Perspective: Wikipedia and the nature of truth

Perhaps the most recognized application of open-source technology in the world, Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that has become a research staple for millions of Web users.

Written collaboratively by volunteers, Wikipedia has become a smash success. The free site includes more than 845,000 articles in English alone and has won a loyal legion of fans. John Seigenthaler does not number among them.

In an op-ed published Thursday in USA Today, Seigenthaler wrote about his anguish after learning about a false Wikipedia entry that listed him as having been briefly suspected of involvement in the assassinations of both John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. The 78-year-old Seigenthaler--a former assistant attorney general working under Bobby Kennedy--got Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales to delete the defamatory information in October. Unfortunately, that was four months after the original posting.

The hope is that the collective wisdom of the cyberworld can police the system to catch the mistakes sooner rather than later.

Maybe this is part of the price that we're going to have to pay for the open approach where the system's very strength sometimes turns out to be its Achilles' heel: Somebody nursing a grudge can always pervert or airbrush the historical record. To be sure, it can happen in the so-called proprietary or for-profit world as well. The hope is that the collective wisdom of the cyberworld can police the system to catch the mistakes sooner rather than later.

Of course, Seigenthaler might have registered as a user with Wikipedia and corrected the article himself. Failing that, he could have posted comments to the article correcting the mistakes. The reality is that this is asking too much. We're talking about a 78-year-old guy who came of age when state-of-the-art was defined by 78 rpm records, tube radios and black-and-white televisions. And with so much stuff out there--and more getting created each day--was the burden on Seigenthaler to know he was the subject of a Wikipedia article? I'm sure his first question was, "What in the heck is a Wikipedia?"

For younger people, this is all second nature. Increasingly they rely--maybe exaggeratedly so--on the Internet for information. Purists may sniff at the elevation of Wikipedia to the rank of serious reference source. But that's what it has become for millions of people around the world.

On your ride home today, try pondering a future where Wikipedia's model of competing versions of the truth becomes the norm. Will the increasing influence of the wisdom of the crowd force us to rethink the nature of knowledge? With the proliferation of the Internet, more voices inevitably will become part of that conversation.

You can argue that epistemological revisionism goes on all the time. As a kid, I remember thumbing through a 1920s encyclopedia when I found a discussion of different racial categories. Someone reading the entry decades later would have found the assertions in that article to be nonsensical, if not borderline racist. But when the book was published, the people who might have corrected the record had no power over the publishing company printing up the product line. With the Internet, anyone with an online connection can chime in.

We're still settling into the new order, and the Seigenthaler episode highlights the challenge of fairly refereeing the debate. Ostensibly, the objective is truth. But questions about the nature of truth date back to Plato and Aristotle. It's a vexing argument that continues to the present day.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[markdoiron]

Seigenthaler Should Have Had It Fixed

what i found wanting in Seigenthaler's editorial is the lack of explanation for failing to fix the slanderous info himself. he uses usa today as a platform to rail against non-traditional media and the risks, and yet doesn't appear to have enough interest in the erroneous material to do what it says on each wikipedia page. i find it hard to believe that Seigenthaler isn't at least savvy enough to find someone to fix the erroneous info for him if being 78-years old meant he couldn't do it himself (though he's sufficiently technically savvy to write an article for usa today).

i also wonder why there hasn't been a mention of how many times that page was viewed. surely that info can be discovered? if this happened to me, one of my first questions would be exactly that. what i wonder: did Seigenthaler ask, does he know the answer, and does it diminish his case because so very few folks ever even looked him up?

mark d.

Who has the time?

To get into an edit war with a gang of 15 year olds?

[laurels]

If Wikipedia were what it claimed he wouldn't have to "fix" it

Seigenthaler DID get the slanderous info "fixed". By contacting Wales directly, he did the right & responsible thing - sparing himself the grief and "edit wars" he would have had from trying to deal with goons personally.

