Jimbo Wales dumps lover on Wikipedia

Some answers to people who have made points

1. No I'm not an substantial editor of the site, just a grateful user. I am an editor in the sense that I have made small changes and reverts when I've noticed things that are missing or wrong. Just like millions of other people. BTW I don't consider the site to be gospel and neither should anyone else. But it is a hell of a lot better than virtually everything else in every instance I've ever looked at it.

2. I would be interested to know where Wikipedia ever claimed it would replace a traditional encyclopaedia. Perhaps it did make that claim but more likely it just claimed to be a community developed encyclopaedia. Even if it did claim it would replace EB or Encarta I fail to see how that justifies the Reg constantly ragging on it for largely pointless reasons (e.g. Jimbo's affair with some woman).

3. Yes it is a meritocracy. You will find plenty of subject matter experts on the site. You will find plenty of people who tirelessly fix typos, revert vandalism, fix broken links, remove emotive words etc. I can of course see how people on the fringe, disgruntled people might feel there is some kind of cabal in operation if their work conflicts with the way the site works. I can also see that there are going to be plenty of occasions where personalities clash or people disagree. That's too bad, but it doesn't mean it isn't a meritocracy.

4. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is what Wikipedia strives for. Volunteers strike out non-NPOV comments all the time. Wikipedia has some fundamental policies and NPOV is one of them. Thankfully. There are plenty of other ways of flagging an article if you think it is incorrect, starting with the comments tab, but also marking pages for attention, deletion, clean up etc.

5. It is no wonder that some people hate the site. Some people clearly can't or won't follow NPOV and attempt to cast an article around their own opinion and are smacked down for it. There are a lot of biased people in the world. That's too bad, but that is a reason to praise the site not condemn it.

6. The pointless Reg articles will continue. I am sure there is a lot of interesting and valid criticism that could be made of the way Wikipedia works and how it could become better, but prattling on about Jimmy Wales personal life isn't one of them.

@DrXym

1. I think it was fairly safe to say you were some kind of editor once you used the phrase "non-NPOV"

2. From Jimmy's article: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." "The sum of human knowledge" is an encyclopedia slogan. "For free" competes with "not for free", which is the price of traditional encyclopedias.

3. Take a look at my point above. There are subject matter experts on wikipedia but the fact that you can't tell who is an expert and who is an eloquent moron mean that it absolutely is not a meritocracy. A meritocracy means valuing a PhD higher than a GCSE, not valuing JoshuaJ over MkZ because JoshuaJ has 1,240 edits more to his name. And you're overlooking the point of this article. For all you or I know, the Rachel Marsden article was originally written by a Rachel Marsden expert. Then Jimmy came along and overuled that person because Rachel didn't like it.

4. NPOV depends on this not being allowed to happen. If you value it, you must condemn Jimmy for intervening. Again, the story is not that two semi-famous people slept together.

5. I actually have no axe to grind. I simply have no interest in editing a site which holds a core principle of "verifiability, not truth".

On another tack, you seem to be wearing two hats depending on what you want to praise wikipedia for. On the one hand, you're praising it for being a great source of highly accurate information and on the other you're praising it for having plenty of people who correct the ton of inaccurate information that exists.

Wikipedia mystery

What happens if one of the editors' point of view about what is a NPOV is different to my point of view?

Alex

You're quite correct in the assertion that I don't know everything about everything.

Let's say I begin with a baseline of knowing nothing about a particular topic, if I then visit Wikipedia and browse the subject, I will gain some information that I previously didn't have. You point out, that I have no way of knowing at this point, whether that information is factually correct, however, it will undoubtedly have provided me with some pointers so I can go and research the subject more thoroughly and gain the benefit of different perspectives, to enable me to form my own well-rounded opinion.

Your analogy is flawed, in so much as you use drunk-driving as a subset of driving. All drivers are not perfect, in fact, some are drunk drivers.

