Comments on: Growing pains for Wikipedia

After two scandals in one week, Wikipedia's founder decides to make a change to the anyone-can-contribute encyclopedia.

[Joelshouts]

Yeah, well if you want my opinion...

I really don't understand where the argument is.

Does the party for Wikipedia really feel that Wikipedia is always correct? If so, what do you say to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_language
Scroll down to Gullah. Thats right, is Gullah spoken off the coast of Alaska? Nope. I just added that, probably around 10 mins ago. If you don't mind, I'd prefer that you didn't take it out, at least for a few days. If you've looked at the link and Alaska is gone from Gullah, then someone changed it back. Look at the change log to see how long it took.

So if, for example, right now, someone was doing research on creoles, I may have just steered them down quite a wrong path.

Toward the party against Wikipedia: can you honestly say that all of Wikipedia is worthless? Sure, there may be some wrong information. People do what they can about accuracy, just like any other information source. Take some time, read. Browse something that isn't so controversial. French Revolution would be a good topic, for example.

We've already seen that article about Brittanica, and how it has its faults.

On accountability, someone's name on some article obviously means that the article contains true information. I mean, hey, look at newspapers. Since they started publishing authors names, there haven't been any retractions! Everyone agrees that newspapers always are correct, since the author's name is on it. [/drama][/sarcasm] Yeah, point: accountability doesn't solve truth problems. There are many ways to push an agenda besides anonymously editing a Wikipedia article.

Point being, the is no absolute answer. Wikipedia isn't "good" or "bad". It is what it is, and take it for what it is. Many people collaborate on these articles. Some ******* may come by and add Alaska to an article about Creole languages. What is to stop him? Therefore, should you trust Wikipedia as always being accurate? I wouldn't. I also don't accept what Joe Random tells me about whatever subject, since most people have unreasonable opinions on just about everything. He might be right. Joe could also be blatantly wrong. Who is to say without further investigation?

Wikipedia has a HUGE base of valid information. Saying that this is only by accident is fairly... narrow minded? I don't see how someone could make that statement. I love using Wikipedia as a starting point for other research. The information base is very broad. For example, try finding a better online resource on martial arts (Hint: don't... I've looked).

So, yeah, in summary, I guess the point is this - Wikipedia is a useful tool, but it should be taken for what it is, and recognized for the flaws inherent within its design. Realize that everything you are reading may be false, so check other sources. At the same time, Wikipedia has a huge amount of information, and you may be missing out on something that is genuinely useful.

It is my personal belief that, in the end, Wikipedia will produce high-quality, freely available articles encompassing many points of view. When both sides in an argument reason on a subject, I expect that the most correct, or at least the most agreed upon, answer will result. I might be wrong, though.

How is this unreasonable? I don't see how anyone could have any other view. If you see a flaw in my thinking, I implore you, let me know. I would like to see it too.

P.S. It still says Alaska under Gullah :)

[Earl Benser]

All good points...

,,, but we are still left with the conclusion that nothing in Wikipedia
can be accepted without verification using credible (or mostly
credible) sources. Therefore, there is no point using Wikipedia, go
right for the credible (or mostly credible) sources.

Wikipedia is a fine collection of people's focused and random
opinions about things. If all you want is opinions, then Wikipedia
works.

[Earl Benser]

All good points...

,,, but we are still left with the conclusion that nothing in Wikipedia
can be accepted without verification using credible (or mostly
credible) sources. Therefore, there is no point using Wikipedia, go
right for the credible (or mostly credible) sources.

Wikipedia is a fine collection of people's focused and random
opinions about things. If all you want is opinions, then Wikipedia
works.

[Soupir]

Self-Conscious Seigenthaler

Seigenthaler is one self-conscious bugger. No one mentioned that him discovering the error and changing it would have been the Wikipedia in action. Instead, he chose to step back and open fire.

No one gave a hoot until he made a fuss; he isn't popular or important enough to drive traffic to the page and have visitors find the error otherwise. Only he found it, alone and arrogantly, and made a fuss. It would be like any anonymous stranger looking up his entry, finding an error, and becoming so enraged he starts a fire about it. That Seigenthaler had the means and clout to say something says nothing about the Wiki and a whole lot about him.