It is not this man's job to fix Wikipedia. If Wikipedia weren't seriously flawed, it wouldn't be necessary anyway.

Wikipedia ought to require account information before letting anyone participate. While that might violate someone's ideology, tracking user information would enable Wikipedia to reform itself into a reasonably reliable resource - which is what it currently (misleadingly) bills itself as already being. Unfortunately, Wikipedia as it currently stands is a great idea, but hopelessly marred by "lowest common denominator" writing that results in mistakes, both innocent and malicious. And - contrary to what its champions claim - those mistakes are not getting fixed promptly.

[markdoiron]

A Further Thought

sorry for replying to my own post, but i thought of a parallel event that happened in my life a couple years ago.

i submitted to a contest a photo of a boy scout troop saluting the U.S. flag at summer camp. it received an honorable mention and was slated for publication in a later issue of the magazine sponsoring the contest. they asked for the original negative, which i sent them. it was one of several photos taken of the same scene from the same location. however, one boy in the line had a bee annoying him that he was trying to swat at as i was taking the pictures. i know this; but the only thing obvious in the photo is that 20-some odd boys are saluting and one isn't. the magazine erroneously published the wrong photo. i wrote to them to point out the error, but they chose to never print a correction.

i've had a number of folks from around the country comment on why i'd submit a photo of scouts saluting the flag with one boy not saluting. i was personally embarrassed--to the extent that i apologized to the troop for something that wasn't my fault (i told the contest organizers exactly which negative to use, and included a print of the correct image with my letter submitting it). today, that magazine is still out there, with my name in it, for folks to see. nothing can be done about that. but, on the website where the photo was published, it was possible to correct it.

http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0403/a-favo.html

now if i could just get them to correct it to look like it originally did (that is, not over-exposed):

http://members.cox.net/btphotos2/sc_fav2.htm

mark d. doiron

[Markomusic]

Further to the further thought

I liked you comments on this and it highlighted another layer of the question of consensus truth. However, I have to add that I had trouble seeing the difference between the shots, or identifying which scout was not saluting. It seems that the only difference is lighting. Did they correct the shot but lighten it, or did they perhaps pick the wrong image just because it was better exposed? In any case, it is interesting that I don't see the difference, but to you and the scouts it is an important "error."

[charlie cooper]

Was the onus on him?

tx for the feedback. i also worry about wikipedia getting bashed unfairly. but why do you believe the onus falls upon the subject of the article to set things straight? in this case, we're talking about a relatively older fellow who (i assume) likely is not familiar with wikipedia. should one be responsible for monitoring the accuracy of an entry that he's not aware of?

[ithinkithink]

no sympathy

Galileo was an old man too. The entry was changed in 4 months, Galileo waited quite a bit longer. Yes, there will be errors but that the correction can be made in the life time of an old man says something.

[n3td3v]

Getting bashed unfairly

Is that the same as C|NET being banned from Google media representatives for bashing their executives.

[ArbitraryThinker]

Absurd: He did not want to correct it

He seemed to be more than capabile of hunting down Jimmy Wales, the BellSouth abuse team, the IP address of the original poster, representatives from Answers.com and Reference.com, and references to all of the major relevant legal rulings on the subject.

See his article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

I am quite sure all of this took considerably more work than asking a tech savvy friend to fix the article.

Clearly his goal was not to quickly and quietly fix the error. Based on his own writing his motivation seems to be to hunt down the author and to base Wikipedia.

ArbitraryT.blogspot.com

[NewWorldDan]

Question of liabilty

If you read Mr. Siegenthaler's op-ed piece, he seems to devote a fair amount of space as to who is and should be responsible for posting libelous content on a site like Wikipedia. He had several complaints.

One was a safe harbor provision that Wikipedia takes advantage of. If someone makes a complaint about content posted, Wikipedia can promptly take it down to avoid liability.