As an example, off the top of my head, visit Wikipedia and search for the title of a film that you have little knowledge about. Once you have read that article, you will have a list of actors that participated in that film, a rough plot synopsis and some knowledge about the production of the film. What have you gained? More knowledge than you had!

What is your area of expertise? Perhaps you could tell us, and then point us to an article on Wikipedia that is completely wrong in its summary of the subject and would provide no useful starting point for someone wanting to begin researching the subject.

b116er

Hi, no such assertion was made. Whilst it's obvious that we don't know everything, what I asserted was that practically none of us know enough about where an article comes from to ultimately have faith in it as a source of information.

I think it goes without saying that there is nothing like this problem with traditional encyclopedias where the element of distrust in source exists only so far as you can't tell if someone has falsified their qualifications.

I can get information from wikipedia, but I know I can hardly rely on it being true. This is a problem for something claiming to be an encyclopedia of "the sum total of human knowledge". I don't believe I have claimed anywhere that wikipedia is worthless as a starting point (which is exactly how I use it) so I'm not going to try and find a worthless article. What it is not worthy of is being thought of as the source it claims to be.

And it's not just what it claims to be, it's how it's used. How many people don't take the much harder step of verifying the information they find on wikipedia and simply accept it? The list includes journalists, lawyers and scientists, all of whom should know better.

I still stand by my point that you could have equally said "X is flawed, humanity is flawed, therefore get over the flaws of X" unless there is something implicit in what you said that I've overlooked.

Who's Who

How interesting! If DrXym and b199er are not the same person, then they certainly work well together as a team. Clearly he, she, it or they are indeed wearing two hats, as Alex points out.

Clearly

Back into reality for a second PT ;p

I don't contribute to Wikipedia. I must admit, that I don't have the requisite knowledge of any one particular subject, with which to contribute.

I'm here only to point out, that Wikipedia has its uses, and that the unfaltering bad press that it receives here has me question the motive. A little constructive criticism goes a long way, but the flagellation here serves no obvious purpose.

Alex, if indeed the Wikipedia is the "sum total of human knowledge", then perhaps that would include the total of uninformed human knowledge also. Perhaps not what was intended, but there you have it.

As you so rightly point out, there are many among us who would take the information found in therein and quote it verbatim as the gospel truth (that's an oxymoron surely?).Therefore it is perhaps they who deserve to be pilloried, not the source of the information.

There should be no barriers to learning and knowledge, Wikipedia has a large store of information that is available to people speaking many different languages.

If it's the aim of the Register to point out that some of this information is inaccurate, then I accept that, but does it have to be so harsh?

Bite the hand that feeds it, OK, but take the whole arm?

Flagellation

is a fun word to say. Moving on...

"Bite the hand that feeds it, OK, but take the whole arm?"

As of today, I'm inclined to agree you, B166er! Another negative article on Wikipedia is on the front page...There's a reason it matters - misuse of donations being potentially scandalous etc. - but I'm a pretty incessant critic of Wikipedia and even I'm struggling to care. I'm sure Mr Metz will be ever-so disappointed by that.

@Alex

"1. I think it was fairly safe to say you were some kind of editor once you used the phrase "non-NPOV""

Nope, except in the sense I mentioned. I've touched a relatively small number of articles and usually in fairly minor ways. I have one article which I did quite a bit to but which I haven't touched for ages. NPOV is a very easy term to encounter especially if you read the site, look through the version history or read the help pages when writing your own content.

"2. From Jimmy's article: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." "The sum of human knowledge" is an encyclopedia slogan. "For free" competes with "not for free", which is the price of traditional encyclopedias."

So you still haven't found where he claimed it was a replacement for a traditional encyclopaedia?

"3. Take a look at my point above. There are subject matter experts on wikipedia but the fact that you can't tell who is an expert and who is an eloquent moron mean that it absolutely is not a meritocracy. A meritocracy means valuing a PhD higher than a GCSE, not valuing JoshuaJ over MkZ because JoshuaJ has 1,240 edits more to his name. And you're overlooking the point of this article. For all you or I know, the Rachel Marsden article was originally written by a Rachel Marsden expert. Then Jimmy came along and overuled that person because Rachel didn't like it."

