Tag Archives: Online encyclopedias

Wikipedia, Porn and the Airbrushing of History

An intriguing part of the story about Wikipedia and John Seigenthaler, the maligned journalist who found his Wikipedia biography had him as a JFK assassination suspect, is that the savvy folk obsessively monitor their own Wikipedia biographies, including Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself

who has edited it frequently, removing references to a credited “co-founder” of the encyclopedia and obscuring the nature of a pornographic web site he once published. Though some Wikipedia editors believe that it’s always wrong to edit subjects in which you are involved, this idea is clearly not shared by Wales. The edit history of his biography reveals that he’s made 18 changes with the account Jimbo Wales, most recently on Dec. 2.

The alleged co-founder in question is Larry Sanger, who coincidentally is setting up a ‘rival’ to Wikipedia, called Digital Universe which

aims to build on the model of free online encyclopedia Wikipedia by inviting acknowledged experts in a range of subjects to review material contributed by the general public. Called Digital Universe, the project is the brainchild of, among others, USWeb founder Joe Firmage and Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia’s earliest creators.

By providing a service they’re calling “the PBS of the Web,” the Digital Universe team hopes to create a new era of free and open access to wide swaths of information on virtually any topic.

According to Roger Cadenhead’s piece, Jimmy Wales is energetic in refuting any role for Sanger in the emergence of Wikipedia:

On seven different occasions, Wales has altered sentences that gave Larry Sanger credit for cofounding Wikipedia. Sanger, a former employee of Wales whose job was eliminated in 2002, led the project as “chief organizer” from its January 2001 launch and gave the site its name. He described himself as Wikipedia’s cofounder in a 2004 Kuro5hin article. Wales does not share this view. On Oct. 28, 2005, he changed the text “Wales and Sanger set up Wikipedia” to “Wales set up Wikipedia.” He made the change again later that day and repeated it on Nov. 9 and Dec. 1 — other editors kept putting language back in that credited Sanger.

It’s an interesting conundrum. Of course, Wales is not alone in monitoring his biography, and I’m sure if I had one, I would monitor it obsessively too. But when does ensuring that you’re not being accused of masterminding the assassination of presidents become Stalinesque airbrushing of history? And the logical result of this is that every biography on Wikipedia becomes an autobiography, which may keep the subjects happy, but may mark the end of Wikipedia as a useful tool.

The Future of Editing?

The Irish Developer Network reports on

an Esquire editor who invited Wikipedia users to edit an article that will presumably appear in the magazine. Of which Wikipedia users reacted strongly to, with over 500 edits to WP:ITAAW before the article was frozen.

I love Wikipedia but it sounds like hell. When I’m an editor I curse reporters who don’t appreciate the effort we put into polishing their copy till it shines, and as a writer I get all tetchy when an editor suggests the smallest tweak to my pristine copy. Having a swarm of Wikipedians picking over my work I think would drive me over the edge. But could editing be outsourced in a way not unlike this? When was an extra pair of eyes not worth the candle?

Encyclopedia Britannica Fights Back?

I don’t know whether this is the right response to the challenge of Wikipedia, but Encylopaedia Britannica seems to think so, according to The Boston Globe :

To respond to competitive challenges from Google, Yahoo, and the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, Britannica today will announce it is returning to an old practice after a lapse of a decade by naming an advisory board, whose 15 members top editor Dale Hoiberg calls ”some of the smartest people on earth.” The Chicago-based publisher hopes that the prestige and knowledge of the members — four Nobel laureates and two Pulitzer Prize winners among them — will help reassert the authority of an encyclopedia first published in 1768 but buffeted in an age when the Internet has loosened the definition of what is factual.

Librarians, teachers, and scholars say they are increasingly alarmed at the way students pull information from anywhere online and accept it as valid, without much consideration of the source. Wikipedia, for instance, allows anyone to make entries and yet draws 5 million visitors a month.

”You can’t do something so authoritative easily. It’s hard work,” said Hoiberg, a Britannica senior vice president.

Loosened the definition of what is factual? I’m guessing this is not the same Encyclopaedia Britannica that recently acknowledged one schoolboy was able to spot five errors in two entries. The issue is not whether people are redefining what is factual, it’s whether they so readily accept something as more authoritative than other sources because it has a long history behind it, or because the author of the piece, and those editing it, have titles before their name and initials after it. As I wrote in a recent column on the accuracy of Wikipedia, it’s not about the contributor’s qualifications, but about their contribution. The folk putting together Wikipedia don’t sit around making stuff up — if they did, they’ll quickly find their entries altered, deleted, or put into some sort of side-channel while the matter is earnestly debated. It’s peer review on steroids.