Another was the difficulty of tracking down the actual poster. Wikipedia doesn't know who it was, but can provide some technical detail. However, Bell South wouldn't divluge customer detail (and I think they should be commended for this) without a proper court issued subpoena.

Lastly, and I speculate somewhat here, I think his biggest beef is that the only person to sue for damages is some anonymous jerk who my be impossible to identify and probably has no actual assets anyway.

The Internet is a big wild place. Let the buyer beware, and question everything. Everyone has to be savvy. Ask, who is authenticating the content on Wikipedia? No one.

I'll also go ahead and answer one of your questions, why do you believe the onus falls upon the subject of the article to set things straight? Because the web is no different than the rest of the world. If someone slanders you in real life, you can take them to court. Mr. Siegenthaler thinks like a newspaper man. But Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It shouldn't even be thought of as an encyclopedia. It's a lot more like the community board at the local YMCA.

[Len Bullard]

The Wisdom of Crowds

The wisdom of crowds is very good at selecting an answer or picking a tool for a job they all do and understand. It is very bad at picking a tool for a job only a few of them do. The same is true when it comes to evaluating the facts of a case or situation. Professional journalists and editors know this. They are human and do fail at this (See RoveGate), but overall, they do quite well. Overall the crowd does well, but when it fails in a monopolizing media, the damage to the individual exceeds the value of the tool or media.

The problem of wikipedia is not the tool or the task but the nature of the medium as an amplifier and like any amplifier, it doesn't care whether it is fed signal or distortion.

Your editor is best trained to answer the question, when is a topic or comment or example not news. The problem of wikipedia is that it is unedited by professionals who share values. That this is true of the world in general does not detract from the fact that it is not true of professional publications in general. So regardless of the public acceptance of wikipedia (I use it every day) or the tools, the fact remains that one should maintain a healthy scepticism about its contents over and above that which one should maintain for professional publications.

Again Cooper Only Writes Half the Story

Yep, there are going to be errors in user-created content. However, this is a free service which is used by a very large number of people. Errors (accidental or otherwise) are usually spotted quickly.

Actually, I can't think of an example of something wildly inappropriate (like pr0n) being posted to Wiki and existing for any length of time.

Coop, why not spend the extra 2 minutes and talk about all the times when the Wiki community has corrected errors?

Sure, some of them are funny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever


This /. page has a lot of good links:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/10/2214230&tid=225&tid=188&tid=224&tid=95&tid=219

[charlie cooper]

wiki fixes

of course. that's the strength -- if not the beauty -- of the wikipedia system. but i think you would agree that it also turns out to be a potential weakness. if it's a well-trafficked entry, i suppose enough eyes will be on hand to correct any errors or misinterpretations. but what if it's some piece of esoterica that only interests a handfull of folks? then it becomes more problematic. no?

[n3td3v]

Prime-to-air everyday on Wikipedia

At prime U.S time of day for internet useage, the Wikipedia site suffers 502 error outages nearly everyday. Looks like the nature of truth is infact they have a crap team of network admins with crappy load balancing / and or not enough servers. More than likely their servers are misconfigured

[Pluqueric]

So, give them a hand!

If I had the PC savvy you imply by your posting, I would gladly lend a hand, rather than seeing how clever I can be at denigrating the site.

[ArbitraryThinker]

Ironic? Yes and very funny

The article fails to properly highlight that Mr. Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in order to preserve and protect First Amendment freedoms. It is interesting that he spent four months trying to "unmask" his biographer rather than to correct the story. It seems that he is only protecting the First Amendment rights of what he considers to be real journalists.

His own article is very telling.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

Although presumably an advocate of the First Amendment he appears to really only be an advocate for traditional press outlets. He seems to suggest that only they can get the story straight, that the new media is full of "volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects", and states that "Congress has enabled them and protects them" (perhaps he would like real journalists to be licensed and registered?).

