Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#21

Post by ajross »

reaperducer wrote: post #9

Things like this are the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. People with no knowledge or expertise are able to change facts at will, maliciously or otherwise. Someone once compared looking things up on Wikipedia to asking a question of ten random strangers at a bus stop. I think it's gotten much worse since then.

> Things like this are the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. People with no knowledge or expertise are able to change facts at will, maliciously or otherwise.

Have you stopped reading Wikipedia though? That seems like the real test. Who cares if you "contribute"? Is it your go-to source for random research or is it not? It is for me. If it's not for you, then what is?

"Things like this" are just evidence that encyclopedias are not reliable sources for items[1] involving controversy or interpretation. They never have been and they never will be. That's what analysis is for. The job of the encyclopedia, if it's done right, is just to document the existence of an argument and the lack of consensus (and in the modern world link to the relevant conflicting sources). And... it seems like Wikipedia did its job here?

[1] Like the apparrently apocryphal inspiration for The Human Stain -- honestly this seems like a genuine item of controversy here. Artists are not, in general, considered authoritative sources for their own works and for good reason. History is filled with great works where the author lied about them a little.

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#22

Post by reaperducer »

ajross wrote: post #21
reaperducer wrote: post #9

Things like this are the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. People with no knowledge or expertise are able to change facts at will, maliciously or otherwise. Someone once compared looking things up on Wikipedia to asking a question of ten random strangers at a bus stop. I think it's gotten much worse since then.

> Things like this are the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. People with no knowledge or expertise are able to change facts at will, maliciously or otherwise. Have you stopped reading Wikipedia though? That seems like the real test. Who cares if you "contribute"? Is it your go-to source for random research or is it not? It is for me. If it's not for you, then what is? "Things like this" are just evidence th…

> Have you stopped reading Wikipedia though?

Almost entirely, yes. The only thing I use it for now is looking up wether certain celebrities are alive or dead.

Who cares if you "contribute"?

Wikipedia should care when anyone with above average knowledge of a certain field is turned away. The result is people filling those gaps with less-accurate information.

My point is that if I've given up contributing to Wikipedia, then it's not a stretch to think that people even better/smarter than me have, as well. Wikipedia's arrogance and other flaws are making it a repository of mediocre information, not the best available information. Which brings us back to the bus stop analogy.

Artists are not, in general, considered authoritative sources for their own works and for good reason

You should tell that to whomever it is that organizes the hundreds of thousands of guest lectures from artists that are held around the world each year.

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#23

Post by ajross »

reaperducer wrote: post #22
ajross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things like this are the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. People with no knowledge or expertise are able to change facts at will, maliciously or otherwise. Have you stopped reading Wikipedia though? That seems like the real test. Who cares if you "contribute"? Is it your go-to source for random research or is it not? It is for me. If it's not for you, then what is? "Things like this" are just evidence th…

> Have you stopped reading Wikipedia though? Almost entirely, yes. The only thing I use it for now is looking up wether certain celebrities are alive or dead. Who cares if you "contribute"? Wikipedia should care when anyone with above average knowledge of a certain field is turned away. The result is people filling those gaps with less-accurate information. My point is that if I've given up contributing to Wikipedia,…

> Almost entirely, yes. The only thing I use it for now is looking up wether certain celebrities are alive or dead.

But where do you look up where crabs sit relative to scorpions and spiders in arthopoda? Or when Kubernetes was released? Or for a quick refresher on who exactly Samson was in scripture? Seriously, those are just my wikipedia hits for the last few hours. I mean, yeah, I could surely find that info elsewhere. But I click on the wikipedia link because I know it's going to give me good information in a format I understand and can rely on.

> You should tell that to whomever it is that organizes the hundreds of thousands of guest lectures from artists that are held around the world each year.

How is that responsive? "Have something important to say" and "should be trusted above all other sources" are rather different criteria (and, to be clear: make up pretty much a precise microcosm of our current argument!). Listen to artists, their opinions are important. They still occasionally lie about their own junk and those controversies deserve documentation too.

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#24

Post by ubernostrum »

neilk wrote: post #17

Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge. It's an encyclopedia. Many people seem confused about what that means. Primary source: I say $foo! (blog, YouTube, opinion piece) Secondary source: neilk said $foo. (The New Yorker) Tertiary source: Reliable, fact-checked publications, such as The New Yorker, have said that neilk said $foo. (Wikipedia) Wikipedia is a tertiary source. At best WP represents the range of viewpo…

Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge. It's an encyclopedia. Many people seem confused about what that means.

Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia we find:

Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article.

