PDA

View Full Version : The Wikipedia debate



cheesybanana
03-11-2008, 03:30 PM
There is a fundamental debate raging about Wikipedia's standards.

http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354

Which side are you on? Do you agree with the inclusionists or the deletionists?

I, personally, believe that the inclusionists are right. There is no reason to delete even trivial entries. The more information, the better.

baggss
03-11-2008, 03:45 PM
I'm with the inclusionists, but believe there should be an accuracy rating system. People would be able to determine if an article passes an accuracy test or not (the criteria for this test are open for debate) to give information more credence. Articles that are now marked for deletion would be given a low score, thus prompting the authors and interested parties to bolster the sources and validity of the entry with the ultimate goal being for it to gain a higher score. Entries that stand on their own merit by the test guidelines would be given higher scores. This could meet the requirements of both parties and make Wikipedia much more useful for the general public as a whole.

bryphotoguy
03-11-2008, 03:56 PM
I am an inclusionist. I don't need people telling me what information is worthy or not. I should be able to make that decision.
As for their credibility, everything on the Internet needs to be taken with a sprinkle of skepticism. Excluding 500 Pokemon articles will not add to their credibility.

lifeafter2am
03-11-2008, 04:01 PM
Inclusionist. I agree with bryphotoguy, who is the ultimate authority to say what is important and what is not.

Kash
03-11-2008, 04:12 PM
Another inclusionist right here.

mathogre
03-11-2008, 04:13 PM
Here's another for the inclusionist side. I've been impressed with what the Wikipedia includes. It's neat to be able to look up something like the Lorentz Transformation. It's also helpful to be able to learn something about the difference between a Nintendo DS and the DS Lite. The Lorentz Transformation is something for all time (pun not intended (or is that "pun n'intendo?" -_^)) and the DS info will probably be irrelevant from a practical perspective in five years or less. So what? Who cares? Both are useful.

On the accuracy side, I'll stick with the Buddha view:


Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.

~ Buddha Quotes from The Dhammapada

If someone wants to include some accuracy information on a topic, fine. If not, that's fine too. I can imagine potential firestorms over issues that cannot be objectively verified, and even over some that can. Regardless, I think I'm able to judge what's trustworthy and what isn't. I think others can do that too. A label indicating an article is accurate tells me nothing.

The Wikipedia is simply one source of information. It is not nor should it ever be a bible of sorts.

louishen
03-11-2008, 04:29 PM
Inclusionist

I must say hat the quality of Wikipedia articles is usually very high, OK a lot of niche areas get a lot of coverage (every single Jedi Knight ever mentioned anywhere) but who is to say something is of value and what is not

bryphotoguy
03-11-2008, 04:31 PM
Don't come here preaching your hippie propaganda Mothogre!

Actually, I really like that quote; thanks for sharing.

lifeafter2am
03-11-2008, 04:33 PM
Don't come here preaching your hippie propaganda Mothogre!

Actually, I really like that quote; thanks for sharing.

Well you see it every time I post! ;D

Zoolook
03-11-2008, 04:35 PM
I think the Wikipedia is a mixed blessing.

On the one hand it is free, accessible, and is full of information that would usually have to be gathered from various sources. Having debates with anyone online is completely pointless, as these 'wiki-perts' just wiki you to death until you give in, or just do it back.

However, there is also the point that Wikipedia never offers anything other than the absolute consensus on any topic. There is no real perspective IMO - so the debate about whether or not trivial topic should be included is not the point, the debate should be whether or not topics should be endlessly edited until everyone is agreed on what is said.

dtravis7
03-11-2008, 04:37 PM
Inclusionist but do agree the info should be accurate so I can rely on it.

mathogre
03-11-2008, 04:39 PM
Don't come here preaching your hippie propaganda Mothogre!