Well you can find out simply by asking those people. Everyone has a home page. Most wikipedia volunteers fill them out in some manner.

"4. NPOV depends on this not being allowed to happen. If you value it, you must condemn Jimmy for intervening. Again, the story is not that two semi-famous people slept together."

The article states Jimmy Wales recused himself from touching the article due to personal involvement so what is your point?

"5. I actually have no axe to grind. I simply have no interest in editing a site which holds a core principle of "verifiability, not truth"."

Well you tell me how you know what is true if you think articles should not back up their statements. You see the problem is that if you think Wikipedia should state the truth without verification you will end up with a bunch of articles proclaiming Slayer the best band in the world, whites superior to blacks, Islam to be the one true faith, that abortion is wrong etc. The whole purpose of verification and of NPOV is to stop such things happening and to use them to revert changes when they do. A side effect of course is that a lot of people take reversions too personally.

It isn't surprising Wikipedia has enemies. I'm just unsure why the Register is hating on the site so much.

""On another tack, you seem to be wearing two hats depending on what you want to praise wikipedia for. On the one hand, you're praising it for being a great source of highly accurate information and on the other you're praising it for having plenty of people who correct the ton of inaccurate information that exists."

I've never said it was "highly accurate". I specifically said "I don't consider the site to be gospel and neither should anyone else. But it is a hell of a lot better than virtually everything else in every instance I've ever looked at it.". I didn't and would never claim it is 100% accurate. But normally it is better than other content you care to mention or references it at the bottom of the article where you can read more. In that capacity it works admirably.

Of course if you want to use EB or Encarta instead there is nothing stopping you.

@Alex

@PT, thanks but I don't need sockpuppets to bolster my point of view. If you so wish you can google my alias and you will see I have ~11,000 hits stretching back 8 years.

@DrXym

1. We actually agree on this point. You said you were an editor in some sense and so did I.

2. I think you're clutching at straws here. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing" is exactly what encyclopedias claim to do but for a price. How can a (claimed) identical concept offered for free NOT be a replacement? Presumably, the goalposts have now shifted such that you won't be happy unless you see a quote, "Wikipedia will replace traditional encyclopedias" and even then perhaps you will say that 'traditional' is over '100 years old' rather than the relevant definition of being expert-led.

3. I don't even think you really believe this unless you have never heard of Essjay.

4. Jimmy "reviewed her bio and [he] found it not to be up to [Wikipedia's] standards" and so he forwarded it to OTRS because Rachel didn't like it. Think OTRS (whoever they really are) would have disagreed with their de facto boss and not ultimately over-ruled the original writer? Jimmy intervened. Jimmy led to the original writer being over-ruled. Incidentally, note the weasel-worded, "I recused myself from any further official action with respect to her biography". No further OFFICIAL action? You see, a good liar would realise that 'official' is redundant if he had really never edited it again.

5. This is a clear straw man. You're claiming that because I object to the threshold of inclusion on Wikipedia being "verifiability, not truth", I'm in favour of "BS, and not verifiability". Consider, amongst the many possibilities, "verifiability and truth" as being preferable.

Your final point is not sensible. If Wikipedia not gospel but is a hell of a lot better with than virtually everything else you've looked at (I expect you to now claim that you never meant 'better with respect to accuracy'), you have either:

. found every 'thing' you've looked at for information to not be highly accurate, in which case you have surely looked at too little to qualify your original statement.

. come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is highly accurate, in which case you're double-hatting continues.

Call for a Couple of New Icons

A cartoon image of a rabbit peering out of a pot on the stove.

The Wikipedia Logo, with a clown hat/bow tie on, or with a custard pie splattered on it.

OTRS explained

Operational Thetan Retard Squad

We need a Tom Cruise glyph.