State of Wikipedia. More often than not, Wikipedia is the top result in Google searches, and more often than not, given a choice I'll point to the Wikipedia page as the definitive source, without knowing whether the text was written by an impartial third party with good information, or someone else; while I know that in areas where I have expertis, the Wikipedia pages are the result of "edit wars" between partisans, trolls and the people being written about. It's hard for me to know, for example, when reading a biography of Augustus Caesar (I'm a fan of the HBO series Rome) if it is the result of the same impossibly conflicted process.
Microsoft is the latest to fall in the trap. Better to stay way. They are criticized by Jimmy Wales, who has no credibility in this area, having been caught editing his own biography, removing mention of his collaborator. Wales is aware of the basic flaw in Wikipedia, his actions indicate that, yet he isn't above criticizing Microsoft for trying to hire someone to do what Jimmy did for himself. To be clear, what Microsoft did is absolutely wrong. If that practice were to escalate (and who knows that it hasn't) then Wikipedia would just reflect the views of rich corporations and individuals. The biography of Bill Gates would talk glowingly of his philanthropy, and downplay (or omit) his conviction for antitrust.
To me, in areas outside my expertise, it seems that Wikipedia is an excellent source of information. But that's the problem. In areas that I know better, I can see its flaws. I play by the rules and don't fix the mistakes. That leaves it to the trolls to write the story. Somehow we have to resolve this. And Wales should recuse himself from being the judge in these matters. [Scripting News]
8:55:56 AM  Google It!.
|
|
