Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Wikipedia Rules

Entry 983, on 2009-04-07 at 21:15:56 (Rating 2, Computers)

Its always good to see Microsoft fail. I mean technically they fail all the time but commercially they do relatively well, so its good to see them fail commercially as well. Their latest failure (and there have been a surprising number of of them in their history) is their encyclopedia, Encarta.

Why has it failed? Probably because of Wikipedia which is the default location for many people to search for information now. There are many forms of anecdotal information to support this. For example, I and almost all the other technologically oriented people I know, use it as our primary general reference source. When I asked my son to name an encyclopedia he could only think of Wikipedia so it obviously ranks highly with the next generation too. And Wikipedia is almost always at or near the top of Google searches and its one of the most visited sites on the Internet.

Its extraordinarily successful, incredibly detailed and wide ranging, yet a lot of people still reject it as a source of serious information. But why?

I think there are two major reasons. First, it does tend to deal with facts and often doesn't make too much effort to accommodate non-factual viewpoints. For example, global warming deniers and creationists often find it disagrees with their chosen beliefs so they often reject it as a valid source. Second, it is a non-commercial, open environment which many people have difficulty dealing with. Many more conservative people believe only profit-driven, commercial organisations can be trusted to do things properly. Where they get that idea from I can't begin to imagine!

There is one realistic reason that Wikipedia might be rejected. Its collaborative, open model does allow occasional "vandalism" of information and in rare instances opinions and propaganda do find their way into the system. These situations are very rare though, and they are usually well marked so I don't think that is a fair criticism. Actually, I would suggest we should always be a bit skeptical of information whatever its source.

The key observation I have made which negates the criticism of impartiality is that its almost always made by people who are likely to want to reject Wikipedia for the first two reasons. In other words, the perceived lack of impartiality is a convenient excuse to reject it because they either don't like the fact that it disagrees with what they want to believe or cannot cope with the open model.

Encyclopedia Britannica still exists but it has had a less than solid history and its future could probably become untenable at any time. No one can compete against a system like Wikipedia where there are so many unpaid but knowledgeable contributors who are prepared to keep the information so deep, wide and up to date.

I know that there are probably a few too many pop culture entries and the occasional misleading or inaccurate one, but on balance its a great resource, perhaps the single most useful site on the Internet, and a great example of how a different approach can defeat even the biggest and most well established commercial entities.

It shows how a collaborative environment can take over in the reference source area. How long before the same thing happens for news gathering and other functions previously handled by companies. Maybe that's another thing that so many people find so disconcerting!

Comment 1 (1941) by SBFL on 2009-04-14 at 00:33:25:

Yep, I'll agree that the Wikipedia is a fine example of the self-correcting open-source model (just like the free market!?). It will never be perfect, but it will always approach perfection. I woudln't have used this as an opportunity to have a childish jab at Microsoft though, especially since Encarta died several years ago, but - along with Encyclopaedia Brittanica - I am sure the world is all that more knowledgable for them having tried.

But back to Wikipedia - I too don't see many (if any) vandalised pages (even in political articles), just some occasional bias, and like you said, we should always be a bit skeptical of information whatever its source.

Those stuffy conservative types you mention that don't like Wikipedia tend to be the academic elite, known for their leftist political leanings. The spread of information has never been the domain of the left, so this comes as no surprise.

Anyway, looks like Wikipedia is the new way, and we are all the better for it. All the more reason to support the NZ government's broadband rollout plan!

Comment 2 (1944) by OJB on 2009-04-14 at 17:55:06:

Yes, there are similarities between the wiki model and a free market but the wiki model hasn't yet been corrupted by the power of big corporations and isn't driven primarily by greed. And I can never resist the temptation to take a jab at Microsoft!

Stuffy conservative types equate to the leftist elite how exactly? I don't follow that at all. The fact is that academic people make a lot of contributions to Wikipedia so they are hardly likely to reject it! What are you talking about regarding the "left" (whatever that is) and the spread of information? That doesn't seem to make sense.

