Ken Lay Dead; Wikipedia Confused
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070501068.html

Compare this article to the speech given by Jason Scott at Notacon back in April.

Ken Lay's death really isn't the issue I'd like to see discussed (although feel free to discuss it).-- Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia really isn't great as a source. While often it's very reliable, there's always that chance that the most recently edited item you are reading is inaccurate or incorrect. Still it's a great way of generally gaining some knowledge of things and it does have some nice information organization that is convenient. Now I've never personally used the editing feature but I think what they need is perhaps a sort of accountability loophole. For instance, require users to put in credit card information (for authentication purposes) when they create an account. This way if someone is an abusive editor, they can be banned not by their wiki account username, not by their ip address, but by their actually identity.

As for the death of Ken Lay, it was somewhat difficult to find out today in regards to what happened, which could be why the wiki post was being changed so much. The media itself was struggling on a real answer which would make the entry at 10:09 essentially correct. However I think all of the entrires are wrong. I personally believe that Ken Lay was killed by ninjas.

This is the same as any big news story. It breaks, people go crazy adding it to Wikipedia without checking all of the proper sources and facts, and then the article gets the lockdown within a few hours so all of the info can be straightened out. Really, Wikipedia isn't the best place to get perfectly accurate news on the minute it happens, but it gets tidied up fairly quick.

In before LeHah.

I don't understand how/why someone would excpect to find correct information on wikipedia (or any freely-edited source) on an event that happened less than a week ago. Are people upset by the sudden changes that are taking place in new articles, and do they believe that such a source has a resonsibility to have 100% correct info the minute it is up? If I was looking for a source that I know is going to be accurate, I'd check out a national news program. Anyone who is annoyed by Wikipedia's innacuracies has nothing to complain about.

Aw, Kaleb said pretty much was I was going to say.

Watch the news while a "breaking story" is happening, and you'll basically see this exact same phenomenon. Every tiny bit of here-say and rumour that makes its way into the newsroom seems to get on the air, if only to be corrected as soon as the NEXT rumour comes along. If people don't bitch about it when "real" TV, newspaper, internet, or radio news sources are doing it, why is it an issue that it happens on Wikipedia? Hell, conflicting stories from major news sources is likely a big part of the REASON this happens on Wikipedia. Before anyone launches into the "OMG WIKIPEDIA SUCKS" speech, consider how rarely ACTUAL news sources live up to those standards of accuracy in reporting breaking news before they get the facts straight.

Wikipedia = open info database to which anyone can contribute and edit. Wikipedia ≠ news site. Give breaking news time to becoming old news and the entries tend to get tidied into something approachably accurate.

Do the words "identity theft" and "credit card fraud" mean anything to you?



Wikipedia is not a news site? O RLY?

Seriously, read the speech I linked. I think it will elucidate a lot of this. Especially the problems in calling it an "encyclopedia" and trying to make it "the compendium of all human knowledge". As Mr. Scott says, it would be one thing if the site was called "Jimbo's Big Bag o' Trivia." But it's not.

There have been a number of articles on how horrible some of Wikipedia's entries are, simply because of all the groupthink that goes into them. Wikipedia's strength is that anybody can contribute to the articles, but unfortunately their greatest liability is that anybody can contribute to Wikipedia.

This really doesn't strike me as news, as I thought it was well established that Wiki was good for little more than quick lookups of facts and random trivia. Hell, there's more effort put into articles for recaps of Power Rangers episodes than actual factual data. There's a disgusting amount of groupthink that permeates many articles, and people are constantly trying to push their own wierd agendas in various underhanded ways. Me, I have to ask when Wikipedia had any credibility to begin with.

I don't really think it ever did. I remember two years ago or so before Wikipedia really became huge I went there and a lot of stuff was just plain wrong. And what wasn't was of dubious authenticity anyway.

I find articles that cite their sources are interesting, mostly as just a collection of links on the subject though.

The scary part is that some people actually think Wikipedia is a viable source for information and try to use it on papers. That makes me really afraid.

