| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« The Valley of Transition | Main | Why I will cast my vote for Green/Rainbow on Nov. 7 »

October 28, 2006

Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?

From The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Halavis_1 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






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Raza Husain on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Dredd on NORTH KOREA’S NERVE WAR

Dredd on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Raza Husain on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

Dana on germ houses

musafir on Tuesday Poem

soubriquet on Tuesday Poem

Eli on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Jim on Tuesday Poem

Josef Stern on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Shelley on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

Bill on The Beautiful German Language

Eleutheria on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Eleutheria on Tuesday Poem

Raza Husain on the culture animal

musafir on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

KRS on Tuesday Poem

Félix E. F. Larocca, MD on Tuesday Poem

LWR on Tuesday Poem

Joss on Tuesday Poem

LWR on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Rashid on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Yoann on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Dave Ranning on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

sadhana on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed