly work and having other experts comment on them to strengthen them is well-established in certain disciplines. Perhaps a variation on the them could be that a Wikipedia article is marked somehow as "unverified" or something until x number of reviewers have edited and/or approved it. Then you have the lazy people like me who don't want to expend the energy re-writing somebody else's work.

Posted by: Tim Robson at June 6, 2005 11:29 AM

The number one complaint people (who don't use wikipedia) have about wikipedia is its "credibility" or "reliability". They want something they can cite and claim as definitive and unquestionable. Wikipedia is neither definitive nor unquestionable, and hence people tend to think that's a bad thing.

But in response I ask: What source do we have that is defenitive and infallibly correct? What book or peer-reviewed journal is above question? I don't care how many PhD's looked at this paper and said it was "right," you never read something and just assume it's true. Doing so is simply bad research. Using a potentially "unreliable" source as a starting point, or as a quick reference on a subject you're unfamiliar with, however, is not the deadly sin that many people make it out to be. Of course if you want serious research, you go to the peer-reviewed journals. Nobody is saying wikipedia is a replacement for journals. Claiming that it is flawed because it is not a peer-reviewed journal is simply a strawman argument. But if you simply want a quick reference that is extremely easy to use and reasonably reliable on many many subjects, wikipedia is perfect.

Posted by: Colin Slater at June 6, 2005 06:35 PM

The very weaknesses of the wikipedia are also its strengths. Anyone can add anything, even in their own opinion, but any user can trace backwards to see what the older versions of an entry were.

Additionally, if you have a great deal of knowledge about somthing, and you check on it regularly, why not actually be helpfull and contribute your knowledge? That is the point and the nature of the wiki, to contribute what you personally know.

I have actually wondered about citing information from wikipedia, say if i were to use it as a resource for a research paper. I don't think i could actually use it directly, but it certainly contains enough outward facing links on virtually every subject to make it a usefull tool in research. Is there any standard for citing public edit sources?

Posted by: neuman at July 10, 2005 11:10 PM

The weakness is there but I think its definitely a useful tool.

Posted by: Simon Cooley at July 11, 2007 10:42 AM

Hi Tim and Aaron and all:

I would like to point out another equally important advantage and difference between Wikipedia and a "degree" person.

Some authors of Wikipedia may not have a degree or a reference to back up donated knowledge. They may only have experience. Experience which the majority of the world would not have benefit of, if it where not for Wikipedia and other internet entities.

This is even more true in the technical fields like industrial maintenance. That examples also brings up another very valid point and advantage of Wikipedia over text books, timely information.

Technology is evolving so quickly, many books I browse, the information is already outdated by the time it goes to press. In Wikipedia authors should be given various forms of validation. Like degree confirmed, job title confirmed or experience confirmed. Any one of the aforementioned and possibly others, would result in "confirmed resource".

Nothing is perfect, but it would help move Wikipedia in the direction you all are collaboratively indicating. How to confirm those different aspects of the potential authors? Now that is the million dollar question.

Note: This comment by no means indicates I am against non-confirmed post to Wikipedia, otherwise we would lose our valuable idea generating power of world wide collaboration and comments.

Posted by: Don Fitchett at July 23, 2007 02:20 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?