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#25

Post by beefsack »

ubernostrum wrote: post #24
neilk wrote: post #17

Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge. It's an encyclopedia. Many people seem confused about what that means. Primary source: I say $foo! (blog, YouTube, opinion piece) Secondary source: neilk said $foo. (The New Yorker) Tertiary source: Reliable, fact-checked publications, such as The New Yorker, have said that neilk said $foo. (Wikipedia) Wikipedia is a tertiary source. At best WP represents the range of viewpo…

Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge. It's an encyclopedia. Many people seem confused about what that means. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia we find: Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article.

That's not a useful comparison, "sum of all knowledge" isn't the same as "summary".

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#26

Post by forapurpose »

maboo wrote: post #15

This is why Everipedia has "Verified Accounts" - so that Roth can have his say on the wiki page, and people know it's coming from him... One of, like, 100 Wikipedia problems that Everipedia solves, simply by mimicking other, more modern websites like instagram/twitter.

Everipedia seems far less reliable than even Wikipedia (which I don't trust). Based on what I read on their website, it's a mix of fake information and paid-for propaganda. Some excerpts from their website (EDIT: from last December, maybe the text has changed since then):

* Header for their footnotes sections: All information for ... [this topics's] wiki comes from the below links. Any source is valid, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Pictures, videos, biodata, and files relating to Everipedia are also acceptable encyclopedic sources.

* Celebrities have verified accounts. Not only does this allow them to have conversations with their fans on their own page, but they can also contribute information to their own pages... without having to rely on secondary sources! [Yes, they really used an exclamation point!]

* The Premium Service they offer to the subjects of pages (e.g., to celebrities and companies, not to users): Features Offered / - Verified Page and Account / - In-house Editors write the content / - No ads / - 24/7 Prioritized customer support / - Social Media Promotion / - Link to Website of Your Choice

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#27

Post by ubernostrum »

beefsack wrote: post #25
ubernostrum wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge. It's an encyclopedia. Many people seem confused about what that means. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia we find: Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia, with each topic covered encyclopedically in one article.

That's not a useful comparison, "sum of all knowledge" isn't the same as "summary".

A "summary of all human knowledge" that deliberately follows up with "well, actually not all human knowledge" is either dishonest or a failure.

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#28

Post by tomtimtall »

People, the author included seem to think it’s wrong in some way that the author is not just assumed to be an absolute authority on his work, though I think it’s quite appropriate and that this example illustrates exactly why you would want the author to provide his oppinion and statements in a manor that is referencable.

If he had been allowed to simple change the page at will, then he could at any time in the futur decide to change the statement after the fact of what the inspiration was, as it stands now even if he change me his mind the New Yorker story can be referenced as a fact that he at that time made these claims.

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#29

Post by siddboots »

ubernostrum wrote: post #27
beefsack wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a useful comparison, "sum of all knowledge" isn't the same as "summary".

A "summary of all human knowledge" that deliberately follows up with "well, actually not all human knowledge" is either dishonest or a failure.

They are different statements. They just sound similar.

"The sum of all human knowledge" would suggest that everything in Wikipedia is known to be true, and everything known to be true is in Wikipedia.

In "a summary of all human knowledge," the indefinite article and the word summary both imply a point of view. The sentence says that the knowledge has been abridged, and therefore, that there exists an abridger. It says that Wikipedia is one among many possible summaries.

Re: An Open Letter to Wikipedia (2012)

#30

Post by forapurpose »

ajross wrote: post #23
reaperducer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you stopped reading Wikipedia though? Almost entirely, yes. The only thing I use it for now is looking up wether certain celebrities are alive or dead. Who cares if you "contribute"? Wikipedia should care when anyone with above average knowledge of a certain field is turned away. The result is people filling those gaps with less-accurate information. My point is that if I've given up contributing to Wikipedia,…

> Almost entirely, yes. The only thing I use it for now is looking up wether certain celebrities are alive or dead. But where do you look up where crabs sit relative to scorpions and spiders in arthopoda? Or when Kubernetes was released? Or for a quick refresher on who exactly Samson was in scripture? Seriously, those are just my wikipedia hits for the last few hours . I mean, yeah, I could surely find that info else…

> I know it's [Wikipedia is] going to give me good information

It's not good information, though. You don't know if it's good or bad, which rationally makes the info almost useless for anything serious. In fields I have expertise in, it's often wrong, politically biased, has serious omissions, or elevates trivia to importance.

> where do you look up where crabs sit relative to scorpions and spiders in arthopoda? Or when Kubernetes was released? Or for a quick refresher on who exactly Samson was in scripture?

Encyclopaedia Britannica is a great source IME (though maybe not for Kubernetes), written by experts. If you hit the paywall, then pay (good info isn't free and free info isn't good); or if you are desperate find the page in your favorite search engine and open it from there.

There are many other authoritative sources in their fields. The one thing Wikipedia is good for is the footnotes, which will identify many of them for you.

Post reply on HN