stories filed under: "wikipedia"
Wikipedia Edits Show How Important The Site Has Become
from the rethinking-wikipedia dept
With all of the stories last month about various companies or organizations trying to edit Wikipedia to their own advantage, many Wikipedia haters used it as evidence as to why Wikipedia was no good. However, some are realizing exactly the opposite. Jeremy Wagstaff has a good column showing that all of these embarrassing Wikipedia edits show the reverse: it shows just how important and credible a source Wikipedia has become. As for the worries about biased entries, Wagstaff notes that nearly all of the controversial edits were quickly replaced. While some may point out that this doesn't help for the people who saw the edited entries, it appears that Wikipedia is trying to solve that problem by highlighting recent or less-trustworthy edits. So, really, all that we've learned from this is that Wikipedia is quite important -- and it's only getting better over time.Filed Under: wikipedia
Diebold, Disney, Many Others Caught Editing Wikipedia Entries In Their Favor
from the no-socker-there dept
This will probably come as a surprise to absolutely no one, but a new Wikipedia scanner service is matching the IP address of Wikipedia edits to the organizations the IPs are associated with -- and it's turning up some interesting matches. For example, there's the person coming from a Diebold IP who deleted paragraphs and paragraphs of Wikipedia content that highlighted Diebold's ongoing security problems. Then there's the Disney employee who tried to pull a link to Cory Doctorow's speech on why DRM is bad for business from the DRM entry. Wired is actually keeping a running tally of some of the most interesting edits. Now, before people use this as more evidence as to Wikipedia's trust problems, it doesn't look like those edits did much damage, as they were quickly changed back to the more appropriate entries by those watching out for vandalism.Wikipedia To Experiment With Color-Coded Warnings On Quality
from the good-ideas dept
It always seems misguided when people complain about quality problems in Wikipedia while ignoring identical quality problems in other media -- and the fact that it's easier and faster to make corrections in Wikipedia when those errors are discovered. One thing that defenders of Wikipedia often point out, is that it's easy to check the history page of any Wikipedia entry to get a sense of whether or not a particular tidbit of info has survived the test of time or was just recently dumped on the page (or if there's been any controversy over it). However, the truth is not too many people actually bother to check the history page (even among those who bring it up as a defense of Wikipedia). It appears that Wikipedia may start experimenting with a creative idea to help deal with this: color coding sections of Wikipedia entries. If a change was made by a new or untrustworthy user, Wikipedia could color code it as red so any readers would know to be even more skeptical than usual about that information. As the information survives the test of time, then it could fade to black (so to speak). At the same time, users who have a long history of making trustworthy edits would have their edits more quickly "trusted" within the color coded system. It's a creative idea that seems to make a lot of sense for improving the overall quality of Wikipedia. It's almost a shame we can't do the same thing with other forms of media as well. The plan is apparently to test this system on the smaller Wikia community before rolling it out on Wikipedia, but it seems like an experiment worth following.Irony Alert: Article Blaming Wikipedia For Unreliable Info Gets Its Facts Wrong
from the funny-how-that-works dept
This certainly isn't the first time something like this has happened, but a news article that a tribunal ruling in Australia was set aside for relying on Wikipedia, actually gets the story wrong. The tribunal ruling wasn't based on Wikipedia, but a totally different wiki-based encyclopedia. Now, if that article with the incorrect info had been on, say, Wikipedia, as soon as this had been noticed it would have been corrected. But, instead, you have an article that's been online for quite a while and remains with incorrect info. It's just extra amusing that that incorrect info is falsely blaming Wikipedia for being unreliable, when this article proves that just because wikis are editable and news sites aren't, it doesn't mean that one is inherently more unreliable than the other.
