The best and worst U.S. presidents. (Though that survey is a couple years old...)
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Friday, March 17, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Wikipedia's hidden information
The Sunday New York Times has a feature on Wikipedia today. At risk of making myself sound subcultural, the Times gets it: "Wikipedia is built with unending scrutiny and ceaseless editing." (And the reporter occasionally seems impressed with the content.) But as usual, I disagree with stuff. Quotes and counterpoint:
Wikipedia's reputation and internal editorial process would benefit by having a single authority vouch for the quality of a given article...Once upon a time, Encyclopaedia Britannica recruited Einstein, Freud, Curie, Mencken and even Houdini as contributors. The names helped the encyclopedia bolster its credibility. Wikipedia, by contrast, provides almost no clues for the typical article by which reliability can be appraised.
1. I agree, Wikipedia content should be vetted. This should happen soon, and it should happen outside wikipedia.org. Any organization can take the content for free, vet it, and republish it (again, for free). (I sure as hell wish Digital Universe was devoting itself to that instead of writing incompatably licenced content in a propriatary format that my mac can't open. Update: Larry Sanger has responded in the comments.)
2. Wikipedia articles provide an abundance of informal cues that other media lack, cues that can seem unprofessional on first glance. For example, the USA Today article's main image shows (without adjacent comment) the paper's mining-headline gaffe. Since the pupose of the picture is to illustrate the paper, platonically, wouldn't a more neutral photo be better? Yes, but I'm not about to shoot one -- which is precisely the point: nobody cares much about USA Today; it doesn't have any advocates*. (Brittannica won't tell you that.) (Compare with the Times.) This plays into the next point:
The egalitarian nature of a system that accords equal votes to everyone in the "community" — middle-school student and Nobel laureate alike — has difficulty resolving intellectual disagreements.
Wikipedia is an adhocracy, not a democracy: that is, everyone has the same number of votes, but that number is unlimited (if your edits are civil, human-generated, and not simple reverts). This has its advantages and drawbacks, but to cut to the quick, social interaction is a better metaphor than voting. As in real life, middle-school wikipedians usually don't care as much about the Krebs cycle as Nobel laureates do, and they tend to be less persuasive.
"Several recent events have shown how anyone can tamper with someone else's entry. Congressional staff members have been unmasked burnishing articles about their employers and vandalizing those of political rivals. (Sample addition: "He likes to beat his wife and children.")"
An addition that jarring makes good newspaper copy, but is also "evolutionarily unfit", so to speak, in the wikipedia soup: the article doesn't mention that that edit was undone immedately (or at all), a detail it neglects several more times.
Anonymous Source is Not the Same as Open Source
1. If that's rephrased less glibly, I agree: there are huge differences between Wikipedia and Linux, for example, because (a) compared to people, computers really suck at parsing text, and (b) most people can't program, but most people can write.
2. Many contributors to standard open source projects are anonymous. They're judged by their contributions.
When asked what problems on the site he viewed as most pressing, Mr. Wales said he was concerned with passing along the Wikipedian culture to newcomers.
Yep. But it seems to be going well so far.
* USA Today doesn't have any serious detractors, either, so the pic will probably change within a year. (If it was at the center of a controversy it wouldn't have lasted a day.) This type of informal information bubbles up all over. Warren and Livonia are both suburbs of Detroit, but Livonians don't think of themselves that way.