He further compares ISPs and Internet hosting services to newspapers and broadcast news agencies, "unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued...". If his traditional news media perspective were not so predictable this whole story would be even more entertaining.

[laurels]

"Real journalists" adhere to a higher standard

The First Amendment does not include the right to slander.

Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a resource, but whenever anyone criticizes it, it argues that it shouldn't be held to the same standards as a reputable reference work.

Which is it? A work that has the potential to rival real reference works, or a hangout for trolls?

Wikipedia is making big claims for itself, but it isn't delivering the goods. Instead of facing this problem and trying to fix it, its users defend its right to be just some place where people can write whatever they like and so what if it isn't accurate?

Its champions even defend its inaccuracies by bleating that the critic is being unfair by focusing on the mistakes that weren't fixed, instead of the mistakes that were, or that critics picked the "wrong" article. Or they try to shove the burden onto the critic - "you should fix it instead of complaining", they say, apparently unaware of how ridiculous this sounds.

Wikipedia can't have it both ways. Either it must make its contributors behave like "real" journalists or it must stop pretending to be entitled to a respect it isn't entitled to and hasn't earned.

If and when Wikipedia decides it wants to grow up and be a real encyclopedia, it will stop justifying and minimizing inaccurate information, slander, and other problems. Its contributors should not be allowed to get away with vicious attacks.

Print books make mistakes, but not so often, and not so blatantly. Real authors understand that publishing untrue information has consequences.

So long as Wikipedia refuses to accept responsibility for accurate content, it will continue to lose respect, as stories about its (sometimes hilarious) mistakes spread. Editorialists such as Seigenthaler are doing us (the general public) a favor by warning us that Wikipedia isn't serious about the promises it makes.

And by the way the reason nobody caught the Seigenthaler mistake is a structural Wikipedia flaw: if nobody ever heard of a particular thing before, how can they possibly know such a thing doesn't exist? There is no way. For this reason, it is safe to assume that most if not all invented material will go unchallenged - because there is no way to check if something doesn't really exist. This is why accountability is far more important than Wikipedia proponents are willing to give it credit for - because it is the only thing that can stop total fabrication.

[Thunder Johny]

licensed and registered

http://www.analogstereo.com/vauxhall_corsa_owners_manual.htm

[Beer_God]

Error Found On Wikipedia!

The world is still in shock today as it learned that an error was found on wikipedia. Pompous journalists, cynics, drama queens, and the elderly rushed to the scene to condemn the website as inaccurate and the spawn for the dark lord.

Many internet users are bracing themselves for slow connection speeds as thousands prepare morally righteous articles, enraged posts and generally nonsensical speeches demanding that all information that can only be proven, as facts, without a shadow of a doubt be removed from the aforementioned website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God is said to be the first page to go.

Do you wish to be taken seriously?

If so, you'll need to take the quality issue more seriously. A public
that can't trust Wikipedia won't respect Wikipedia.

Simple.

[P. Jackson]

The problem of anonymity

The fact remains that cowardly people cloaked in anonymity can do various kinds of harm on the Web, ranging from character assassination to blog and email spamming. I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but blaming the victim isn't it.

[Betty Roper]

Regulation?

Charles,

I appreciate you coming into the forums to comment.

Reading your post, there seemed to be a subtext that wasn't directly addressed. Your post echoes many ideas about the web being a novel medium where we are still trying to find our way toward methods or controls that can prevent nefarious things from happening, but I've never accepted that premise.

The web is a new distribution channel for publishing things that, basically, speeds things up. Regards Mr. Seigenthaler's complaint, I'm reminded of the old saying, "A lie can run around the world in the time it takes the Truth to put on its shoes." Seigenthaler tried to appeal to traditional methods for dealing with libel, but was stymied because ISPs are protected and it would require a court order to disclose the identity of his accuser.

I'm not clear on why offline regulation and law should not be applied to online publishers (such as Wikipedia). What would happen in the "real" world if the NY Times allowed an anonymous writer to libel someone?