While I laud you for using the doublespeak-esque term groupthink, could you explain more what you mean by it, MK? I'm not entirely clear on how you're using it.

Obviously it has entries on current events, and obviously pre-existing entries can get a bit hectic when the topic/person/event/whatever is suddenly a developing news story. But click on one, then scroll down and check the sources. It's mostly a collection of information gathered from major-and-minor news sources and often-recent articles (neither of which are ever consistant or infallible by any means). Wikipedia itself isn't reporting anything, and it tells you flat-out that information related to developing stories is subject to change. It's just a hub for people to cobble together the information gathered from the numerous sources out there. The current event entries are the same as anything else on Wikipedia: a generally good starting point (especially when a lot of cited sources are linked in the article so you can check them all out for yourself), but it shouldn't be the ONLY place you go to get your information.

There IS a sister-project wiki for news (though it seems to have much the same approach with stricter citation rules). But the article quoted in the first post was specifically targetting Wikipedia, not Wikinews.

Looks like you obviously didn't click on my link, since I linked to Wikinews.

Also, Wikinews is run by the same people as Wikipedia. I don't see how it's any less relevant.

You make a good point about Wikipedia just being a bunch of links to other news sources. One of the three founding principles of Wikipedia is that original research does not belong on Wikipedia. That logically extends beyond scientific research to journalism as well.

I did mouse-over the address to see where it led, but I guess my eyes deceived me and read "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikinews" in the URL. Ah well. Same point, anyway.

Even if Wikinews and Wikipedia are run by the same people, they're different projects with different goals. Though either way, I maintain that the original article is just complaining about nothing. Like I said, ACTUAL news sources mis-report and change their facts all the time, sometimes to the point of reporting things that are complete bunk. Yet no one ever seems to call them on it in the same way that they like to complain about Wikipedia and the like. At least Wikipedia has the excuse that it's publically edited.

That seems to be Wikipedia's main intention, yeah. It's not claiming to create anything, really. It's just a place where people can contribute information that's available to the public, and help to condense it into what (in a best-case scenario) will become both a more-or-less accurate overview of the topic and a decent list of cited sources.

Groupthink is a real thing that you'll see in psychology and management books. It's a phenomenon that occurs when someone doesn't want to speak up because they're afraid of the repercussions from the rest of the group. It's commonly cited as the cause of the Challenger disaster (the engineer specializing in the o-rings adamantly opposed the launch proceeding, but since he was pressured from his own company as well as those at NASA, he gave in to their demands even though it was against his better judgement).

Yes, Wikipedia is fallible. By it's very nature it's greatest strength is it's greatest weakness. However this just strengthens the idea that the system works.

Six minutes. It took six minutes from the time someone posted wrong information to the time that it was corrected. This does nothing but prove that the self-policing style of wikipedia does, infact, work. Had the information stayed up for weeks, I can see where there would be an issue. However it took less time to correct this, fairly major, news story than it would take me to make a sandwich.

I browse wikipedia quite often, but just for fun, not for doing papers on, as my professors have told me (one of them quite hiliariously, after going there, and finding out that a student just copied/pasted the same thing in their research paper as the wiki article) that it's not a reliable source, which I have to agree with them on.

An example one of them gave was that the Kingdom of France didn't exist till about I think the 14th century (I forgot myself bleh), but some naysayers keep trying to change it so that wiki says it appeared in the 7th century (which he tells us legitimate historians say is false).

It can be good, but only if the people writing stuff on it are pretty knowledgable about the stuff they're writing on (and yes, linking to reliable sources also helps. I've noticed a lot of articles have lately been stuck with a "Citation needed" on their info, so that if someone knows where to find that info, hopefully they can fix that problem of finding where that info was originally from. Beats them just straight out plagarizing or pulling facts out of their butt).

I have to admit though, sometimes wikipedia has some interesting stuff that's probably more obscure from the regular internet, like mechs (and a brief history of them, as well as western vs. eastern mech designs), and some info on relatively minor figures in history/entertainment/etc (although it's far from complete).

