Why Wikipedia sucks. Big time.
by Volker Weber
Wikipedia generates noise, not knowledge. Previous encyclopedias were well-researched and contained precise information that could be trusted to be correct. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains a large amount of errors, omissions and superfluous trivia.
Basically, what is happening here is the building of a parallel World Wide Web inside the wikipedia.org domain and calling it an "encyclopedia", which is a total perversity. Just making it searchable and giving it an encyclopedia-like structure doesn't make its content any less fluffy, error-ridden and amateurish than any other website.
Comments
Wikipedia is an important experiment in diverse collaboration, and represents really interesting thought in that space. I don't think its potential for use is being touched yet.
On the other hand, as an authoritative public source of validated information, it is as you describe.
I see your point. Right at the moment most articles in Wikipedia are not authoritative information.
But Wikipedia is a selflearning, selfregulating system. Thus it gets better day by day. Good authors will respect more authoritative knowledge, while rubbish will be deleted if every author maintains his articles.
in the following you will see the setup of diverse "epistemic communities" caring for the validity of information! So in my eyes wikipedia is becoming the vastest authoritative encyclopedia ever.
Isn't that a bit of a flamer, an unfair generalisation?
Yes, Wikipedia is not perfect, it works on a "selfcorrective" principle of a large group. (You could probably do some nice swarm analysis on Wikipedia contributions and contributors.) So by definition the content is not casted in stone and may be incorrect. So what, overall the quality of wikipedia is more than ok.
What do you know of the traditional publishers of such encyclopedias, how they work, who writes what and especially who decides what information will NOT be included? One simply assumes that as institutions they are trustworthy. Humans err and so do institutions.
With this reasoning one could also rant against the web itself with it's billions of web sites. Many sites contain some kind of knowledge, but also "a large amount of errors, omissions and superfluous trivia." And via google and other search engines they are also used as an encyclopedia. Content only has to be a little bit consistent and believable to be considered as fact.
In contrast to this wikipedia has some kind of self control, errors (should) get corrected. On web sites authored by only one person this generally/often doesn't happen at all.
"Previous encyclopedias were well-researched and contained precise information that could be trusted to be correct" = sure, the sun circles around the earth, yes yes :-))
Recent comments
Karsten Lehmann
on Nice try at 01:17
Oswald Prucker
on Nice try at 00:54
Jim Boling
on Nice try at 23:24
Albert Dandl
on Nice try at 20:12
Karsten Lehmann
on Nice try at 19:18
Riza Baltazar
on Color coordination for web sites at 19:10
Sean Cull
on From my inbox at 19:00
Armin Roth
on Nice try at 18:02
Bart Severein
on From my inbox at 16:52
Hubert Stettner
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 14:59
Ralf Stellmacher
on Overheard in New York at 12:47
Chris Frei
on Holy moly at 09:03
Ben Poole
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 08:50
Dirk Steins
on Holy moly at 08:11
simon carter
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 08:06
Ingo Seifert
on Holy moly at 05:50
Moritz Schroeder
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 04:22
Mika Heinonen
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 02:26
Andy Mell
on Holy moly at 00:54
Volker Weber
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 00:23
Oswald Prucker
on Holy moly at 00:02
Yves Luther
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 23:33
Volker Weber
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 22:39
Hubert Stettner
on Why is Nokia such a complete failure? at 22:05
Roland Leißl
on Can't get it out of my head at 20:59
Click here to subscribe