[Thunder Johny]

ISPs are protected

http://www.analogstereo.com/infiniti_g20_owners_manual.htm

[plexer2498]

wikipedia and truth

I think, even based on the most unfortunate event, that we already live in the state of flexible truth. We have competing interests that are always contending to have their version of the truth posted, read and believed. Politics are a very good example of this; like politics and the nature of public knowledge, these forces always seems to rebalance, and like knowledge, overtime, it is developed into a more accurate "truth", whether we are speaking to ancient cultures, or current geo-political events. The nice thing about WIKIPEDIA is there are people who will seek the truth, and move to try and change, correct or inform us of the events and circumstance that are true as possible. On the notation of should an individual be responsible for trying to check al of their information constantly, I would say a near impossible task. This is where we must all ask ourselves about what is right and the right thing to do ? with the internet, we all have worldwide reach, and with that power, comes responsibility.

[Earl Benser]

When you have flexible truth....

... you have no truth at all. Wikipedia has no claim to truth. It is
not much better that the tabloid newspapers which proclaim
alien invasions every time sales decline. Every person who might
'correct' a Wikipedia article could be faced by another person
who might revise the article to his own liking, truth be damned.
Without any sort of serious control, Wikipedia is an exercise in
futility. If I need to confirm every thing written in Wikipedia, why
bother with Wikipedia at all????

I would say that those directly involved in developing and
running Wikipedia come up more than a few point short of any
minimal mental or social IQ. Those who might depend on
Wikipedia for information don't even reach that level.

[Markomusic]

Flexible truth and the various advocates

I think you've hit on it. Wikipedia doesn't so much create the issue of fact versus fiction as much as it brings the problem into focus. No matter what source we use for information, there are still debates about the veracity. But previously we were expected to trust the expert information gatherers. On the other hand, there are objective standards for reporting news, and for fact checking, that the sources for Wikipedia are not necessarily going to follow. For a journalist it is a career requirement (even if some have readily abused this credo) to create articles that withstand review. The good news is that the same can be said of Wikipedia, but we are just unsure of how the truth is going to be determined on many topics. Which as you pointed out, is the heart of the issue in any case.

[bdennis410]

Truth is truth!

Truth is truth.
Mark Twain said, "figures don't lie, but liars figure."
Many thinkers greater than myself have noted that truth is easily confused with ideology; with opinion, even emotion. A heartfelt belief is easily interpreted as the "truth," and it may be true from that person's point of view.
That is why facts and the "scientific method" of providing a fact and checking it against standards, and measurable, repeatable results,has always served us well.
The problem with Wikipedia and other "open source" reference sources is that they are mostly bodies of "opinion," and to be fair, with quantities of factual information as well. But Wikipedia is not the New England Journal of Medicine, where articles can't be published without expert peer review. DMOZ tries to set up Category Editors for major Keyword Categories, with limited success screening "trutful" entries from puff and diatribe.
Like it or not, we, as thinkers, journalists, educators, whatever, have to try to teach people the truth; engage them in the "critical thinking process."
In so doing, we have to hope that there are enough "thinkers," critical reasoners of truth, to delve through the "opinion" on Wikipedia and other sites, and arrive at "truths" that help us all to help society.
If we can determine a "truth" we have an obligation to share it with society.

[Markomusic]

The Evolving Personal Information Construct

Truth, as several people have pointed out, comes into focus in large part according to our degree of interest in it versus our other motivations. Given that CNN has a different version of the news for its various international markets, one might conclude that the market wants something other than pure objectivity. It seems fairly obvious that most of us go searching for the ?truth? is some form that suits us so that we can go on contending whatever we thought to begin with.

