The Wiki/Wikipedia Thread

[mugaliens]

As you may know, the term, "Wiki" is Hawaiin, and simply means "fast." It is not synomous with Wikipedia, which is simply the most successful wiki project available to the public A wiki is "a collection of web pages designed to enable multiple access and content creation/editing. Essentially, a wiki is a collaborative website. If everyone on BAUT were given moderator rights, it would be a wiki, as mods can edit anyone's posts, not just their own. They're often used in business and knowledge management systems.

This thread is for all things Wiki/Wikipedia. Gripes, complaints? Opinions on how Wikipedia is morphing? Opprtunities you see that they might be missing? Humorous observations?

Do you have any idea as to how wikis might be improved over the current relatively flat contribution space?

Do you have good links to Wiki projects other than Wikipedia?

This is the place.

[mugaliens]

I was taking a poll by the Collaborative Creativity Group, where one of the questions is:

What devices do you use to access Wikipedia? (check as many as apply)

Laptop computer
Desktop computer
Mobile phone
Other mobile device (e.g., PDA, Blackberry, etc.)
Other, please specify

I thought, "This is a funny question."

First, my laptop is my desktop computer. Second, most mobile phones today are "other mobile phone devices," with at least a basic PDA function.

But the "Other, please specify" is what really caught my eye, so I selected that, in addition to both laptop/desktop, and put: "My eyes, brain, fingers, desk, and chair."

[sarongsong]

...This thread is for all things Wiki/Wikipedia...This is the place.Why---19 pages of wiki thread titles not enough?

[Neverfly]

Why---19 pages of wiki thread titles not enough?

And had he resurrected one and tried to add a Poll?

He would have been accused of thread Necromancy. Whatever.

[Romanus]

I picked the middle option; though I can't really speak for other wikis, Wikipedia has big pluses and big minuses.

What I like:
*Topics on many things you're unlikely to find in a print dictionary, especially pop culture subjects. It's the broadest reference I know of; particularly helpful is the way each page "condenses" information that might be on a dozen different Web (or print) pages.

*Extremely user-friendly, and updated instantaneously all day, every day.

*It's an unsurpassed quick reference for things that just pop in your head. It's also an excellent jumping-off point for both other articles on Wiki and the Web.

*I do believe in its overall "wisdom of crowds" approach.

What I dislike:
*Wikipedia is--more often than not--a mile wide and an inch deep. Then again, most encyclopedias are...

*Too often I've seen perfectly good information and imagery discarded without justification, instead of being worked into a related article or spliced in.

*By definition, it's extremely labile, which makes nearly worthless as a serious research tool *alone*. Yet, people increasingly point to it as a single, authoritative source; if I ask someone on a board what the 1960 Chilean tsunami was, you can pretty much bet I'll get the Wiki page on it before any other--this when there are about 46,000 hits on it through Google. In short, I'm kind of worried when Wiki becomes the Swiss Army site for any answer.

*There is a definite bias in many topics, particularly social issues. I suppose this is also unavoidable, people being people, but at least admit it instead of feigning objectivity.

[Robinson]

*By definition, it's extremely labile, which makes nearly worthless as a serious research tool *alone*. Yet, people increasingly point to it as a single, authoritative source; if I ask someone on a board what the 1960 Chilean tsunami was, you can pretty much bet I'll get the Wiki page on it before any other--this when there are about 46,000 hits on it through Google.


http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=1960+Chilean+tsunami&btnG=Google+Search 58,200 hits for 1960 Chilean tsunami


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=1960+Chilean+tsunami&go=Go
but no wikipedia article.

Hmm ... but I got your points. Interesting.

I didn't vote in the poll because it didn't have my option. If this was a wiki I could add it.

[Romanus]

^
I should have been more specific...this is the article I was referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_Earthquake

[Robinson]

Aha! I was just wondering why there was no wiki page about it. Does your example suffer the problems you mentioned?

I have found if it is an article nobody cares about, or there can be no contention over the subject, you can count on it being accurate.

But if not, you can check the sources. If it still isn't accurate, you can make it so.

[Romanus]

Not that particular page, but some others...like you said, it really depends on how active the topic is.

[Robinson]

Or more important, how strongly somebody is trying to use it as a forum to put forth their view.

[hhEb09'1]

I have found if it is an article nobody cares about, or there can be no contention over the subject, you can count on it being accurate.If there is contention, then maybe the depiction of contention can be considered accurate :)

[djellison]

Wikipedia itself is flawed. So much opinionated pedantry in the management of it, that it often gets in the way of simply reporting the facts. I use Wiki as a first point of reference, but usually as a jump-point to other material when researching.

However, some specialist Wiki's are superb - ones that are dedicated to a field and are tightly managed.

Doug

[mugaliens]

However, some specialist Wiki's are superb - ones that are dedicated to a field and are tightly managed.

Doug

How do they do things differently that you would recommend Wikipedia do?

[djellison]

They don't try to be some post modern pseudo-socialist dream of everyone contributing. Not everyone SHOULD contribute. Not everyone knows enough to make a valid contribution. Not everyone actually knows the facts, they just think they do.

The ability for anyone to change anything is wrong - people use it to mess around - making up entire biographies for people that are entirely false, saying they're dead, just to try and be funny. There needs to be responsibility, accountability and, frankly, dictatorship from above on who can and can not contribute or at least vet any and all contributions before they go live.

[Robinson]

The great thing about wikipedia is that you don't need to know the facts to contribute, you need to know how to find and read sources that "know" the facts.

Or at least have published the facts. Even if something is "wrong", if enough credible sources have published the information, it is valid for an article. If enough people agree (consensus) then that is what wikipedia will say.

Even if it isn't true.

[Cougar]

The ability for anyone to change anything is wrong... There needs to be... [a 'moderator' to] vet any and all contributions before they go live.

Exactly right. The ability for anyone to change anything is OK, but proposed changes should have to be reviewed and okayed before they are put into effect. Of course, this means wiki would have to have a heck of a lot of trusted reviewers, many of whom would have to be specialists, but most could be generalists. Generalists can screen out the pranksters and refer specialist questions to the specialists. This would make the difference between a top-notch resource and a resource that one is never sure about, which is what wiki is now.

[Fazor]

I haven't checked any of the options yet; I think sites like Wikipedia are an amazing tool. They're not the be-all-end-all supercollective virtual brain that some people (particularly lazy school children) seem to think they are. But what a great way to network vast amounts of knowlege in an easilly accessable format. Are there drawbacks? Yes.

But as for trying to learn about something, wikipedia has mostly taken over google's job as a launchpad for me.

[Robinson]

Robots do a lot of the work on maintaining wikipedia.

[mugaliens]

But as for trying to learn about something, wikipedia has mostly taken over google's job as a launchpad for me.

Me, too, though I still Google a lot.

Robots do a lot of the work on maintaining wikipedia.

Asimov was right!

In the year, 2525, you won't know you're alive; robots do everything for you, you won't even know when they're through...

[mugaliens]

Here's an interesting observation (well, part observation, part theory): The more Wikipedia is cited on forums whose members include various subject matter experts, the better Wikipedia becomes.

Huh? Come again?

What happens is this: I see a thread I'm interested in. I read through it, and notice a post that's "not quite right."

Now, "not quite right" posts can range from "all but 1% is 'not quite right'" meaning "it's 99% trash," to "it's just about perfect, except for one little thing." Regardless, this covers about 99.9994736% of all posts here on Baut, so you know what I'm about to tell you applies to just about everything ever posted here on Baut.

So anyway, there I was, reading this thread on Baut, when I notice that it's "not quite right." Being a subject matter expert on the particular subject in question, I picked up on that fact somewhat readily, and proceeded to Wikipedia, both for confirmation, and for the fact that Wikipedia has gotten a lot better at sourcing their content, thereby avoiding the weak, "Because Mugs said so" justification for my response.

As I'm reading through the Wikipedia article, I notice that it also contains some mistakes. Argh! So I first correct Wikipedia (citing my sources - always have to cite your sources!) before referencing the Wikipedia article here on Baut.

Then it hit me, and I wondered just how many others did that, not only here on Baut, but on the many thousands of other forums dealing with all of Wikipedia's myriads of topics. More importantly, what sort of an effect would this have on Wikipedia's content as a whole? If it's anything like what I've experienced, a fair amount. Even when I'm perusing a Wikipedia article about something in which I am most certainly not a subject matter expert, I still run into glaring errors in grammar, or poorly worded statements. Both are ridiculously easy to fix. So, I fix them.

So the first mechanism is when subject matter experts use Wikipedia as a source (because it's widely accepted by the masses), and discover errors, which they fix.

The second mechanism is when the masses quote Wikipedia as a source, a subject matter expert reads it, says to him/herself, "What???" then fixes the erroneous material.

Either way, Wikipedia is improved.

[Robinson]

Here's an interesting observation (well, part observation, part theory): The more Wikipedia is cited on forums whose members include various subject matter experts, the better Wikipedia becomes.

You don't have to be an expert to do that. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and because you have to cite a source, (and often defend the source if it is an unpopular one), any member can improve Wikipedia.

But you make a fine point. I would agree that in many cases, using WP as a source on a forum can lead to a better article.

