Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#20664 04/21/07 01:04 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
So said Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia in 2001.
He said that the site was 'broken beyond repair', and no longer reliable

Wikipedia is among the top ten most visited sites on the Internet, containing more than six million articles contributed only by members of the public.
Anyone can contribute, but it has been criticised for being riddled with inaccuracies and nonsense.

Much of it has been copied verbatim from an original Web article, but often modified in a subtle way to suit the writers beliefs.

Last month it was revealed that a long standing Wikipedia contributor had lied about his identity, having claimed to be a tenured University professor, when in fact he was a 24 year old college drop-out.

Concerned about the websites integrity, Mr Sanger left wikipedia, and two weeks ago launched an online encyclopedia called Citizendium.org, which he said:-

"Every article would be monitored and edited by academics and experts, as well as those vetted and accepted by public contribution.

He told "The Times" 'I am afraid the public do not realise the many problems afflicting Wikipedia, from serious management problems, to an often dysfunctional community, to frequent unreliable content, and to a whole series of scandals.

"While Wikipedia is still quite useful and an amazing phenomenon, I have come to the conclusion that it is also broken beyond repair"

Larry Sanger started Wikipedia to enable anybody to access information which was once the preserve of only those who could afford the subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica, and who could spend the time necessary to navigate its maze of indexes and content pages" He told the National Association of School Teachers and Union of Women teachers (NASUWT) in Belfast.

Addressing the teachers after they were increasingly pointing out inaccuracies, nonsense, and even pornographic pictures, by schoolchildren.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
,


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
Wikipedia is perfectly reliable insofar as any source of information is. Such as your best friend or wife or the man across the street. No! No way, there's nothing going on! Of course not! A used condom is NOT PROOF!


Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
Sorry my idea of ironic humour!

Or should that be sarcastic?

Socrates where are you now we need you.

Last edited by Eduardo; 04/21/07 01:24 AM.

Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Well I laughed, Eduardo.

Too bad about wikipedia. That is how I discovered SAGG, so it was still fun for me.

I had worked on wiki for several months to get the entry for "Shower-curtain effect" modified, correcting a widely publicized misperception about the effect. Six months go by, and I checked it yesterday and it had all been changed! They had left out one of the main points of the theory, but at least they left out the anectodal dogma that I had railed so strongly against. I went ahead to add a short heading at least recalling the lost original main point.

TMI?

~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
"Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica.

Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three."

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844


Well, of course Larry Sanger is now going to attack Wikipedia - he now owns the competition.

Wikipedia is absolutely incredible. I carry around the downloadable version (1.2 Gig) on my PDA. I can quickly access information on almost any subject and I use it all the time. AND IT'S COMPLETELY FREE.

Of course if I was about to write a college paper then I would not rely upon it and would cross-check all my facts with sources etc. But for the general edification of my noggin, it is fine.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
I could also see that topics on trivia may be more subject to vandalism, but more serious subjects are likely to be untouched - what fourteen year old kid is likely to be reading articles on, say, quantum theory and the mind, and have the wherewithal to make intelligent changes that will go undetected for months?

The example above of John Seigenthaler is a key example of an entry you would need to be wary of.

I suppose controversial topics such as pro-life/pro-choice or evolution/creationism are areas that may be subject to manipulation by each side.

It's just common sense. As Eduardo says above - what is completely reliable?

Blacknad.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Blacknad, I agree, "Wikipedia is absolutely incredible".

It's a very useful source of information at short notice. I find it's very good on languages for example. As you say if I was doing more detailed research I wouldn't rely on it.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
I agree with you blokes. For me, Wiki's proven to be reliable enough. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that anyone making a serious study wouldn't confine themselves to single source, no matter how illustrious its reputation. Reminds me of when I was a kid. The class would be given a project, and we'd all rush off to the public library and grab Britannica. Then the teacher realised what was happening, and gave us a long and painful lecture on the 'stupidity' of confining our research to a single source. She was absolutely right. Reading the same story told in different ways can do wonders for the understanding of the subject.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three."

What caught my eye about this was "or omissions."

I can find omissions in anything written by anybody on any subject. That, in and of itself, is an irrelevancy. Criticism should focus on errors of fact.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Sure there are an infinity of possible omissions for any topic, but omitting one of the original "sides of the arguement" rises to the level of error as far as I see it.
In omitting the buoyancy theory to describe the shower-curtain effect, Wikipedia had an "error." They did have the original competing hypothesis (Bernoulli effect) and the other main competing ideas, but now they had a new (off the wall) idea as well as losing the first main idea.

~lost in the fog


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: Blacknad
....................>
"Well, of course Larry Sanger is now going to attack Wikipedia - he now owns the competition.

Wikipedia is absolutely incredible. I carry around the downloadable version (1.2 Gig) on my PDA. I can quickly access information on almost any subject and I use it all the time. AND IT'S COMPLETELY FREE.

