What are your views on Wikipedia?

[91TTZ]

Originally, I liked the idea of a Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone could edit. Also being free made it very convenient.

But over the last couple of years I've noticed an annoying trend. Articles which used to be clearly written and very informative have become overwritten and convoluted. It seems that there's become something of an ego contest, with writers constantly trying to outdo each other, whether by challenging facts or by trying to use a more "impressive" writing style.

To the layman who is not a professional competitive encyclopedia writer and is just reading the page for information, the experience has become worse. He used to be able to get clear information from the page but now he's met with a complicated mess that he can't understand.

It's like this: Imagine an expert trying to explain something to you and at first he presents it in a concise, easy to understand manner. But then competing "experts", ones with unorthodox beliefs but much enthusiasm, join the conversation and try to offer competing, less accepted views. They bicker back and forth, saying things that just lose you. By the time they're done their ego-measuring contest and come to an agreement that suits all experts, the final version of the story is complicated legalese that a layman cannot understand.

Now to add more fuel to the fire is the fact that since everyone can overwrite everyone else's articles, the page edits often go back and forth until someone finally gives up. At that point, the most persistent author wins, not the best author. Usually the people who are the most persistent are the people with a few screws loose, who make one particular subject their life mission and won't back down. Imagine an article about government conspiracies, it will eventually be taken over by conspiracy theorists, since that is their life mission and they have no lack of persistence. Also the neutral point of view also prevents you from using common sense and lends eccentrists more legitimacy.

Here are a couple of examples of its shortcomings:
Example of the NPOV interfering with the accuracy

Example of convolution and overcomplication

Example of loons trying togain control of the article

 

[beer]

I think it is the best place to start when a new, technical concept is introduced to me. The articles are usually fairly brief, but there's a huge breadth of availability and they usually link you to more detailed places.

 

[Colt45]

i lub it.

 

[ChooChooChooseMe]

Originally posted by: Colt45
i lub it.

:thumbsup:

 

[screw3d]

If Wikipedia is a girl, I'd do her

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: screw3d
If Wikipedia is a girl, I'd do her

If wikipedia was a girl, she wouldn't be able to walk for a week.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

It's a good source to get an basic overview of a concept.

I wouldn't use it as my only source for a report though.

 

[Descartes]

I think it's an absolutely fantastic resource. At the very least it will shed enough light on a topic to make some of the details clear; this, along with all the references usually given, is enough to lead me in the right direction for whatever topic interests me.

Yes, sometimes the writing can be a little abstruse, but it's also very hard to articulate some of the more complex topics. You have to expect it to some degree.

 

[Subterranean Homesick Alien]

I just see it as one of those unavoidable aspects of research of any kind, whether the sources are books, periodicals, or the Internet. When doing research you are going to often find dense, esoteric writing that only insiders would understand; you do your best to glean some information from it and continue looking for other sources, perhaps ones that are easier to read or are written using more layman?s terms.

For example, that Postmodernism article makes perfect sense to me; of course, I have a BA in English Literature and I took several courses dealing with critical theory with required texts that were more dense and convoluted than that article. But if you keep looking, you might find other sources that could give you a more concise, boiled down version like in your first post.

 

[imported_Tick]

I also think the article on PETA is perfectly fair. They are a terrorist orginization. End of story. How is the peta article not neutral?

 

[Anubis]

years? i only discovered this thing like 6 months ago

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Tick
I also think the article on PETA is perfectly fair. They are a terrorist orginization. End of story. How is the peta article not neutral?

If you read the discussion about the PETA article, you'll see that Peta supporters keep editing the article to voice their wacky opinion. In fact, the debate got nasty enough that they put a warning sign on the top of the article stating that the neutrality of the article is disputed.