[Earl Benser]

Suppose....

... someone put an article into Wikipedia saying that "Soup
Thomas, or whatever your real name is, is reported to be a child
molester. But so far, nothing has been proven."

Now, would YOU be satisfied just with editing the article? Or
would you be out to nail the author and perhaps the Wikipedia
staff ??????

Like how many other places might that report have circulated to?

I think that you would make one h--- of a fuss.

[VeryBerry]

That's "google bombing"

Google "google bombing" to find out how average laypeople can 'trick' the google search engine. Google hates that, and eventually they fade away as the web crawling algorithms are tweaked to resist these intentional attention.

That's why doing google on "failure" points to Bushs' biography.

For whatever it matters, it also lists Michael Moore -- it's a google bomb war between both red vesrus blue.

[VeryBerry]

Here's Google's official word

Here's the offical word by Google:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html

[Afrimerican]

AFRIMERICAN VS. WIKIPEDIA BIASES

Afrimerican is a term created, and defined in 1989 as an accurate academic, legal term of description, and definition of Negroid people born in the United States, and all articles written about it on Wikipedia have been deleted by wikipedia administrators with all sorts of excuses, and in spite of the fact the Afrimerican word and definition has been officially added to the U.S. Census Racial Classification list. First, it was claimed Afrimerican was not in/on Google,(a lie), then Wikipedia said it was a misspelling of Aframerican, which is actually a term used by and in the Caribbean islands, not in/by/for Afrimericans/Blacks born in America, then they claimed it was a misspelling of Afroamerican, then they reversed themself and said it is found on Google, and listed various websites that cite it, then Wikipedia stated I wanted them to include it to promote my website, thus, when they could not denigrate or dismiss it, they got personal,

I concede it is personal, not for some pitiful self aggrandizing reason they try to project as the cause, but because I am not African-American, Afro-American, Black, Colored, or Negro, and I am personally offended with not only being given such terms to describe and define me by whites, but doubly offended with it being forced on me, and all efforts to force it on me despite my protestations; That is like the scene in "Roots" where the slave master kept telling Kunte Kinta his name was Toby, and no matter how he protested he was brutalized until he accepted it,(they started cutting off body parts): That's what wikipedia has been doing per all writings about Afrimerican. In fact, this whole dialog mirrors that scenario, with the exception there no longer is the legal right to whip, hang, or dismember me like back in the day when that was the norm anytime a Negroid person protested an injustice, and based on that Wikipedia has not only been engaged in mass misinformation communication, they have exhibited a degree of negative exclusionary racism that is not mere words, but very much demonstrated by their actions.

Additionally, what I have learned is when I type in African-American, Afro-American, Black, Colored or Negro, Wikipedia comes up first or second, and your definition/description of the term/race is given, and it could be said you are angry because you can't totally dominate and promote your ideas/ideologies about the race that are rooted in institutional racism, thus you seem to be making a concentrated purposeful attempt to be an extension of the white imposition of such terms, and of the tactic of forcing it on the race and others, and in ignoring/ostracizing Afrimerican, your objective integrity is nil. It could be reversed and said you are angry because you want to be the dominant internet word and information reference source on all topics about the race, and another source of feeding the lies and alternating views to keep the matter in perpetual pointless debate, but you can't with Afrimerican because it is wholly Afrimerican owned and stands on it's own merit(s), it is what it is, and to ignore that brings the whole character of your enterprise into question.

When it comes to matters about the Afrimerican word and definition, and Afrimericans as a race, Wikipedia is extremely biased, misleading, misinformed, and misinforming,

This writer gives Wikipedia a no confidence vote.

[System Tyrant]

Last time I checked...

I was a white American. How come I'm not called an English American or German American? I think the reason is because I was born in America. Just like my Mom and Dad and their parents.

This is the way I see it. If you are born in America then you are an American. If your born in Africa and gain American citizen ship then you are African American. If your born in Mexico... guess what... you are an American.

Personally, if I were a black man and born in America, I would take offence at being called an African American, Afrimerican, or Afroamerican. It sounds like to me people are still trying to label blacks. I haven't done much study on black history, so I speak completly out of context, but to me if you are born in America then you are American, period. You don't need any other added labels. You should be proud of that.

