October 28, 2006
Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?
From The Chronicle of Higher Education:
Alexander M.C. Halavais, an assistant professor of communications at Quinnipiac University, has spent hours and hours wading through Wikipedia, which has become the Internet's hottest information source. But to Wikipedia's legions of ardent amateur editors, Mr. Halavais may be best remembered as a troll.
Two years ago, when he was teaching at the State University of New York at Buffalo, the professor hatched a plan designed to undermine the site's veracity — which, at that time, had gone largely unchallenged by scholars. Adopting the pseudonym "Dr. al-Halawi" and billing himself as a "visiting lecturer in law, Jesus College, Oxford University," Mr. Halavais snuck onto Wikipedia and slipped 13 errors into its various articles. He knew that no one would check his persona's credentials: Anyone can add material to the encyclopedia's entries without having to show any proof of expertise.
Some of the errata he inserted — like a claim that Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist, had made Syracuse, N.Y., his home for four years — seemed entirely credible. Some — like an Oscar for film editing that Mr. Halavais awarded to The Rescuers Down Under, an animated Disney film — were more obviously false, and easier to fact-check. And others were downright odd: In an obscure article on a short-lived political party in New Brunswick, Canada, the professor wrote of a politician felled by "a very public scandal relating to an official Party event at which cocaine and prostitutes were made available."
Mr. Halavais expected some of his fabrications to languish online for some time. Like many academics, he was skeptical about a mob-edited publication that called itself an authoritative encyclopedia. But less than three hours after he posted them, all of his false facts had been deleted, thanks to the vigilance of Wikipedia editors who regularly check a page on the Web site that displays recently updated entries. On Dr. al-Halawi's "user talk" page, one Wikipedian pleaded with him to "refrain from writing nonsense articles and falsifying information."
Mr. Halavais realized that the jig was up.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:27 AM | Permalink























Comments
As the article says, science and technology is the most reliable area of the Wikipedia. But in the more controversial fields, like politics, religion, art, and history, what do you expect when you open the thing to all and sundry? These are inherently battleground areas, and WP just reflects the intellectual/cultural battles that are going on all over the world.
As such, I think it is a valuable resource, not for those who are looking for "facts" but as a reflection of what cultural struggles are taking place. (At least, it reflects what computer-literate folks, and folks who have the spare time to put into these knock-down drag-out fights, are thinking.)
Users of WP should always consult the Talk pages for an article whenever they have the least doubt about what the main article says, in order to see what criticisms others have had. IMHO, the Talk pages are the most valuable innovation, compared with conventional encyclopedias, which don't let readers know what controversies lie behind their pages. And when you absolutely have to rely on the accuracy of the information, use WP as a starting point, not a conclusion, to your research.
Posted by: JonJ | Oct 28, 2006 11:06:26 AM
Excellent article. Excellent comments, JonJ.
I thought this paragraph was funny:
"Those skeptics include Michael Gorman, the immediate past president of the American Library Association. "The problem with an online encyclopedia created by anybody is that you have no idea whether you are reading an established person in the field or someone with an ax to grind," said Mr. Gorman, dean of library services at California State University at Fresno, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle."
I'm glad Mr. Gorman doesn't write for Wikipedia, because he is not a very clear thinker. He assumes that only non-experts are capable of having an ax to grind. My experience is that many experts are busy ax grinders.
Posted by: rrtucci | Oct 28, 2006 1:42:47 PM
Does anyone really believe that wikipedia is even relatively error free? I use it all the time. I think it is great. But do I think it is authoritative? Hell no! Some of the articles are a joke. The articles on some contoversial topics are hack combat zones. Remember the old adage: if it's everyone's job(to fact check every article on wikipedia)it's no one's job.
Wikipedia has it's usefulness. But other techonology systems, such as google dictionary, do a better job because they aggregate data and allow comparison checking. People shouldn't get so starry eyed about the wonders of the wiki concept and forget its obvious disadvantages.
Posted by: Thomas | Oct 29, 2006 8:49:17 PM
Post a comment