But yeah, for stuff like that Ken Lay incident, I'd go to a more reliable source of information (such as a news media), although wiki does have some interesting, brief history info for the Enron scandal (and other corporate fraud stuff).

Where those naysayers come from? You're saying that "legitimate historians" can't be wrong?

And what if someone accessed that page during those six minutes, and didn't go back? They would come out with the wrong idea, perhaps even that he killed himself because he felt guilty. That's bad journalism.

The main point I think the original article was getting at is that in journalism, you are responsible to get the story right the first time so your readers don't get the wrong impression. Printing a lie about someone is called libel. It's a real crime. Look it up.

RacinReaver: Thanks. I've heard the term used before, but was never given a clear definition. The more you know.

Wikipedia is in fact a great source of trivia but that's all. When I need to learn about something in general it's wonderful, but there's a lot of drama that goes on on the talk pages and some people generally are so stupid it bothers me that they in fact editing anything.

I commonly find that I wish it was a paysite because I'm of the belief that people wouldn't pay to damage pages, but then it would house considerably less information

Uhh is it meant to? Wikipedia isn't a newspage, it's an online encyclopedia. Well, at least that's my understanding of it.

Mistakes, miscommunication, and misinformation happen in journalism as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10682163/

The next link is ironic I know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Sa...Media_coverage

Wiki's not really meant for breaking news stories. It's more of an information archive, and I mean archive in the sense of a place which historical documents are stored.

Then I revert to my original claim that Wikipedia is indeed, fallible.

Yes, if someone acessed the page in those six minutes, they would have been misinformed. However my entire point is that it took only six minutes, and thus an extremely small amount of activity viewed said page, before it was corrected. It may have been wrong for six minutes, but it will be right for the rest of Wikipedia's existence. The self-policing style that Wikipedia is built upon has proven itself to work.

The fact still remains though, is that it's not journalism. Like Kalekkan said, it's more of an information archive. If you want journalism, head on over to Wikinews which uses the same format. Which managed to get it right. There is not a single edit that says it was suicide. Hell, the first edit simply says "He is dead. No more details." They did get it right.

Ofcourse no one should ever source Wiki when writing a term paper. But for finding out which one of the Starjammers was Cyclops' father (Corsair), who wrote the French National Anthem (Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle), or what the name of Hitler's German Shepard was (Blondi) , it's a great source.

And I really could do without the quasi-legal lesson. No one brought it up, so your calls to "look it up" are quite unfounded. But if you really want to go that way, technically libel isn't simply printing lies about a person. It's printing lies about a person that damages ones character or reputation. If someone wrote that I was the first person to land on the moon, that wouldn't be libel. If someone wrote that I molested goats, that would be.

I think we're still learning how to read Wikipedia. The crisis of its legitimacy has everything to do with how we perceive it--as an encyclopaedia--than any institutional or structural aspects.

I don't think Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Such a word connotes guarantee, and indeed when I open that L volume of the EB and read a beautifully honed, copyedited, proofread entry on Libya, expert or not, I can't challenge it. It's encyclopaedic.

The very opportunity to edit any content on the 'online encyclopaedia' is to suggest to noobs and veterans alike that the guarantee has gone. We're basically getting shitty because there's a monstrous conceptual abyss between reference and referent. I think we should refresh the reference. Or you could carry on like LeHah.

I'm not sure if it's formally encouraged onsite, but learn to value the Discussion Pages as if they promised as much insight into the subject as did the finished (term used reservedly) product, because sometimes they bloody well do.

The truth is that Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica content both changes; it's just that a) the consumer prejudice which says something that costs several thousand dollars would never need alterations, or to a lesser extent, revision, and b) Wikipedia content can potentially change thousands of times faster than a multi-volume hardcopy counterpart's.

In this thread alone there's the usual human-error variety of adages (which of course are still thoroughly warranted), but, once we take some big-boy steps in what we collectively expect from Wikipedia, I proffer another one: the best things in life are free.

