Menu Bar
The Truth According to Wikipedia
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online – and who doesn’t? – are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online “encyclopedia of the people” has been topping the lists of the world’s most popular websites. But do we really know what we’re using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. Is it a revolution, or pure hype? Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. The online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to and revise is now even bigger than the illustrious Encyclopedia Britannica.
Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do “the people” really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all? In this film, “Wikipedians,” the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia’s ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics.
Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do “the people” really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all? In this film, “Wikipedians,” the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia’s ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics.
Oct 23, 2009 3:28 AM
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
There certainly is something to say about the benefits of meritocracy as far as information goes, but that angry guy seems to be against all forms of self-expression on the internet.
I mean hell, look at his plain t-shirt. Yawn.
I mean hell, look at his plain t-shirt. Yawn.
By: Faffy
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
Larry Sanger: Then after you've read Wikipedia and maybe a couple of other sources, then you can, umm, assume that, eh well, I guess you're not assuming any more, you've established that there is some presumption that the information that agrees across different sources is correct.
Interviewer: But research shows that most users are not doing that. So what is the danger then?
Research shows that! Does it really? At least Wikipedia does site and gives users the opportunity to check out claims, however this interviewer just mentions unknown "research". So what is the danger then?
Interviewer: But research shows that most users are not doing that. So what is the danger then?
Research shows that! Does it really? At least Wikipedia does site and gives users the opportunity to check out claims, however this interviewer just mentions unknown "research". So what is the danger then?
By: gerrywastaken
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
I guess the danger is that we might develop new articles or extend the knowledge base to new topics or anything based on information taken from Wikipedia without veryfying the different sources and, let say several decades later someone decides to verify and figures that "uh-oh.. that fact was actually wrong" and it would either reduce decades of work to dust or cause major decisions to be taken based on wrong info.. even if it still can be checked. It's like the iraqi invation... let's invade it first, we'll check if they really had biochemical weapons later.
By: NEU-NEU
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
i meant mass-destruction weapons. (not wikipedia's fault, just my rusty memory)
By: NEU-NEU
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
What are you talking about? Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA... would you want experts or leaders to base their decisions on ANY encyclopedia?!
I think Wikipedia is just fine. People also don't realize that standard encyclopedias often have numerous errors, and in fact a 2005 study published in Nature suggested that Wikipedia's rate of errors was only slightly higher than that of Encyclopedia Britannica's, 3.86 errors per article compared to 2.92 respectively*.
I always treat what I read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt and a critical mind. In particular, I tend to read the discussion pages to see what points in the article are disputed. But as suggested above, you should treat any encyclopedia with a degree of skepticism.
Wikipedia is a good source for starting information on topics you are not an expert in. If you use it for anything more, or if you treat ANY encyclopedia as anything more, it's your problem for being overly credulous and intellectually lazy.
*http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
I think Wikipedia is just fine. People also don't realize that standard encyclopedias often have numerous errors, and in fact a 2005 study published in Nature suggested that Wikipedia's rate of errors was only slightly higher than that of Encyclopedia Britannica's, 3.86 errors per article compared to 2.92 respectively*.
I always treat what I read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt and a critical mind. In particular, I tend to read the discussion pages to see what points in the article are disputed. But as suggested above, you should treat any encyclopedia with a degree of skepticism.
Wikipedia is a good source for starting information on topics you are not an expert in. If you use it for anything more, or if you treat ANY encyclopedia as anything more, it's your problem for being overly credulous and intellectually lazy.
*http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
By: Deh_Dude
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
I agree. I thought it was common knowledge that Wikipedia should be used as a starting point, but not trusted entirely.
By: digitalprime
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
How do you know some guy hasn't hacked into wikipedia and changed some dates or other info around that wouldn't be easily noticable? How secure is it?
By: KeyserSosay
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
You don't have to hack wikipedia in order to make changes.
By: Faffy
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
I don't doubt the importance or usefulness of Wikipedia. But, if you put all the TED talks through a filter to remove the interesting concepts, colorful presenters, and timely information, you'd be left with these awful Wikipedia people droning on with no spirit or passion. If you are going to work on cutting edge, world changing stuff, at least take a moment to pretend like you are actually interested in your own work!
By: adammil
Re: The Truth According to Wikipedia
What really lies behind this is, that the elites, be it intellectual, political or economic, always perceived them selfs as the only ones to really posses individuality.
The more someone is outside these guarded circles, the more he is perceived to be rather a sheep, a part of the masses than an individual and original person.
With blogs and websites like myspace and wikipedia first many people got the opportunity to define them selfs, to interact with others as equals and to proof the worth of their minds.
These authorities now fear that they loose some of their divine privileges.
The journalists and "experts" to dictate the truth.
The political and economic powers on the other hand fear that some in those lulled masses awake and begin to feel able to think for them selfs.
The truth is divine. But truth is not corrupted by individuals thinking for them selfs rather then being fed by the all those modern preachers.
Web 2.0 can be the beginning of a more responsible and intelligent society.
Because with individualism comes self-responsibility
The more someone is outside these guarded circles, the more he is perceived to be rather a sheep, a part of the masses than an individual and original person.
With blogs and websites like myspace and wikipedia first many people got the opportunity to define them selfs, to interact with others as equals and to proof the worth of their minds.
These authorities now fear that they loose some of their divine privileges.
The journalists and "experts" to dictate the truth.
The political and economic powers on the other hand fear that some in those lulled masses awake and begin to feel able to think for them selfs.
The truth is divine. But truth is not corrupted by individuals thinking for them selfs rather then being fed by the all those modern preachers.
Web 2.0 can be the beginning of a more responsible and intelligent society.
Because with individualism comes self-responsibility
By: ViTiCo
