wikipedia, trust it?
 

Wikipedia is often cited in threads here as gospel truth simply because it's on the internet.
The vast majority of Wikipedia contributors and editors are under the age of 25. Many of the administrators (senior editors) are in their teens. This has been established by a survey conducted in 2003 and in various interviews with Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of the enterprise.

The truth is that teenagers cannot do the referencing and research that are the prerequisite to serious scholarship - unless you stretch these words to an absurd limit. Research is not about hoarding facts. It is about identifying and applying context and about possessing a synoptic view of ostensibly unrelated data.

Moreover, teenagers can't tell hype from fact and fad from fixture. They lack the perspectives that life and learning -structured, frontal, hierarchical learning - bring with them.

Knowledge is not another democratic institution. It is hierarchical for good reason and the hierarchy is built on merit and the merit is founded on learning.

It is not surprising that the Wikipedia emerged in the USA whose "culture" consists of truncated attention spans, snippets and soundbites, shortcuts and cliff notes. The Wikipedia is a pernicious counter-cultural phenomenon. It does not elevate or celebrate knowledge. The Wikipedia degrades knowledge by commoditizing it and by removing the filters and the barriers to entry that have proven so essential hitherto.

Wikipdians boast that the articles in their "encyclopedia" are replete with citations and references. But citations from which sources and references to which works and authors? Absent the relevant credentials and education, how can an editor tell the difference between information and disinformation, fact and hearsay, truth and confabulation?

Knowledge is not comprised of lists of facts, "facts", factoids, and rumors, the bread and butter of the Wikipedia. Real facts have to be verified, classified, and arranged within a historical and cultural context. Wikipedia articles read like laundry lists of information gleaned from secondary sources and invariably lack context and deep, true understanding of their subject matter.

A recent (late 2006) study by Heather Hopkins from Hitwise demonstrates the existence of a pernicious feedback loop between Google, Wikipedia, MySpace, and Blogspot. Wikipedia gets 54% of its traffic from Google search results. The majority of Wikipedia visitors then proceed to MySpace or Blogspot, both of which use Google as their search service and serve Google-generated advertisements.

Google has changed its search algorithm in late 2005-early 2006. I have been monitoring 154 keywords on Google since 1999. Of these, the number one (#1) search result in 128 keywords is now a Wikipedia article. More than a quarter (38 out of 128) of these "articles" are what the Wikipedia calls "stubs" (one or two sentences to be expanded by Wikipedians in the future). Between 7 and 10 of the articles that made it to the much-coveted number one spot are ... empty pages, placeholders, yet to be written! (These results were obtained in early 2007).

This is Google's policy now: Wikipedia articles regardless of their length or quality or even mere existence are placed by Google's algorithm high up in the search results. Google even makes a Wikipedia search engine available to Webmasters for their Websites. The relationship between Google and Wikipedia is clearly intimate and mutually-reinforcing.

Google's new algorithm, codenamed Big Daddy, still calculates the popularity of Websites by counting incoming links. An incoming link is a link to a given Website placed on an unrelated page somewhere on the Web. The more numerous such links - the higher the placement in Google's search results pages. To avoid spamming and link farms, Google now rates the quality of "good and bad Internet neighborhoods". Not all incoming links are treated equally. Some Internet properties are shunned. Links from such "bad" Websites actually contribute negatively to the overall score.

The top results in all 154 keywords I have been diligently monitoring since 1999 have changed dramatically since April 2006. The only common thread in all these upheavals is one: the more incoming links from MySpace, Digg, Tehnorati and similar Internet properties a Website has - the higher it is placed in the search results.

In other words: if Website A has 700 incoming links from 700 different Websites and website B has 700 incoming links, all of them from various pages on MySpace, Website B is ranked (much) higher in the search results. This holds true even when both Websites A and B sport the same PageRank. This holds true even if the bulk of Website A's incoming links come from "good properties" in "good Internet neighborhoods". Incoming links from MySpace trump every other category of incoming links.

An unsettling pattern emerges:

Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" whose "editors" are mostly unqualified teenagers and young adults is touted by Google as an authoritative source of information. In search results, it is placed well ahead of sources of veritable information such as universities, government institutions, the home pages of recognized experts, the online full-text content of peer-reviewed professional and scholarly publications, real encyclopedias (such as the Encarta), and so on.

MySpace whose 110 million users are predominantly prepubescent and adolescents now dictates what Websites will occupy the first search results in Google's search results pages. It is very easy to spam MySpace. It is considered by some experts to be a vast storehouse of link farms masquerading as "social networks".

