Why Wikipedia works

The great Stephen Pollard, like my colleague Oliver Kamm, does not admire Wikipedia.

And today he has posted about an alteration to his Wikipedia entry that he was "told about by a friend". He says it proves that:

No entry on Wikipedia should ever be regarded as reliable.

Here's what the rogue editor had added to Stephen's biog:

Today, Pollard is one of three bloggers for The Spectator, with the majority of his posts pouring praise on the far right Israeli Likud, in common with fellow blogger, Melanie Phillips. These bloggers have cultivated a band of hard right Israeli symphathisers whose comments contain a level of vitriol against Muslims that can be offensive.

I accept that this is wrong. But here's the thing about Wikipedia - you can remove errors when you spot them. And people do - unlike with other publications.

So, having read Stephen's post I thought I would have a go. I created an account on Wikipedia and went in to change the offending paragraph.

Only I couldn't. Because someone else was in the entry removing the paragraph altogether.

Stephen's post was intended to demonstrate the weakness of Wikipedia. I think he demonstrated the opposite.

Comments

[WHS]

Of course one can remove Wikipedia's errors but then it comes down to what one thinks an "error" is, the definition being so subjective that conflict perpetually arises. Wikipedia also tends to be left-wing so this sort of anti-Zionism does recur, usually in less vitriolic terms though.

What I mind more than the inaccuracy is the damned priggish rudeness of other posters there when one writes something that they perceive as an error but you regard as correct.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

Wikipedia is a wonderful creation, but no thoughtful person regards it as definitive, but then no thoughtful person regards any one book or reference as definitive.

In a sense, since all of us are constantly changing or revealing hitherto unknown aspects of ourselves, the changes (discounting malicious ones) made to Wikipedia only reflect this reality.

As an avid reader of biography and history, I know there are an amazing number of errors or poor interpretations that creep into books, even prestigious books.

Also, the discovery of new material - as a stash of letters or DNA testing on remains - often changes the understanding of a previously accepted historical interpretation.

Just like the physical nature of light, behaving both as particles and waves, our history is subject to different understandings from different perspectives. And just like particles under the Uncertainty Principle, we can never fix the precise nature of an event. Merely observing it, changes its properties.

Like Einstein, my temperament would be more at ease if the Creator did not play with dice, but we know now that clearly He/She does.

[John Scott]

That depends - if you think the weakness of Wikipedia is that it can never be reliable (I assume "ever" is a typo in the first quote) then you are arguably correct. However, at any given moment in time, Wikipedia is potentially highly unreliable. That is incredibly important. Most readers do not consult a reference work, find out what interests them and then come back later to check the reference work has stayed the same.

If Wikipedia is misleading/incorrect/abused before they consult it, then they will receive misleading information. Later correction is valuable, but that particular reader will go away with an incorrect impression. Given the way people read, that means they will probably keep the incorrect information in mind and it will inform their later understanding of topics (what economists call "cognitive bias").

In essence, advocates of Wikipedia are concerned with long-term, prospective quality control spread over the readership as a whole. People who worry about Wikipedia tend to be more concerned with the current state of the material and its impact upon individual readers.

[Tom Greeves]

"Entry on Wikipedia should ever be regarded as reliable."

Is this one of the most ironic typos ever?!

[Laurence Wells]

Wikipedia is a good stockpile of information, but since it is liable to be changed all the time, it is certainly not appropriate to quote references from it in official documents and journals.

It is important that one writes from a neutral perspective. People have different views on various matters, so it would be appropriate to include their views and emphesise that these are their views if it has a significant impact.

[Tony Francis]

I have written several articles on Wiki. My experience has been that anything involving a religious topic will immediately end up in total chaos. Those with different religious beliefs swoop in and start editing, making the whole article unreadable. Then the atheists come in and try to delete the whole thing. After a week or so, the religious article will be tagged several times: "not a subject for Wiki"; "contains original research"; "contains a personal opinion"; "not written to Wiki standard"; etc. These are usually placed by a "committed atheists working to end all religion in the world".
I have had much better luck writing on obscure topics with little general interest. Wiki is useful to a point. But a good Wiki article should have references or outside links to direct your research. If you want to write on Wiki, make sure your article has lots of good references, and write them down in the article. Also write in a neutral fashion. Then it is fun. Otherwise, you run the risk of getting into a fretful war with some nut who has an agenda.
Some Wiki articles are excellent. Others appear to have been written by a high school student. Unfortunately, one has to have a certain depth of knowledge to discern what is good or bad on Wiki. As someone posted above, you wouldn't rely on one text to support your research. You should consult as many sources as you can find.