Not so Fast
Hmmm, maybe Wikipedia isn't so reliable after all.
Wikipedia was yesterday described as being as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Britannica despite a sustained attack from vandals intent on further wrecking its reputation for accuracy.
This is despite a surge in the number of spoof articles and vandal attacks which have followed the furore over a biographical Wikipedia article linking John Seigenthaler, a respected retired journalist, with the assassinations of both John F and Robert Kennedy.
In one such fake article, it was suggested today that Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's creator, was shot dead at his home by Siegenthaler's wife.
This is kind of a breakthrough. Wiwkipedia makes it possible for people with no programming skills to do hacking of a sort and to unleash viruses. (If we can count deliberately false information as memetic viruses of a sort.) Great.
Comments
Unfortunately, I think the day is coming when Wikipedia is going to require some kind of verification or trusted author system.
Personally, I've found Wikipedia to be a good source on noncontroversial topics. Look up "John Von Neumann" and you'll find a good article.
If something is controversial you have people trying to insert their subjective beliefs into the piece.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon
|
December 19, 2005 09:07 AM
I don't think having a "trusted author" system would be a good idea(*1), but some kind of more generalized author ranking/filtering scheme will probably be necessary. I'm actually a bit surprised Wikipedia doesn't already have something like that.
1) If by "trusted author" you mean only a limited set of authors chosen by whoever 'governs' Wikipedia is allowed to add or modify articles.
Posted by: AndrewS
|
December 22, 2005 11:26 AM