Google has vested, though unofficial and unannounced and, therefore, undisclosed interests in both Wikipedia and MySpace. Wikipedia visitors end up on various properties whose search and ad placement technologies are Google's and Wikipedia would have shriveled into insignificance had it not been to Google's relentless promotion of its content. Author Bio:

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East.

He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, Global Politician, PopMatters, eBookWeb , and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He was the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Wiki is only as good as the information posted there. ANYONE can post there so anyone who takes Wiki as the gospel truth is fooling themselves.

Its a reference only and not a proven one at that.

Probably equivalent to most general references. Good for a superficial review of any topic but confirmation is up to the reader.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

I used to trust it, until I saw nostatic's detailed wiki write-up of himself ;)

ba da bump. I'm here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress.

:rolleyes: Pot & Kettle?

Any reference is only as good as the data contained there... I use Wiki and have found it to be very interesting, informative and mostly accurate...

Does anyone know where it is based? I heard it was based in St. Pete Florida of all places.

Anyone know?

My aren't we a sourpuss?

I think you're missing the point. Why be so negative- why not show any interest in the merits of Wikipedia? Or how Wiki is really the embodiment of Web2.0, and another example of open-source collaboration- a concept that this planet is going to have to figure out a way to manage.

The site was originally an attempt to create an online encylcopedia, and yes, managed by scholars. In the end, it ran out of money, and was opened to the masses.

The result is a fascinating collaboration effort, albeit one in it's infancy. It really is a way for humans to contribute to and collect knowledge for the benefit of mankind.

I think by merely poo-pooing Wiki for what it is not, instead of recognizing the future impact of global collaboration and information sharing on businesses and the information poor, you've hardly told a story.

I would liken it to me judging a 2 year old's poor motor skills, inability to concentrate, and poor table manners as a human lacking any value.

These "kids" that are managing wiki may one day be the pioneers of the next information revolution.

Yes, St Pete FL. Founder is Jimmy Wales, my Ex's brother. He's even been listed in Time magazine and one of to 100 most influential people blah blah blah....

No, Wikipedia will not "grow" into any "authoritative" information source -- at least not anytime soon.

It can be a place to get some information on subjects, but its reputation as a "rubbish" site is already well established. They've annoyed too many of the real experts on subjects that they will not have competent contributors for a long time to come.

When idiot teenagers are given the authority to edit (or completely silence) real experts on subjects, and the "mob" determines what is the "best" information, the result is the reign of mediocre information -- which is what Wikipeida represents.

I've seen entries changed several times in one week for political purposes.

I'll say no more...


KT

The danger in Wiki is DISINFORMATION that a Retarded public (kids) will take as the gospel, and thus you can SPIN History or Facts in whichever direction the wind blows.

Oh ouch, I wish I were a teenager who hasn't been around, well not really!:rolleyes:

best definition of Pelican OT I've seen yet.

so where did you cut and paste that from? You know, serious scholarship frowns upon plagarism.

As for the article on me, Justin Hall put that up. I've only done some updating :p

He copied it from GlobalPolitician.com.

and as a student of Irony...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1186366400.jpg

Uh no, it was written by Sam Vaknin. I was not trying to infer that I wrote it myself, I merely posted it to encourage discussion on the subject. He happens to be a better writer that I. He is able to express some views in a more easily understood fashion than than I would be able to. So every cut and paste article is plagarism? Only if I put my name to it. BTW it didn't come from Global Politcian.com, maybe it was there too, I don't know. Your barbs really don't nullify the truth contained in the article, so why not keep to topic and leave the personal attacks in your mind.

no personal attack...just pointing out some irony. You post something without attribution that takes the youngsters at wikipedia to task for lack of rigor and scholarship. You cut and paste without citing the original author violating one of the prime directives of scholarly publication. Then you confuse infer and imply.

Wikipedia is far from perfect. I believe I've posted that on a number of occasions. It has strengths and weaknesses. I will offer that having millions of eyes is often better for catching false information and balancing bias than single editors. Everything has bias and revisionist history. If you think Encylopedia Brittanica was "true" then I would suggest that you either don't think critically or don't really understand scholarship and the editorial process.

"Then you confuse infer and imply".quote from Nostatic Ouch another slam. Sorry I'm not an academic, just thought it was an interesting topic. Didn't mean to incur your wrath. See ya