I disagree. For paper writting of some subjects (the uncool ones, I guess) wikipedia is AMAZING. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylsulfoxide. The article is about a solvent commonly used in labs. There's absolutely nothing about methyl sulfoxide in the Encyclopedia Britanica.

I like how one of the references in that article is a Dead Kennedys song.

Given that the system is powered by the gerbil wheel known as the internet user - thats really nothing to bolster one's argument.

Wiki does not work because it's open to everyone. Of those supposed 13,000, how many of them are educated enough to give an educated writing on any particular subject? I'm sure that a couple of them could, say, write an interesting, intelligent bit on Tipler's Rotating Cylinder - so whats that say about the other 12,985 people on there? This isn't even to say that those people have done anything - but that they're empowered to.

These 13,000 people are not checked for degrees, they're not asked for credentials. The anonymity of the internet empowers them to do what they will without a consequence beyond banning and moving on - not unlike how GFF or any other internet forum runs.

Not to mention - do not underestimate mob mentality. Do you think our current state of journalism is because people want intelligent, factual reports - or quick, digestible soundbites over your morning coffee and afternoon shit?

You cannot accept Wiki as a source for anything if anyone can edit it as they see fit. If you want to - thats your problem; do not make it mine, internet, or you'll get a hard lesson of my foot up your ass.

In a better world, I'd be given the power to string you up by your neck for being a traitor to your better man.

"Boy, this source doesn't have what I want - but THIS DOES! Obviously my opinion is correct!" is about as fucking stupid a point as a person can make. Isn't this why we have MANY books instead of living with a single source? Isn't this why we have things like libraries instead of the soapbox mentality of the internet?

Where do you live, boy? I want to call your hometown and complain about your obvious lack of education.

I like how you intersperse talking about how stupid something on the internet is with physical threats to people over the internet. Can I get a lol in here.

While I don't really like Wikipedia a whole lot due to the style that most people there write and the massive disparity of information between different kinds of topics, it is a very convenient souce. Frankly, I found it a lot easier to do a quick search on Wikipedia to figure out the color of the Titanium (III) Chloride salt than trek 10 minutes across campus to find the information in some book (I don't even know what book would have that kind of information when the CRC Chemistry handbook doesn't).

You'd have a point if I was known for hanging people. Since I am not, I'm forced to point out that this part of your statement holds no water, what-so-ever.

You say Wiki doesn't work because it's open to everyone, and thus will be edited by shitheads. I say Wiki does work because it's open to everyone, and thus those same shithead will be corrected by people that actually know what the are talking about. Your dislike for Wiki has been well well documented here. I understand that is simply not going to change.

How many of those 12,985 that don't know anything about Tipler's Rotating Cylinder are actually going to edit it? And if a couple of them do, those that actually do know what they are talking about will edit it back. You can find 5 wiki articles with false info, I can find 5000 with accurate information.

Like I said, as a 100% infallible source that could be quoted on a term paper or in a report, Wiki wouldn't work. As a quick way to look up a fact, or learn something new about something you didn't know alot about, it does.

Really? E-violence? Come on now, this isn't gamefaqs.

So now in order for something to be a threat you need to have done it before? And, as acid pointed out, you kinda forgot the booting of ass in your post.

Thats a great way to make a defense - until I ask you to quantify that everyone who makes a post or edits on Wiki actually does research on the topic. Obviously - the answer is at least "not all", as there are people who write things that are later removed.

So - you can't quantify that anyone, let alone a number of people, are qualified to make a post about anything on Wiki and be considered legit. The numbers are stacked against you - the proof of evidence is on you, not I.

Certainly stands to reason. By this point, the snide nature of "e-threats" is responded with the equally snide nature of a dismissal. Lather, rinse, repeat - though it stands to reason that people who need to point out the obvious lame nature of internet threats could only be as lame as the threat it's self.

I said that to the internet - which is not a person, so much as a massive group of people that lacks a singlar ass. To take such a statement seriously denotes you don't understand that which you're apparently using at the moment.

