3 January 2005

Hotly contested

Two days ago I read Larry Sanger's piece against Wikipedia in Kuro5hin. This morning, /. commented on and contributed to the debate.

Many make the same complaint: they posted good edits to articles whose subjects they knew well, but trolls soon reverted or wiped those edits out. The complaints are frustrating and vague in cause. What specific article did you add to? What inaccuracy was added? The first poster complains about the entry on FOX News saying only that it's really wrong. OK, I'm kinda dumb, where is it wrong? Another about the possibility of Civil War revisionism. Both of these I can imagine going wrong--but the posters need to please point out exactly how they went wrong. Am I to read all of the articles and try to assume I know what specific point you think is incorrect? In a previous article at Tech Central Station, an ex-Britannica editor excoriated Wikipedia by examining a specific article and making valid and very damning critical remarks. That was more compelling to me than the high volume of complaints that simply yell foul.

In Wikipedia's defense, one scientist comments that presenting clear explanations and "footnotes" for changes will protect them from trolls or the merely misinformed.

[ posted by sstrader on 3 January 2005 at 12:09:37 PM in Culture & Society ]