Of course if I was about to write a college paper then I would not rely upon it and would cross-check all my facts with sources etc. But for the general edification of my noggin, it is fine"

Blacknad.


Absolutely agree with your above statements Blacknad

I really wonder why Larry Sanger has opted out of Wikipedia?
His personal, original, and extremly successful idea.

Could he be a perfectionist? You have got have a very odd fixed
mental attitude, to want to compose an Encyclopedia in the first place.
Before Britannica went digital, people spent their whole lives
editing and revising the enormous leather bound volumes of Britannica. Just to own a set would cost you a years pay.

Strange, that Larry Sanger now wants to have another go at
compiling yet another encyclopedia. The information in it will still be the same?

How many robots is Larry going to have trolling the Web to compete with the 60yrs collecting and collating time of other encyclopedia's, and for how long? For what result?

If he is such a perfectionist he should have stayed with Wikipedia, and improved it, to his personal satisfaction.
This could become his nemesis

Mike Kremer.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Why be so hard on the man, Mike? He did a job to be proud of and deserves our gratitude, right? Maybe his Citizendium.org will be superior, who knows? So, he's aiming high? Well, I say good luck to him. We all have nothing to lose. Let's wait and see.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Isn't evolution wonderful!
It might be nice to have both, maybe even with some linkage.

It'd be nice to have some refereed stuff as well as the free-for-all.

~~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
If you are correct Samwic that "omitting one of the original "sides of the arguement" rises to the level of error as far as I see it." is what happened.

But then we should also note that they chose to test 42 articles and we all know that 42 is the answer ... not the question.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Why be so hard on the man, Mike? He did a job to be proud of and deserves our gratitude, right? Maybe his Citizendium.org will be superior, who knows? ..........>


Ok, point taken.

His Beta version is up and running.
Looks like, feels like, acts like Wikipedia.

.........and they will take you on, as long as you can prove your correct name, etc.

Mike Kremer.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Thanks for the info Mike.

DA, the white mice obviously know more about wikipedia than I do, as I couldn't find any "42" reference.

Maybe helping Citizendium with 'shower-curtain effect' will reveal all.

~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Samwick wrote:

"I couldn't find any "42" reference."

From Blacknad's link:

"Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three. Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found — including misinterpretations of important concepts — four came from each source, the journal reported."

The white mice obviously know quite a bit. Perhaps their experiment is still going on.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

I really wonder why Larry Sanger has opted out of Wikipedia?
His personal, original, and extremly successful idea.


The Wikipedia article on Larry Sanger states:

"Jimmy Wales, who is the current Wikimedia Foundation Chairman Emeritus, has publicly disputed since 2004 that Sanger is a co-founder[13] of Wikipedia. Wales described Sanger as having been merely a subordinate employee,[1] and stated of the co-founder claim "I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable".[14] Sanger concedes that it was Wales alone who conceived of an encyclopedia that non-experts could contribute to, i.e., the Nupedia.[15] However, Sanger maintains that it was he who brought the wiki concept to Wales and suggested it be applied to Nupedia and that, after some initial skepticism, Wales agreed to try it. (Wales has claimed that one Jeremy Rosenfeld first suggested the idea of a wiki to him, though he claimed earlier, in October 2001, that "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software."[7]) Sanger also maintains that he "came up with the name 'Wikipedia', a silly name for what was at first a very silly project."[15] In response to Wales' view of his role in Wikipedia, Sanger posted on his personal webpage a collection of links which he claimed confirmed his co-founder role.[2] Sanger has also provided evidence that he is the co-founder of Wikipedia, by referencing earlier versions of Wikipedia pages,[16][17][18][19] citing press releases from Wikipedia in the years of 2002 - 2004,[20][21][22] and asserting that early media coverage articles[23][24] stated Wales and Sanger are the co-founders.[1][2] In review, Larry Sanger conceived of the wiki-based encyclopedia as a strategic solution to Nupedia's inefficiency problems, and spearheaded and pursued the project as its leader in its first year.[15] Further, Sanger has been widely described in the media as a co-founder."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger

He personally states why he left:

"Later, in December 2004, Sanger wrote a critical article for the website Kuro5hin, in which he admitted that there had existed "a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project" that had also accounted for his departure.[10] While claiming "to appreciate the merits of Wikipedia fully" and to know and support "the mission and broad policy outlines of Wikipedia very well", Sanger maintained that there are serious problems with the project. There was, he wrote, a lack of public perception of credibility, and the project put "difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" into too much prominence; these problems, he maintained, were a feature of the project's "anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise"."

Interesting stuff, especially the last sentence. The very thing that makes it so great also dooms it.

Blacknad.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Interesting, Blacknad. Puts a different slant on the politics. I wouldn't dispute Sanger's point. A few minutes on the net is enough to realise that there are a great number of people spending a great deal of time using this 'information highway' as an information garbage dump. No wonder that Wiki has credibility problems in some quarters. There are forums that seem to reject anything quoted from it without verification from an 'expert' source.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5