Wikipedia and the Credibility of Online Information
- From: "Sam Vaknin Narcissus Publications" <palma@[redacted]>
- Subject: Wikipedia and the Credibility of Online Information
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:45:22 +0100
Wikipedia and the Credibility of Online Information
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 2/5/2006
The Wikipedia was touted as the greatest reference work in history. A
collaborative effort of contributors and editors across time and space, it
bloated into hundreds of thousands of articles on subjects both deserving
and risible. Anyone with a connection to the Internet and a browser can edit
the Wikipedia, regardless of his or her qualifications to do so.Test
Events in 2005-06 exposed the underbelly and weaknesses of this mammoth
enterprise. Entries are routinely vandalized, libel and falsities often find
their way into existing articles as a way to settle scores, manipulate
public opinion, or express outrage.
The prestigious magazine "Nature" studied Wikipedia articles on the sciences
and found them similar in quality to peer reviewed and edited encyclopedias.
Indeed, the problems cluster around the entries that deal with the softer
edges of the human experience (where everyone feels qualified to comment and
edit): the social "sciences", the humanities, arts and entertainment,
politics, current affairs, celebrities, and the like. It is there that "edit
wars" and thrashing are most ripe. The result is that nigh close to 90% of
the Wikipedia contain highly dubious material and attract the least
qualified "experts" and "editors".
This seems to prove the point that the gaining and preservation of knowledge
should not be subjected to a democratic process (or, as in the Wikipedia's
case, mob rule). As the promoters of "intelligent design" are finding out,
what we learn cannot and must not be decided by vocal protests and voting.
Continue to read the article here:
http://www.globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=1590&cid=1&sid=19
Take care.
Sam