Honestly, I think Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information. Of course, any information you find should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the article in question does not cite its sources. It suits my purposes, certainly. There's no better way to find huge amounts of information on thousands of different subjects. Furthermore, the general style of organization appeals to me. And just for the record, Wikipedia articles aren't generally considered to be "paper encyclopedia" quality until they're featured. So, information from featured articles is to be valued above all others.

Meh - I'd never use it on a term paper or anything that required accountability... But if I was interested in knowing, say Anniston, Alabama (When I was wondering what sort of hazardous materials would cause the FAA to issue a TFR for that general area).

I take it everyone here has seen this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHm0rGns4I

I've always wondered this, if Wikipedia can be changed so easily by a few clicks of the mouse, then why do people use it for more then just entertainment purposes? I mean shouldn't they come up with someway to stop this...Like maybe create a way for someone to verify the edits before allowing to appear on the site or something along those lines. Or is that expecting too much of them?

I don't use wikipedia unless I really, really, REALLY have to. Other times I just search for sites using a helpful search engine that are more researched then wikipeadia is. Heck...some fan sites are more creditable then Wikipedia! Personally...I think they should get they're act together and make the site harder to edit like I said.

And on a some what unrelated note...I'm surprised someone didn't add 'he got divine punishment from lord Kira' to the long list of the causes of death. Okay that was a bad joke, sorry about that.

You're right. I cannot verify that everyone who makes a post does research. Yes, there are people that don't know what they are talking about editing things. However my entire point, and if you had bothered to actually read the thread than spend your time staring at the reply window trying to come up with witty retorts, is that these people will be corrected by those who actually do know what they are talking about. That while yes, there will be errors, overall the self policing style does work for Wikipedia.


You backpedal any faster, and you're going to fall over.

So this means, like, I could send e-mails to people telling them I'm going to rape their children, shoot their wife, and burn their parents' house down and they shouldn't take it as some sort of threat? It must be nice living in your own little world.

I wasn't pointing out the lameness of your threat, I was pointing out the seeming contradiction in calling something stupid on the internet while throwing in lame insults over the internet. But this required combining two slightly different trains of thought, so I guess I can see how one could get confused. :(

Sadly, most other websites aren't much more accurate than Wikipedia is (at least in my experience). I've actually found Wikipedia to be a decent starting place for research, using their links to external sites as places for more indepth reading (since often the include .edu or larger reliable websites).

I take it you lead the charge in driving the Frankenstein Monster up into the windmill? Mob mentality - might makes right - works for the facts as well?

Oh brave new world, with such putzes in it.

You misunderstand me and you get corrected, simple as that.

I suppose it depends on the situation, sure. But are you saying you take my threats the same as you would from a criminal? Do you put me in the same niche as Charles Starkweather or something? Is internet talk the same level as a direct threat against one's loved ones?

A point I've failed to elaborate on until you said this. My fault.

Well, according to your world, the person doing the non-threating isn't a criminal (since, you know, they haven't done the act before), what reason would there be to take it seriously since it's done online?

Well, you run the risk of having a barratrous claim against another person simply because they told you to shut up in a very dark manner. Obviously, one could file harassment, I suppose - but that would only do well if these were towards a person directly like e-mail, Instant Messenger, snail mail and only if such things were done repeatedly.

I'm sure theres also another layer entirely that would involve things like evidence and any number of Computer Crimes Act that I don't know about.

However, what it boils down to is pretty much someone bumping into you and them saying "Fuck off". Is that worth dragging out?

True, it depends on what you're looking for. I also go there for the outside links. Some of them are actualy pretty good and it saves time rather then going through a million sites looking for one particular subject...espcially if you're short on time and need to double check something. But most of the time if you're using the Wikipedia entries and the entries only without checking out other sites...then how can you say all the info you used is 100% accurate? And alot of people happen to do just that....that's what I'm trying to say....

You take this whole internet argument thing way too seriously. This wasn't even a real argument, just a lively conversation; there certainly was no reason to flame anyone.

All I said is I disagreed with Acid because for some subjects, namely chemistry and biology, Wikipedia is a far more complete source of information than other encyclopedias which may be taken to be more reliable.

