So as I move way through the Shirky book I find myself with many questions about Wikipedia.
I know these multiply authored info tools can seem amazing, but I do wonder greatly about the integrity of the facts. As it says at the top of the Wikipedia page they have in essence a small staff, who cannot be policing the quality or the validity of the facts held within the site.
This can be annoying or at worst dangerous to have a factual seeming piece of info. Hmm... one of the many concerns.
I found a few examples of where the accuracy could be offensive or possible damaging.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html
Here the administrator of an article regarding this author's work told him he could not change the article, because the administrator needed more info to substantiate this claim. The administrator was either protecting a piece of gossip produced info or adhering to real factual standard. After reading the author's open letter I happen to think it was the former.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3193353/
In this one the National Institute of Health says that Wikipedia cannot be relied on as a tool for scientific reference. I am surprised that anyone would go to Wikipedia for medical advice, but still it is mildly disturbing that someone could and get some unreliable info.
I have read how wikipedia works and my untrained opinion so far is that it is lacking in scholarly checks and balances to ensure the integrity of its info. Hmmm
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is its biggest downfall. And encyclopedias have errors too. See: http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
ReplyDeleteI think the living people / arts/ media parts of wikipedia are the dodgiest. I recall the Philip Roth incident and it seemed to me like an officious deal -- adhering to set standards (must be able to link to a source) above all else. But then again, who's to say that a person wouldn't try to get something in their wikipedia entry that was unflattering but true changed? People try to rewrite their own histories all the time.
It's not a cite-worthy source (secondary) nor is it reliable (edits change it daily), but it has a fair amount of validity. As such, it's a good starting place to find search terms/identify key players, try to get the general gist of an unfamiliar topic, and to follow to the actual primary sources that are linked.