There’s some good recent history of EB in The Boston Globe’s piece. And the author, Eric Ferkenhoff, talks to Jimmy Wales as well for balance. But I think he may have allowed EB to put a bit too much of their spin on the story. The hiring of an advisory board sounds to me less about ‘reasserting authority’ and more about wondering how the hell to create a product that can compete with the collective wisdom of thousands of Wikipedians. No one is claming that Wikipedia is perfect (at least as far as I know), and that it should not be used merely as one of several sources, but experience should probably teach us that the same is true of other reference books, including Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Of course, there is concern more generally about students taking stuff from the Internet and accepting it as fact. As Eric writes:

It is such uncertainty about the accuracy of Web-based information that troubles many traditionalists. ”I think it would be impossible to find a librarian, or even a teacher, in the country that’s not concerned,” said Jo Sommers, head librarian at The Latin School of Chicago, an elite private school. ”The kids, they gravitate to the Googles, and they don’t understand the issue of going to sources that are authoritative, sources that have been vetted. They just assume that everything they find on the Internet is right.”

But that’s a problem for teachers to explain to their students and to help them distinguish from rubbish and fact (and the importance of confirming information elsewhere). But it’s disingenuous to imply from that that there is EB on one side of the fence and then there’s Googe/Yahoo/Wikipedia and all the rest. After all, EB is on the Internet too. Does that make it rubbish?

Lucian George, Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia

Into this debate about the reliability of Wikipedia leaps the 12–year old figure of Lucian George from north London, who found five errors in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. BBC reports that

A schoolboy has uncovered several mistakes in the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica – regarded by readers as an authority on everything. Lucian George, 12, from north London, found five errors on two of his favourite subjects – central Europe and wildlife – and wrote to complain. The book’s editor wrote back thanking him for “pointing out several errors and misleading statements”.
A Britannica spokesman said the company was “grateful”.

His father, Gabriel George, told BBC News: “Lucian told me he had found a mistake. Then, a few days later, he found another. Then there was another. “By the time he had found five, I said to him that he should write to the editors to complain about it.”

So what did he find?

  • Chotyn, in which two battles between the Poles and the Ottoman Empire were fought, is said to lie in Moldova. (It’s not, it’s in Ukraine.)
  • The Polish part of the Belovezhskaya Forest, according to the encyclopaedia, lies in the Bialystok, Suwalki and Lomza provinces. (Suwalki and Lomza provinces have not existed since 1998. And, even when they did, the whole Polish section of the forest – which extends into Belarus – was in Bialystok, the BBC reports.)
  • The terrain of the European bison: Poland, according to the encylcopedia. (Actually it encompassed parts of Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Slovakia and Belarus – not just Poland.)

Of course, errors in the Britannica are nothing new (here’s a list from one guy alone). And I’m no Lucian George but (that’s what we’re going to say from now on, isn’t it? ‘I’m no Lucian George, but isn’t that use of the semi-colon incorrect?’) I’ve spotted a few errors in my time in both the Britannica and Encarta. (If one 12–year old can find five, how many more errors must there be in there?) But maybe we shouldn’t be so apologetic about Wikipedia’s eccentricities and errors when we realise that no single encyclopedia can get it right? The academics who do these entries are, after all, just academics, and probably don’t have time to have any peer review of their entries.

In a way Wikipedia is like having dozens of Lucian Georges looking over your shoulder when you amend or add an entry, which may end up being a better way of keeping out errors. Not least, of course, an error in Wikipedia will get fixed on the spot, but how many copies of EB are going to sit on shelves, riddled with mislocated East European data, for years to come, misleading the public and irritating the good burghers of Chotyn?

This week’s column – Wikipedia

This week’s Loose Wire column is about Wikipedia:

Wouldn’t it be great if there was a place on the Internet where educated folk pooled their knowledge for nothing, conscientiously building up a huge, orderly and free database on subjects as varied as wind gradients and the yellow-wattled lapwing?

Actually, it’s already happened. It’s an on-line encyclopaedia called Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), and it probably qualifies as the largest ever collaborative effort on the Internet. Late last month it reached a milestone: 200,000 entries (compare that with 60,000 at MSN Encarta Premium, Columbia’s 51,000 entries, and Encyclopedia.com’s 57,000 articles). By the end of this year, Wikipedia is expected to have about 330,000 articles.

Full text at the Far Eastern Economic Review (subscription required, trial available) or at WSJ.com (subscription required). Old columns at feer.com here.