|
Home > Archive > Architecture > December 2005 > Wiki Tiki Tavi
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Hmmm....it seems that it might be a reliable reference after all.
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...ws/13408982.htm
From the article:
Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.
Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule
Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in
Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.
**********************************
Of 42 articles, EACH article had 4 errors?
What am I missing here?
What if a brain surgeon made 4 errors in each of the surgery's he performed?
Or a lawyer made 4 errors in each of the trials?
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-15, 9:21 am |
| Don wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> From the article:
> Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.
> Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule
> Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in
> Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.
>
> **********************************
>
> Of 42 articles, EACH article had 4 errors?
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> What if a brain surgeon made 4 errors in each of the surgery's he performed?
> Or a lawyer made 4 errors in each of the trials?
What makes you think they don't?
R
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> What makes you think they don't?
The free market tends to weed that stuff out pretty quick.
That was the point of the thread a few weeks ago about Wiki.
Wiki has discredited itself, by the nature of how it is edited, and thus is
not to be taken seriously.
This has been bantered about on many of the major news sites.
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-15, 11:21 am |
| Don wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> The free market tends to weed that stuff out pretty quick.
One would like to think so, but let's face it, a doctor or lawyer
having spent hundreds of thousands on an education is not going to quit
just because someone complains, or even sues them. They have to get
their license yanked and given the boot.
> That was the point of the thread a few weeks ago about Wiki.
> Wiki has discredited itself, by the nature of how it is edited, and thus is
> not to be taken seriously.
I disagree. I don't take any one source as infallible - not even the
new Pope...whatever his name is. Wiki is an easily accessible synopsis
of knowledge on most subjects, weighted in favor of geekdom. You can
track the changes to the page and see which people changed what.
Sometimes it's a back and forth thing with changes getting reversed and
changed again, but it usually goes in a pretty clear direction.
> This has been bantered about on many of the major news sites.
No agenda there, but I take the point it is not perfect. The
Encyclopedia Britannica, which most people, prior to the internet
changing everything, would have said _was_ pretty much perfect.
R
| |
| 3D Peruna 2005-12-15, 11:21 am |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:54eof.4832$nm.546@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Wiki has discredited itself, by the nature of how it is edited, and thus
> is not to be taken seriously.
> This has been bantered about on many of the major news sites.
Yes...because they LIKE to banter this stuff about...facts notwithstanding.
I think that the article was referring (but no way of knowing because of how
poorly written the article was -- a clue there) that there were a total of 4
errors, not 4 errors in each one.
I can also say if you pulled out your old World Book you'd find
significantly more errors...
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-15, 12:21 pm |
| 3D Peruna (s) wrote:
>
> Yes...because they LIKE to banter this stuff about...facts notwithstanding.
> I think that the article was referring (but no way of knowing because of how
> poorly written the article was -- a clue there) that there were a total of 4
> errors, not 4 errors in each one.
This what was written in that article:
"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."
That's the part that got me - serious errors of important concepts. I
don't mind if the date is off a little or someone's name is misspelled,
but getting the basic concepts wrong is ridiculous.
> I can also say if you pulled out your old World Book you'd find
> significantly more errors...
Word. I had a friend who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Disease.
Closest thing at hand at that time was an old World Book. Must've been
15 or 20 years old. I read the entry and nearly fainted. It said that
Hodgkin's was 90% fatal! Then I checked a more recent source and found
out that it was pretty easily treated with a chemo cocktail.
R
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> One would like to think so, but let's face it, a doctor or lawyer
> having spent hundreds of thousands on an education is not going to quit
> just because someone complains, or even sues them.
A $10mil settlement would cause just about anyone to staighten up and fly
right, not to mention the huge rise in their insurance premiums.
They have to get
> their license yanked and given the boot.
Snatching their licenses is a minor inconvenience because they can just go
to another state and get another one, forge a new one, or just practice
without the license.
I guess where all of this ends up is in the arena of credibility.
Who are you more apt to trust, someone that has lied to you or someone that
has never lied to you?
By opening itself up to editing by anybody and everybody Wiki have damaged
their own credibility.
Other than a quick general reference, to be cross referenced elsewhere, it
can serve no real purpose.
Maybe I'm not understanding the intent of your original post?
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-15, 1:21 pm |
| Don wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> A $10mil settlement would cause just about anyone to staighten up and fly
> right, not to mention the huge rise in their insurance premiums.
Again, one would like to think so. But you're assuming that the errors
are catastrophic and would result in huge judgements and premium
increases. I'd think that most errors would be smaller and not
automatically fall under malpractice or negligence. I had a root canal
done some years back - the guy drilled a little too deep, but my
dentist "fixed" it. I didn't sue or file a complaint so no ding on his
record. I didn't think it was negligence or a major issue. If the guy
had drilled through my jaw, I'd have sure as shit made a stink
(unintentional and malodorous pun).
> They have to get
>
> Snatching their licenses is a minor inconvenience because they can just go
> to another state and get another one, forge a new one, or just practice
> without the license.