Check out the following link. I was exposed first to this site/presentation by someone else on the C/Net blogs, so I am spreading the word. As it turns out the presentation, which was first crafted by Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson, has been moving around on the web, so here is the most current streamable spot.

http://epic.lightover.com/

It also turns out that there are some oopsies in that first version I linked above. In all fairness the authors know this and decided later to change the presentation. The result is a little less dark and frankly a little watered down, but more accurate. After you?ve seen the first version, check out EPIC 2015 at

www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic

Watch the original first, as it's more dramatic.

[Earl Benser]

Truth is an absolute.

When "most of us go searching for the ?truth? is some form that
suits us so that we can go on contending whatever we thought
to begin with", it is not truth people are looking for, but rather
justification of their current illusion. And that's human nature:....
"Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up...." But don't
call it 'truth'.

The claim that "Given that CNN has a different version of the
news for its various international markets, one might conclude
that the market wants something other than pure objectivity." is
totally incorrect. Not that pure objectivity isn't offensive to
people running on bias, prejudice, ignorance, or cult belief, it
definitely is, But people in different areas of the world are
interested in different things, and to different degrees. So
reporting in an objective and truthful manner also involves the
selection of the reported items and the depth of the reporting to
match the applicable local interests.

[fallingwater]

The Truth

You state in your comment that "most of us go searching for the truth in some form that suits us so that we can go on contending whatever we thought to begin with". Generally speaking, I think that people go searching for the truth because they want to know the real facts, and would rather have this than an illusion.

[dneunabe]

Technology can't replace people

I love Wikipedia, and I'm pained to see this happen. If you've read the book WHY THINGS BITE BACK

[tpavlic]

Biting back?

This wasn't technology biting back. Wikipedia aggregates people's writings, and it uses people to do the aggregation. This has nothing to do with technology running amuck.

Read Surowiecki's book (_The Wisdom of Crowds_) and rethink things.

[Thunder Johny]

I love Wikipedia

http://www.analogstereo.com/chrysler_prowler_owners_manual.htm

[dneunabe]

As I was saying...

I inadvertently posted my message before it was finished. WHY THINGS BITE BACK--a book on the unintended consequences of technology--would tell us that a software technology--or any technology--such as Wikipedia will almost always "bite back" (as it apparently did in this case) without expert human oversight. I'm glad this error was caught, and I'd recommend Wikipedia enlist the help of professional editors. I say we use this as an example of how human judgment still matters in this technological world.

[kadmiel]

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBEL

The laws enabling a person to be recompensed for serious libel are too complex and expensive to benefit the normal person. They need updating and strengthening for the Internet era. One who sents numerous postings to sites maligning a person with false incriminations (crimes and immoral activity) should have to recant the information publically and cease and desist publication (including removal of all postings) until suit is settled, should the poor victim have the wherewithall to even bring up charges.

We live in an era of world-wide witch hunts and the hunted is left with no place to hide, no life and way to rebuild one. Someone somewhere will be able to cut, paste, and publish the false information endlessly for whatever eternity electronics can provide.

[jackmbrown]

stronger libel laws a VERY bad idea

Ruth, if you think a stronger libel law is a good idea, just take a look at the UK, which has a libel law more akin to what you are proposing; the law is frequently and successfully used to stifle freedom of the press and even destroy small, low budget publications -- see for example the Living Marxism Magazine - ITM Television affair <http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11052005.html>, in which a small magazine was run out of business for publishing a critical --and ultimately correct--article criticising a television reporter's story.

If you think politicians and rich folks wouldn't use a strong libel law to run their critics out of business--well, you're sadly mistaken.

[Pluqueric]

Veritas

I once overheard the following conversation:

First person: ?There?s not a word of truth in the world, today!?

To which his companion answered, absent-mindedly, ?Very true!?

The conundrum of truth is as elusive as any enigma. This much is certain: man will create truth to his liking and to conform to his preconceived notions.

Therefore, let Wikipedia serve as the repository of man?s search for truth, which he will never abandon (until he finds what suits him).

[Earl Benser]

Too bad...