That's it. No reason to cry a river or threaten genocide.

That's just childish.

Since when is pointing out the obvious flaw in someone's supposed logic flaming? Does that mean correcting someone is trolling? It sounds more like you're too afraid to step on toes for fear of the person's reaction.

Look, boy wonder, I corrected him on his obviously limited, naive point of view. If you want to question me on that, do it. Otherwise, kindly stick your nose somewhere else because this part of the conversation is over with.

Even acid said it cannot be quantified that any number of people - be it 1 or 13,000 - are qualified to post anything about any subject. I suggest you watch the Youtube link I posted earlier, as it demonstrates my point better than I have.

So, according to your earlier statement, you're now flaming me.

Which is it? I don't have time for this nonsense.

Pointing out the flaws in an argument isn't flaming; I didn't call it that. I called your threat to hang me a flame.

I just thought it was interesting that you armed yourself to the teeth as if to defend the universal truth of wikipedia's sucking or something. Saying that wikipedia is good seems to be a direct attack to your morals or something.

I don't give a shit, I said wikipedia is better than most other encyclopedias for chemistry and biology, and that's that. Take it or leave it.

You obviously do since your post average is close to 10 posts per day.

...Because... I pointed out the flaws in your arguement?

I mean, you're complaining about how I phrased part of my post. Way to avoid the entire point of the post simply because I said something that - SHOCK! - made you react!

I'm sorry if I react badly to things that are obviously stupid. If you would, please go out and make the world LESS STUPID. This will allow me to be more relaxed.

You obviously do - you're replying again.

Your opinion doesn't mean shit to anyone other than yourself. You've not said anything to prove any point of how your personal certification validates anything, let alone the cesspool that is Wikipedia. You've proven nothing to anyone other than being full of yourself. "I said it's this way and thats that" is nothing more than beating your chest and putting your head in the sand. Basically, you're trolling your opinion in a lame attempt to feign intelligence.

Go do it somewhere else and stop befouling the internet.

"Oh wow! He make lots of posts! This makes my hollow claims about nothing completely factual!"

Whatever. You win at the internet.

Happy now?

Doesn't the Colbert Report clip just verify that incorrect things on Wikipedia will be reverted to their correct form by one of the numerous wikinazis that live there (in case you hadn't heard, the page on Elephants was locked a little later to prevent vandalism)?

So why don't they do that for every entry, as its prone to the same thing?

(Also - sorry for the delay, I assumed this thread was as dead as a Kennedy girlfriend)

Reviving an old thread because I've been away for a long time. :(

They don't lock every subject because it's not being vandalized by people. What you're asking is kinda like wondering why we just don't close every thread here after it's made to prevent trolling.

Given that Wikis are suppose to be a source of information, it certainly should be locked out because the best place to hide a lie is between two truths. I don't know about you but I don't know the exact details of, say, the Battle Of The Bulge but for all I know the Wiki "open door" policy allows someone to step in and make a minute change, even if it isn't based on fact. You can't tell me that the supposed staff on Wikipedia sees everything that happens.

GFF doesn't claim to be a source of anything though. It's not like people come here to learn something and possibly be lied to.

Because then the thing may as well be a hardcover edition-bound product in 499485565575 volumes, by the time it takes to create and update content.


'LeHah we're all happy with this compromise between accuracy and flexibility, it is sensible/statistically proven'

'BUT FAGGOTS STILL HAVE ACCESS'

'But that's okay, their capacity for fucking shit up is still very sma--'

'BUT THE FAGGOTS, THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE ON THE INTERNET GOD THE INTERNET IF FULL OF FAGGOTS'

one, two, one, two, etc.

I agree with this part of your post Cal - as well, as the FAGGOTS part. I had hoped that everyone forgot about this thread and moved on as I did, but leave it to RR to pull an Indiana Jones and dig this shit up.

Whatever, abbo

Did you just call me one of the minibosses from Double Dragon?

Derogative/affectionate term for an Ausnig, you white bastard:

http://www.travelterrific.com/images/undone/33.jpg