Comments on: Speak No Evil…?

By: paul

paul — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:15:48 +0000

Yeah, it’s odd. Sometimes I don’t worry all that much about sourcing; I don’t think that there’d be much that’s all that controversial about rubber ducks, for instance. On the other hand, if I’m reading something that I know is a subject of debate–an article on the Armenian Genocide, say–then I’m a lot more likely to see how it’s sourced. But there is a tendency (and I don’t think it’s just you) to take the stuff pretty much at face value. As an essentially social medium, I think Wikipedia starts with being able to rely on a certain amount of good faith on the part of the people who post there.

Without that, as with other social media–I’d even include democratic government in the same category–the system falls apart. There will always be people, in any social system, that act in bad faith. That said, I think that it relies on enough people doing the right thing that the system as a whole can continue to function.

And yeah, check out the Shirky book. Thought of you as I was reading it, actually, because given your interest in social software/webware, you’d probably take more away from it than I did.

By: Philip Yurchuk

Philip Yurchuk — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:47:20 +0000

I’m sure you’re right about the TOS, but only posters will see that. I believe it’s quite clear that Wikipedia is not a place for original thought, which is why it’s so big on citations. But frankly, I don’t have much hope that the malicious and ignorant care about the TOS. Frequently, self-policing only involves a note that the author hasn’t backed something up with a citation. That’s not quite the same as erasing it or saying it’s wrong.

My larger point is that how people (or perhaps it’s just me?) perceive Wikipedia. Normally, when I start reading an article on a blog or forum, I jump to the author page. Who is this guy? What authority do they have to say these things? When I see they’ve posted anonymously, I can safely discount what they’re saying, or take it with a grain of salt.

But even though everything on Wikipedia is anonymously written, I don’t treat it like an anonymous forum poster, even when citations are missing. Like a real encyclopedia or established journal, it lends some sort of automatic authority.

And I realize one can go to the history page, but I’ve never done that until now. So if I’m pretty accepting of what’s on there, and skeptical of most everything else, I’m guessing others are, too. That was why I thought a disclaimer/TOS for *readers* might be appropriate. Even if it was a simple reminder like “Last edited by rIdePimpinmOfo” with a link to said user’s myspace page or MIT course notes.

I do want to read the Shirky book, though…

By: paul

paul — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:34:19 +0000

I never really looked at Wikipedia’s TOS, but I wonder if there’s anything in there about them being a neutral forum. A lot of sites that broker transactions of one sort or another use similar language (which says, in effect, we’re just the container, and accept no responsibility for what goes on within our confines). You could argue that Wikipedia brokers knowledge transactions, I suppose. Okay, I’m going way out on a limb here (I’m not a lawyer, after all), but I’d tend to think that’s at least somewhat in the ballpark.

Something of that size is pretty much impossible to police effectively from a central point, which is why they rely on a kind of self-policing, which generally works pretty well (see Clay Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody,” which explains the whole thing a heck of a lot better than I just did).

By: Philip Yurchuk

Philip Yurchuk — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:22:54 +0000

This is certainly interesting. Usually websites use the “we didn’t post it, and we don’t/won’t/can’t control what others contribute” defense. And that’s typically OK, because it’s true, and because most people don’t give authority to the words of (say) dilbert27 or choklateluvr. But Wikipedia doesn’t show who wrote what, and somehow anonymity has conveyed authority. The editorial volunteers are pretty good at adding the “citation needed” footnotes, but they can’t be everywhere. I’m not saying we should censor these works, but perhaps on pages about actual persons, there could be some sort of disclaimer/reminder along the lines of:

Remember, the following could have been written by ANYONE, including idiots, liars, and just plain a-holes. Just saying.

That should work