[toothdust]

I think that Wikipedia is 99% good, 1% trash. Sure I could go in there and type in a bunch of rubbish, but it would soon get re-edited by someone who spotted my rubbish. I also think they do a good job at keeping things unbiased. Or if they do present opinions, they tend to present both sides.

[ParaDoctor]

Wikipedia is a major step in the late phase of Enlightenment. It is the democratization of the encyclopedia, taking mankind's knowledge out of the hands of the publishers, delivering it to the people. Well, that's my idea of what it will become. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is less than eight years old, and has still a lot of change ahead of it. one thing I see coming up is integration with personal encyclopedias. I use MediaWiki as PIM, putting the stuff that is private or irrevelant to the audience at large into my personal EncyclopediaGalactica, adding the rest to Wikipedia. This has proved so infernally useful for me that I can't imagine I'm the only one who does it that way.

[Robinson]

You are not alone.

[mugaliens]

I use MediaWiki as PIM, putting the stuff that is private or irrevelant to the audience at large into my personal EncyclopediaGalactica, adding the rest to Wikipedia. This has proved so infernally useful for me that I can't imagine I'm the only one who does it that way.

I'll hae to explore that...

Links? Examples?

[ParaDoctor]

I'll hae to explore that...

Links? Examples?Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_wiki)

Examples? Well, most of the pages are private for good reason, but the following three might give you an idea. The double brackets are internal links.

entry "Fisher effect" (I keep remembering the wrong name for this effect, and this entry saves me time when that happens)Still can't remember that the correct name is [[Flynn effect]], don't you?
entry "CREIL" (Finding the proper definition of obscure acronyms/names can be time-consuming, so I make preventive entries. If I never need it again, no problem. But if I do, it saves me from doing things twice.)"Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light (CREIL), shifts the frequencies of normally incoherent light without any blurring of the images or altering the order of the spectra. CREIL operates in gases having quadrupolar resonances in the megaherz range, and it is easily confused with Doppler effects. When CREIL is taken into account, the propagation of light in cosmic low pressure gases involves a complex combination of absorptions and frequency shifts."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401529

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305180

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212285
entry "Double Feature From Hell" (One of my more organized notes pages.)see also [[movie genres]], [[:category:genre]]

The idea is to pair/tuple movies which apparently have nothing in common, but share a common theme. Usually, you wouldn't want to watch them back-to-back, but amusing unintended, non-obvious links are permissive. Actor/director as link only when they are known for one kind of films, and are found in relativley obscure films cast against their type: xXx vs. The Pacifier

Bambi vs. Terminator wouldn't be a DFFH, as I cannot come up with a uniting theme for the life of me, but see the following list

If there is a movie called "(The) American Dream/Nightmare", it could be paired with "La Nuit américaine" (aka "Day for Night"). Note: until now I thought the American night was the darkness of the cinema's auditorium. Maybe it should be called the Americna gloom. Note: It's called the American Dream, not the American Vision!

