Tuesday, February 7, 2006

Wiki-love A Librarian's observation: "Wikipedia Lies, Lies - " This was a comment my friend Robert left on a post a few weeks ago A response to my rhetorical stance that librarians are the buggy whips of the 21rst century. He linked a Wikipedia stub on a list of honored librarians presented in a library journal. I assumed some of the information probably factually incorrect. I checked the names against the LC Authority file - didn't see any obvious discrepancies. Maybe they hadn't given the right citation, perhaps the list didn't exist that the stub was a hoax. Even with a stub article there were a lot of potential loose ends to chase down, and I'm not Jim Rockford. My immediate response was that Wikipedia does lie per se, because it does not intend to lie or foster untruth. This argument is supposed to echo the malice of intent standard often used in slander/libel cases. It stands as far as that goes. It fails insofar as the actual standard Wikipedia seeks to meet is presenting truthful facts, being a useful reference for facts. Being as good (or at least as useful) as the Encyclopedia Britannica or similar resources. Two years ago I settled on the ways Wikipedia was being used as its main defense. Sidestepping accuracy, veracity or authoritative considerations. I felt its primary value lay in the fact that it collected soft information much faster and with more enthusiasm than such information would typically be examined distilled and tabulated. Standard reference works contain an irreducible bias towards hard information - facts, dates and other information that can be well represented by numbers. Sometimes with certain categories of ephemera, such as subcultures, the information may not - may never be included in common reference works at all. It may not get beyond the subculture itself and such supporting or peripheral media as exists; representation in works of social fiction for instance. Perhaps it may get academic treatment at some point, years later. I was thinking of the punk and the 'zine networks of the 80's, but you can fill your own more favored or current subculture. 100 years ago or more. One wouldn't have thought of subcultures - our society was just a myriad of cultures coexisting. If there was a dominant culture, it dominated precariously. Now we commonly believe we have one over-culture to which everything not it, is a subculture fascination. I recall I spent time in that previous post attempting to follow a distinction between highbrow and low brow cultures (or sub cultures) The phrase uni-brow I used to title that post was not attempt to find a synonym for middle-brow, as much as semiconscious speculation that high and low brow, are both categories of mass culture. The standard argument of the Wiki's is captured by the nostrum 'with a thousand eyeballs all bugs are shallow' (carried over from open source programming with all its attendant cathedral and bazaar conceits).. This argument holds that all departures from the known truth will be edited back, and opinions will be labeled as such. As many people view and edit the node, and their myriad experience and expertise is accumulated. This concept was thought to be indifferent to antagonistic attitudes the process was congruent; an article or node would be edited down to what set of facts everyone could agree on. The need for the fact set to be self-evident or readily verifiable should not be overlooked. There is also an assumption that all players are on the same side. That everyone desires Wikis as trustworthy entities. In the face of twenty years experience with bulletin-boards, newsgroups, and community site trolls this certainly constitutes a leap of faith. One obvious problem is how one identifies the state of the information at any particular point in time. It is always possible to look at the history and discussion tabs to develop a judgement on the main entry. How confidently is the material presented, How well written is it. How many different editor/authors has the entry had, what have the edits been about, how extensive. Are there signs that the article's facts are see-sawing between a set of individuals. How much activity and how long since the last edit. Currently this information exists but is not distilled and must be looked for. Either through the above tabs or links in the toolbox sidebar. It would be better if a set of metrics could be generated to the main page of the entry to illustrate an article's degree of stability or flux. Wikipedia's latest problems involve American politicians and attendant flacks rewriting their (and each others) bio pages. Activity ranging from obscuring, distorting through to vandalism. Original story on Meehan was broke by the Lowell MA paper Staffers edit Representative Meehan's Wikipedia entry. There was commentary by Ars Technica Congressional staffers edit boss's bio on Wikipedia and a Metafilter thread on this as well. I almost figured when a front page article in the Washington Post On Capitol Hill, Playing WikiPolitics appeared on this there was little point inflicting further amateur chops on this. I am glad for the quick attention that has been focused on this, for galvanizing a response. After the Seganthaler incident Those who were just learning of Wikipedia then would be tempted never to bother with it. Wikipedia's solutions so far are to move to mandatory registration for edits. I can't see why anyone should have a problem with that. Anonymity may have its place, but an encyclopedia of current information is not that place. Additionally they have instituted time outs for bad behavior as they did with congress, block entire servers in Washington. Casting about for further exculpations an important consideration lies in its nature as an open source, that it can be readily, openly and persistently linked and shared. The quintessential warehouse of information for wide ranging web conversations forming a shared common ground for these conversations. This would be a reason for Wikipedia to exist even if it did not already. It is why I feel the direction is to find a way to make Wikipedia work, because resources like the Encyclopedia Britanica may never be interested in providing this manner of service. Though the future of the book problably lies in this direction The processed book. Another way of looking at this is to ask why people assume standard reference materials are immune from this. That they exist outside this flux. I don't believe they do. While from without the change may seem glacial, glaciers non-the-less do move; moreover, debate concerning the form and content of certain articles may be all the hotter for being behind the scenes. The example of book review assignments came to mind. Because it is the norm for book reviews to allow letters to the editor. The decision review editors make is somewhat transparent. Deliberately assigning books to be reviewed by individuals inclined to review sympathetically or sometimes in counterpoint. If a particular Wikipedia node (article) presents as having a troubled history Wikipedia's volunteer editors may request someone to review it to determine whether its current content should be kept After this the article would be locked down or a period. There is no need for for this person to impartial. The idea that jerking Wikipedia content around like a pack of kindergartners could generate permanent losers may bring clarity. 9:59:02 PM    comment [];trackback [];

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. 2006 Paul Bushmiller. Last update: 2/7/06; 10:51:54 PM.