> I guess where all of this ends up is in the arena of credibility.
> Who are you more apt to trust, someone that has lied to you or someone that
> has never lied to you?
> By opening itself up to editing by anybody and everybody Wiki have damaged
> their own credibility.
> Other than a quick general reference, to be cross referenced elsewhere, it
> can serve no real purpose.
>
> Maybe I'm not understanding the intent of your original post?
Maybe. I'm just relaying some information about Wiki vs. Britannica.
They're both imperfect, but which one do you think is more likely to be
updated and accepting of change and revisions? I've corrected a couple
of things on Wiki, small stuff, but it's not an obsession - yet. ;)
Knowledge and facts are fluid, constantly changing. Just read the news
about anything in the health section. "Known" links/causative agents
are now questioned. Same goes in most fields. Vapor barrier on the
inside or outside? These things need clarification. It's on of the
reasons I'm active in a few newsgroups - to help share what I know and
learn some more. That's Wiki. When I find some time, I plan on
perusing some of my pet topics and see if I can help out.
R
| |
|
| > Of 42 articles, EACH article had 4 errors?
>
> What am I missing here?
I'll say it again (well probably paraphrase) and maybe this time certain
folks won't assume I mean what I don't mean:
I put pretty much the same stock in Wikipedia as I do a normal print
encyclopedia.
What you may be missing is the words "or omissions". What counts as an
omission? (heck, what counts as an error?) Most of what they tell you
through grade school is simplified for ease of understanding.
Make that high school.
Err.. undergrad.
Err.. well, pretty much everything.
| |
|
| > I disagree. I don't take any one source as infallible - not even the
> new Pope
You'd be incorrect to in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
> ...whatever his name is
Which undermines the force of your statement.
> Encyclopedia Britannica, which most people, prior to the internet
> changing everything, would have said _was_ pretty much perfect.
Another lesson in the perils of democracy.
| |
|
| > Yes...because they LIKE to banter this stuff about...
I didn't read very carefully, but found no reference in the article to any
of the actual errors/omissions found by the study.
I note that the study was of a sample so small as to constitute an error in
its own right.
> I think that the article was referring (but no way of knowing because of
how
> poorly written the article was -- a clue there) that there were a total of
4
> errors, not 4 errors in each one.
There was one sample statistic cited:
:: Based on 42 articles reviewed
There were two "error count" statistics cited:
:: the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or
omissions, while Britannica had three.
:: Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found
Since they said "articles" not "topics" and I'm assuming an equal number
from each source, I'm assuming:
(21*3) + (21*4) = 147 total errors and omissions
of which
4 (4/147 = 2.7%) are deemed "serious" by "experts".
I wonder if "experts" chose articles based on their pet topics and theories.
I wonder if any "serious error" of "misinterpretation of [an] important
concept" boils down to "doesn't follow my pet theory which is keeping me in
tenure 'cause I'm 'edgy'."
| |
|
| > but getting the basic concepts wrong is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous until they tell us what these errors are and we can
judge their hyperbole for ourselves.
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-15, 3:21 pm |
| gruhn wrote:
>
> I didn't read very carefully, but found no reference in the article to any
> of the actual errors/omissions found by the study.
Go to the source:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...ll/438900a.html
There's a little more information there and has a couple critical
points, one of which you touched on in your other post. Omissions.
I've looked up things, or tried to, on Wiki only to find there was no
entry at all. The other point is the readability - some of the
articles seem to be written by that same guy who translates all
instruction manuals.
> I note that the study was of a sample so small as to constitute an error in
> its own right.
Maybe the small sample was a shortcoming, and therefore not
"conclusive", but I wouldn't lump it in as an error.
R
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2005-12-15, 6:21 pm |
|
gruhn wrote:
>
> I'll say it again (well probably paraphrase) and maybe this time certain
> folks won't assume I mean what I don't mean:
>
> I put pretty much the same stock in Wikipedia as I do a normal print
> encyclopedia.
>
> What you may be missing is the words "or omissions". What counts as an
> omission? (heck, what counts as an error?) Most of what they tell you
> through grade school is simplified for ease of understanding.
>
> Make that high school.
>
> Err.. undergrad.
>
> Err.. well, pretty much everything.
I based my outhouse design on,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture
and the neighbours now refer to it as the Taj Mah Hole.
| |
|
| "gruhn"> wrote
> I wonder if "experts" chose articles based on their pet topics and
> theories.
I wonder what the definition of an *expert* is these days.
| |
|
| "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> Taj Mah Hole.
That sounds like what happens when you're drunk and your finger goes through
the paper.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2005-12-17, 8:21 pm |
|
Don wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
>
> That sounds like what happens when you're drunk and your finger goes through
> the paper.
The more I thought about your reply the, crappier I felt.
| |
|
| "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> The more I thought about your reply the, crappier I felt.
Yeah, but don't think too deeply about it, or you'll turn gay.
|
|
|
|
|