The broadband rollout plan looks good in theory. I totally support any government - left or right - making such a pro-active move.

Comment 3 (1948) by SBFL on 2009-04-15 at 06:40:07:

The "power" of big corporations, is nothing like the "power" of a big left wing govt, such as the recent one shoving through the anti-democratic Electoral Finance Bill. Fancy that, corrupting our democracy. However I digress, you are right in that it seems the sniff of the dollar hasn't affected Wikipedia...yet. Unfortunately such is human nature, that it is only a matter of time (I hope not though).

I assumed you meant "conservative" in the generic sense, not the political one. Hope my comment makes more sense now. As for the intelligentsia more accepting of Wikipedia now, I guess they realised they had no choice.

Re broadband - good to see you have put initiative and principle ahead of political persuasion on this occasion. I supported Labour's removal of old titles, shame National brought them back.

Comment 4 (1951) by OJB on 2009-04-15 at 10:08:30:

Get over the EFB would you! Can't you see that it was supposed to make the system more democratic by removing the influence of groups with too much money which could be used to pursue their objectives? Do we want a situation like the US where pressure groups with big budgets have too much influence? I agree the EFB might have gone too far but the idea was good.

I still don't quite follow your comment re conservatives. As for your comment re "the intelligentsia" I don't know what your problem is with academics and intellectuals (inferiority complex maybe) but you should get over that as well!

I always put principles (and pragmatism) ahead of politics, its just that for me that usually leads to more left-oriented actions (which this example is: the government setting up infrastructure which would normally be handled by private enterprise).

Comment 5 (1964) by SBFL on 2009-04-19 at 10:16:21:

Even National didn't complain about that aspect of the EFA, but as we both know, it went much, much farther than that. I agree we do not want the US scenario here. It would be refreshing not too have influence from unions, lobby groups and business, and that party funding should only come from member and natural individual donations (would this be enough for parties to remain viable though?). I don't agree with public funding as we have already seen that abused (pledge card fiasco).

Okay so my clarification before didn't help explain the comment before that. I give up since the matter was probably more a wind-up anyway, and it seems you are giving a bit back!

Well that's good to know - the same approach tends to skew me in the opposite direction! The govt are setting it up, but I don't think they will own it. Remember the purpose behind the broadband rollout is to increase productivity and wealth (not redistribute it). It may not be as left-oriented as you think!

Comment 6 (1966) by OJB on 2009-04-19 at 10:35:57:

The party funding issue is a problem. If we don't control it in some way we will inevitably end up with a similar situation to what exists in the US now. At lest the EFA was an attempt at that. Do you have a better idea?

But generally you do seem to make a lot of derogatory comments about academics, scientists, and other groups which could be broadly classified as "intellectuals". What's the problem with that?

I guess everyone thinks they are immune from letting their politics affect their actions and beliefs but its unrealistic to think that's true. The most we can hope for is to minimise that tendency.

I never for a moment thought that any initiative would reverse the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" trend we have seen for many years. The Internet does tend to be a leveler though because it allows the "small guy" to take on and beat the big established companies. Its happening now to media companies in particular.

Comment 7 (1975) by SBFL on 2009-04-20 at 04:10:04:

Yes I do. What National are doing now. Or even the status quo which was a MUCH better idea.

Actually I don't. You must have me confused with someone else. I am surprised you are trying to drag this part of the thread out, I am wondering at your motive now....

At least all of the time it would be unrealistic. On the whole I agree.

That's good, and I also agree. The right-wing dominates blogosphere and they have been scoring some scalps in politics recently, to the embarrassment of the left-leaning mainstream media (e.g. Derek Draper/Damian McBride).
You may be interested in this article: The rise and rise of blogging

Comment 8 (1983) by OJB on 2009-04-20 at 19:56:04:

Some interesting claims there regarding the political power of bloggers. There was a similar idea around regarding Obama in the US election. I guess the only way to know would be to do a properly controlled survey of voters, until that is done there is a significant speculative aspect to all this.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.