I agree that it's a wacky organization with militant members, and the members take their radicalism with them everywhere they go (including Wikipedia). Those members don't like the tone of the article, which most people find fair. They think it's not neutral and want the article to show them in a more favorable light. This is one of my complaints, that even the most militant and eccentric people want their actions described as being normal, and they try to use the neutral point of view rule to acheive that.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Anubis
years? i only discovered this thing like 6 months ago

It began more than 4 years ago, in January of 2001.

 

[Kyteland]

If you want to talk about wikipedia bias, just read this article.

I'm shocked nobody here has made "improvements" to that page from time to time.

 

[rocadelpunk]

i dont' see what's so bad about the titor article...

 

[TallBill]

Wow, looks like a disaster waiting to happen when a 13 year old goes nuts. How do they protect against random people screwing everything up?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: rocadelpunk
i dont' see what's so bad about the titor article...

The article lent way too much credibility to a usenet troll's tall tales. It almost made him sound legitimate.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Example of convolution and overcomplication

Bad choice of an example. It's simply not possible to discuss Postmodernism without convolution and over-complication. Having read Foucault and Derrida I really don't see how anyone can explain what is inherently a complicated and convoluted system without resorting to complication and convolution.

That said, I found Foucault's "Madness and Civilization" to be absolutely fascinating.

ZV

 

[isasir]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Wow, looks like a disaster waiting to happen when a 13 year old goes nuts. How do they protect against random people screwing everything up?

IIRC, you can easily just revert to an older revision if someone chooses to try and sabotage something.

 

[mercanucaribe]

It was actually full of BS about modernism. And it neglected to mention that most modernists were fascists.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Subterranean Homesick Alien
For example, that Postmodernism article makes perfect sense to me; of course, I have a BA in English Literature and I took several courses dealing with critical theory with required texts that were more dense and convoluted than that article. But if you keep looking, you might find other sources that could give you a more concise, boiled down version like in your first post.

I'm able to read that article, but I'm also able to identify that overcomplication has been added to it.

I'm a believer in achieving an objective using the most simple, straightforward method possible. I think genius and beauty is in simplicity and effectiveness. Adding complexity for the sake of adding complexity seems counterproductive and irrational to me.

However there are others out there who seem to want to make things as complicated as possible because they can. It's as if they want to push the limit of complication, making something as complicated as possible but still work. For instance, when communicating, there's no reason to use a word that's obscure and breaks the the flow of the sentence if a simpler, more common word will do. It's easier on the eyes and gets the point across more effectively.

If you read the writings of some people, it's as if they use a thesaurus and replace every common, accurate word with an obscure word which may not even fit the definition as well as the word they replaced. They do this in an attempt to impress their peers. To me it's like watching a male peacock spread its feathers and pose- entertaining but a bit ridiculous.

After all, the point of an encyclopedia is to educate those who don't know, not impress those who already know.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Bad choice of an example. It's simply not possible to discuss Postmodernism without convolution and over-complication. Having read Foucault and Derrida I really don't see how anyone can explain what is inherently a complicated and convoluted system without resorting to complication and convolution.

That said, I found Foucault's "Madness and Civilization" to be absolutely fascinating.

ZV

My point is that although the ideas contained in this article may be accurate, regardless of their complexity, the article is failing at its primary objective of being able to convey those ideas to someone who doesn't yet understand them.

I'm sure you've heard the sayings about engineers being able to understand anything but not being able to clearly explain anything to anybody.

It's easy for someone who already understands the subject to take a piece of paper and write down facts in a poor format and still have all the information contained on that piece of paper. In fact, other people already in the know may be able to look at that piece of paper and understand it. It is much harder, on the other hand, to package the information into a format that is easily absorbed by someone who doesn't yet know. It is easy to understand; it is much harder to teach.

To be a good teacher, you must be able to understand the concept first, then simplify the information and package into a format that your audience can understand. Impressing your colleages by complicating things doesn't help your cause when you're supposed to be a teacher.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-- and a lot of courage-- to move in the opposite direction" - E. F. Schumacker

 

[imthebadguy]

cliffs dawg, but yea its goin downhill