Actually, I really like that quote; thanks for sharing.
Like wow, Thanks man. Far out! (70s hippie talk.) %-)


Well you see it every time I post! ;D
LOL!!!! I actually didn't notice it when I saw your post. ;D

CL33Zero
03-11-2008, 10:11 PM
Honestly, I could care less. If its not on wiki, its somewhere else. Truthful or not. And all only a google search away

Leukeh
03-11-2008, 10:58 PM
Inconclusionist for sure. You can't reference Wiki at college or uni or school anyway and bringing in strict standards probably wouldn't change this...

I use it to find out basic information and then use the links for further reading and referencing....

Chimpur
03-12-2008, 02:03 AM
Also an inclusionist. A ratings system like in youtube would do.. Accuracy? Yes. No. After a certain predetermined number of votes based on overall viewing the article could be flagged as acurate or unaccurate. Also, number of views, when last viewed, number of revisions, last revision/submitted info might be usefull too

CL33Zero
03-12-2008, 02:38 AM
Also an inclusionist. A ratings system like in youtube would do.. Accuracy? Yes. No. After a certain predetermined number of votes based on overall viewing the article could be flagged as acurate or unaccurate. Also, number of views, when last viewed, number of revisions, last revision/submitted info might be usefull too

It wouldnt solve the problem, or debate, but those are some very good points that wiki should consider. They would be really helpful too

Chimpur
03-12-2008, 09:13 AM
Maybe deviding it up a lil bit would do as well.... catagorizing... so you'd know its fiction or nonfiction, etc...

Village Idiot
03-12-2008, 10:24 AM
Wiki erased an entry some one put up about Strobist. It's a blog about lighting that's almost turned into a freakishly large cult like movement. The flickr group alone has nearly 25k members. They erased it because they said the article would be advertisement for a commercial entity or some other lame excuse like that. I don't see them removing Honda or Yamaha or Microsoft from their site.

D3v1L80Y
03-12-2008, 11:00 AM
It doesn't matter if the information is "trivial" or not. So long as the information is true, can be cited elsewhere and it comes from a reliable and proven source... I see no reason for it to be deleted.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case with Wikipedia. Many articles are simple conjecture or unsubstantiated opinion. There are very few checks and balances for the veracity of information contained in Wikipedia. Any article can be edited by anyone at random. As such, it should never be used as a cited resource or direct link for information. It can be a good place to start research, but one should follow the footnotes and cited works for more credible and reliable data.

lifeafter2am
03-12-2008, 12:52 PM
Well, if there is going to be a voting system, it should be done by people with some type of authority on the subjects. Anybody can jump onto a browser and vote... I could vote on particle physics all day, but I don't know jack about the topic.

While a voting system would be nice, it could only work for the quality of the presentation, not the quality of the information.

I agree with devilboy, and as such that is why Colleges and Universities (as someone else mentioned) won't allow it as a reference.

bryphotoguy
03-12-2008, 01:02 PM
Right Life, that is what I was going to say. A voting system is a bad idea. Anyone could vote on everything. I visit Wikipedia to learn. If I am expected to vote on something I learned 2 minutes ago, my thoughts might not accurately depict the quality of the article.

Chimpur
03-12-2008, 06:24 PM
Another way to validate actual content might be to have experts in th fields to comment on the articles

lifeafter2am
03-12-2008, 06:28 PM
Another way to validate actual content might be to have experts in th fields to comment on the articles

In theory it would work, but it would make a lot of work for Wikipedia. Then you could have the debate on whether a certain person is actually an accepted expert in the field. Then you would have to have a rating system to rate the experts that rate the articles. ;D lol.

bryphotoguy
03-12-2008, 06:41 PM
Assuming these experts will want to take time out of their day to read all this and rate it Pro Bono.

Brown Study
03-12-2008, 06:47 PM
Then you would have to have a rating system to rate the experts that rate the articles. ;D lol.They'd all end up arguing over the number of green dots.

lifeafter2am
03-12-2008, 06:50 PM
They'd all end up arguing over the number of green dots.

LOL!!!!