... what suits him is rarely the truth......

[brakaway]

CIA Worldbook & the 'truth'

Wikipedia is not the only source of misleading information. Case in point the CIA's worldbook.
This web site has description of every country on earth. With one exception: Palestine.

I am sorry to be too old, but when I studied world geography Palestine was on the southeastern shoreline of the Mediterranean Sea.
QED

[Earl Benser]

Now...

... it's a figment of your imagination. But have hope. Palestine my
yet survive the scourge of Islamic fundamentalism and re-emerge
as a nation.

[Fr2]

CIA World Book

I'll bet that, in addition to Palestine, it also showed places such as the Soviet Union and Upper Volta, and that Moçambique and Angola were both colonies of Portugal. Quod (not so) Erat Demonstratum. I happen to agree on the Palestine issue, but you need to use a stronger argument than "that's how it used to be when I was young." I fear a great many things have changed since I was young...

[fdbryant3]

The truth

That is because currently there is no country known as Palestine that is recognized as a nation. There is a region known as Palestine. Just like the West Coast or the Eastern Seaboard refers to regions of the United States, it is all they are regions, not independent nations. It can be argued that this is all Palestine has ever been - a region ruled by various civilizations - I'm not here to argue about that. There is the Palestian National Authority working with the U.S. and other countries too establish a State of Palestine, which may happen one day. When that happens I am sure the CIA Worldbook will include Palestine as a country. Until then the CIA Worldbook is accurate on this point.

[laurels]

Wiki could take a lesson from CIA Worldbook

The CIA Worldbook explains how and why it has made the choices it has made.

And actually Palestine isn't the only area that is "neglected" - or explained. The CIA had to make choices. It made the choices it did, and it explained them.

That is far different from what Wikipedia has done.

People need to understand that all this talk about "truth" is drivel. There are facts and there are sources, and those are what can get reported. With the CIA Worldbook, I can cite a "fact", and I can cite that as being "as reported by" and I can name my source.

One of Wikipedia's core problems is that it, as an institution, does not understand the difference between "truth", opinion, fact, and source material. There shouldn't be anything in there that can't be backed up, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be attaching links to their sources. Nothing on Wikipedia is worth more than the source it's attached to, and too often that means it's not worth anything.

Anything that can't be sourced ought to be deleted, or better yet there ought to be a separate page where material without reliable source information gets put while it waits for someone to get back to it with some credibility.

However, most Wikipedia editors seem to think that their vague and fuzzy opinions are somehow valuable. Either that or they've just plain got an agenda to push.

[Thunder Johny]

too old

http://www.analogstereo.com/vacuum/miele_allergies_fight_back.htm

[zohrab]

Authoritarianism in Wikipedia

Some years ago, I started/wrote an article on Masculism/Men's Rights on Wikipedia, being a relative authority on the subjects, as you can find out by searching.

Then some other people, whom I hadn't even heard of, came along and amended the article to put their slant on it, which I did not think reflected the nature of the topic.

The dispute hardened, and was resolved in favour of the other side by some authority figure in Wikipedia, who probably knew nothing whatsoever about the topic -- seemingly on the basis of how many people there were on each side in the dispute !

Wkipedia, therefore, has no credibility, as far as I am concerned, and I never visit it any more.

[fdbryant3]

I also find hard to give Wikipedia authoriy

Although I look up a lot of stuff at Wikipedia I wouldn't use it if I was writing a formal reference. I would use it as a starting point for research but I am going to want something more concrete I suppose for something published.

[ortzinator]

Who cares?

It's Wikipedia. An error is an error whether it's purposefully defamatory or not. If someone actually believes it, shame on the reader, not the editor.

If you know that Wiki is edited by volunteers, average people, then you should not take everything on it as absolute truth.

[Thunder Johny]

reader, not the editor

http://www.analogstereo.com/isuzu_amigo_owners_manual.htm