*gourmet movies
** Delicatessen
** Eat the Rich
** "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover" (1989) (aka "Der Koch, der Dieb, seine Frau und ihr Liebhaber") director Peter Greenaway, Richard Bohringer, Michael Gambon, Helen Mirren, costumes Jean-Paul Gaultier, [[IMDb|http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097108/]]
*The Blue Lagoon vs. Creature from the Black Lagoon
*Kill Bill vs. Corpse Bride (The Bride aka Beatrix Kiddo): dead brides
** in the same vein: Father of the Bride, Princess Bride (BTW, is there an as-yet-unindentified wedding-genre?)
*Battle Royale vs. La guerre des boutons: kid soldiers (ouch! ^_^)
*La guerre des boutons vs. Star Wars: war movies
*Cube vs. Sphere vs. Ring vs. Triangle(BBC TV)/The Triangle(SF mini TV): (SF) geometrical title
*Cube/Sphere/Silk(2006 KOR): geometry at the center of a story
*Alien vs. Junior: both feature male pregnancies
*Species vs. Knight Moves: movies about mating (mating up vs. checkmating)
*Alien vs. Junior: artificial insemination ^_^
*"Alien vs. Predator" vs. "Kramer vs. Kramer"
*"Gone With the Wind" vs. "Gone in 60 Seconds"
*"The Dentist" vs. "Jawbreaker"
*"Ringmaster" vs. "Lord of the Rings" ROFLOL
*"Deep Throat" vs. "Magnum, P. I."/"Runaway"/"Quigley": moustache night
*"Deep Throat" vs. "****ing Åmål": sexfilms; better "Deep Impact" vs. "****ing Åmål": misleading titles ^_^
*"Bambi" vs. "Donnie Darko" vs. some Playboy movie: bunnies galore, or: the two sides of Thumper
*"Robocop" vs. "Kindergarten Cop"
*"1941" vs. "1984" ^_^; better: "1941" (1979) vs. "1941" (1941) :-))
*"The Pacifier"/"The Peacemaker" vs. "Ghandi"
*"Dances With Wolves" vs. "Dirty Dancing"
*"Dune" vs. "Waterworld": and _both_ flopped! ^_^
*"Lemmy Caution versus Alpha 60" vs. "The Omega Man": Greek letters
*"Behind the Green Door" vs. "Stargate"?: portals
*"Drop Zone" vs. "Operation Dumbo Drop": paratrooping action
*"Downfall" vs. "Falling Down"
*"Basic" vs. "Instinct"
*"A Clockwork Orange" vs. "High Noon": Timekeeping
*"A Clockwork Orange" vs. "Bananas": fruity movies
*"Jurassic Park" vs. "Gosford Park" vs. "Ken Park"
*"Nobody Knows" vs. "Nothing" vs. "My Name is Nobody"
*"Suddenly Princess" vs. "Alien: Resurrection" (we have 3 candidate "princesses": Ripley, who has royal genes, but not the title; the queen she gave birth to; or the queen's daughter, who presumably was a princess at least for the few seconds her mother survived her birth)
*"Deep Impact" vs. "Deep Throat"
*"Dark Star" vs. "Pitch Black" vs. "Black Hole" ^_^
*if there is a film called "Energy": vs. "Entropy"
*"Pale Rider" vs. "Easy Rider"
*"Odishon"/"Audition" vs. "Footloose": about feet cutting loose ... or was it cutting feet loose ^_^
*"Apocalypse Now" vs. "Glitter": okay, okay, okay ... ^_^
*"The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" vs. "One, Two, Three": counting movies
*"Alien vs. Predator" vs. "Cats & Dogs": creature feature bout night!
*"The Postman" vs. "The Postman Always Rings Twice"
*"28 Days" vs. "28 Days Later"
*"Spider-Man" vs. "Wicked One" (1995 USA Wicked Pictures): films with J. Jameson. ... OUCH! ^_^HTH

[KaiYeves]

Did you know there's a Latin Wikipedia? And it has articles about Armstrong (http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nialus_Armstrong)and Gagarin (http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgius_Gagarin)?

"Houston, ibi basis Tranquillitatis. Aquila appulsit."

[mugaliens]

ParaDoctor - Thank You. I have wiki software on one of my domains, with the ability to control who has access. I think you've just helped me solve how to approach my goal of building an online family history, photographs, etc.

Sweet!

I do believe in its overall "wisdom of crowds" approach.

As do I, provided there are controls in place to ensure that mass appeal isn't mistaken for subject matter expertise. Even today, the myth that Bernoulli's Principle is what generates lift is pervasive! The effect Bernoulli observed is real - no question. But it's not what keeps an airplane aloft. Yet that myth abounds, including in this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)).

More on this, here (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/82394-bernoulli-right-but-thats-not-why-airplanes-fly.html#post1387879).

What I dislike:
*Wikipedia is--more often than not--a mile wide and an inch deep. Then again, most encyclopedias are...

I would agree that Wikipedia as a whole is a mile wide, and that each article, by itself, is an inch deep. However, the interthreaded collection of articles which cover any given subject can be very deep, cover the highest-level collegiate mathematics, and detail information not available to students until the graduate, if not the doctoral stage.

Furthermore, I find that as time goes on, that depth only increases, particularly as people like you come across topics which are only sparsely covered, and write either new material or create new articles which provide the rich depth that's only possible in an online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.

Too often I've seen perfectly good information and imagery discarded without justification, instead of being worked into a related article or spliced in.

Agreed! Better controls are needed, both for the inclusion of information, as well as for the deletion of information.

I'm kind of worried when Wiki becomes the Swiss Army site for any answer.

While I am concerned about the accuracy of the information, I have found as time goes on, and more and more people flock to Wikipedia, that erroneous or false information is seen far less often, and for much shorter duration.

There is a definite bias in many topics, particularly social issues. I suppose this is also unavoidable, people being people, but at least admit it instead of feigning objectivity.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, here. There's a good deal of both moral recitivism and revisionism going on at Wikipedia, both of which cloud it's reflection of reality. Because many of those topics aren't hard science, there's little one can do when an individual puts out a bunch of junk. On the other hand, I've found overzealous admins deleting perfectly valid content, either because they felt it was fluff, or because the content did not match their puritan sense of right/wrong.

Next up: Where Wikipedia could use some serious improvements.