If you weren't born in America, well... so what. Be proud of where ever you call home.

[VI Joker]

Let's just call the whole thing American...

...and move on. I am sick and tired of the people getting upset about being called by a wrong label. I do not care if you family can be traced back to Africa, Europe, Asia, and any place in between. If you were born in America guess what you are American by birthplace, yes that does include North and South. Does it mean that you have no heritage or you give up your past? NO!! Stop trying to tie culture to place of birth. The two are not always exclusive. Further more what you consider yourself is your business do not try and push it off as the standard for others. On most applications you have an option to either answer the ethnicity question under other or not at all. No one can force a label on you so long as you do NOT educate people about who YOU are, not about what you think the race is. This is exactly why those of us (black and white) born and raise in the Caribbean and Africa with family history there tend not to agree with extremist and militants born within the 50 states. Slavery went differently for us, read up.

I was born and raised in the Caribbean on an island that is a US territory, and I consider myself to be a Cruzan and Caribbean. I nor my friends and family have NEVER heard or been referred to as Aframerican. Some may say American, some Lucian, others Thomian, some Antiguian, Grenadian, but none Aframerican. I suggest that your research also starts to include interviews from actual Caribbean people. This is where Wikipeida has exposed the biggest flaw in history and current events, which is they are filled with opinion, first-hand, second-hand, and third-hand accounts and\or knowledge of events and facts. It should be all recorded on an open field where everyone can present their facts, which is what Wikipedia is doing. Will there be mistakes? Yes, depending on who you ask. Just ask any journalist who retracts a statement. The free exchange of ideas lets us learn more about the world and others. Is it credible? Yes, as much as any history book. Unless the author was there or did it they cannot 100% be credible, and even then there will be someone else there who will probably view it differently. Agree to disagree.

[Nathan Lunn]

I have a question

The CEO of the company I work for was born and raised on South Africa. His family has lived there for a few generations. He is white. Does he qualify as an Afrimerican?

I am half Native American, the other being German, Irish and Swedish. Does that make me a Geririswemerican?

I kind of like that. Next time I'm asked my race that's what I'm going to put.

[Afrimerican]

AFRIMERICAN VS. WIKIPEDIA BIASES

Afrimerican is a term created, and defined in 1989 as an accurate academic, legal term of description, and definition of Negroid people born in the United States, and all articles written about it on Wikipedia have been deleted by wikipedia administrators with all sorts of excuses, and in spite of the fact the Afrimerican word and definition has been officially added to the U.S. Census Racial Classification list. First, it was claimed Afrimerican was not in/on Google,(a lie), then Wikipedia said it was a misspelling of Aframerican, which is actually a term used by and in the Caribbean islands, not in/by/for Afrimericans/Blacks born in America, then they claimed it was a misspelling of Afroamerican, then they reversed themself and said it is found on Google, and listed various websites that cite it, then Wikipedia stated I wanted them to include it to promote my website, thus, when they could not denigrate or dismiss it, they got personal,

I concede it is personal, not for some pitiful self aggrandizing reason they try to project as the cause, but because I am not African-American, Afro-American, Black, Colored, or Negro, and I am personally offended with not only being given such terms to describe and define me by whites, but doubly offended with it being forced on me, and all efforts to force it on me despite my protestations; That is like the scene in "Roots" where the slave master kept telling Kunte Kinta his name was Toby, and no matter how he protested he was brutalized until he accepted it,(they started cutting off body parts): That's what wikipedia has been doing per all writings about Afrimerican. In fact, this whole dialog mirrors that scenario, with the exception there no longer is the legal right to whip, hang, or dismember me like back in the day when that was the norm anytime a Negroid person protested an injustice, and based on that Wikipedia has not only been engaged in mass misinformation communication, they have exhibited a degree of negative exclusionary racism that is not mere words, but very much demonstrated by their actions.

Additionally, what I have learned is when I type in African-American, Afro-American, Black, Colored or Negro on an internet search engine, Wikipedia comes up first or second, and their definition/description of the term/race is given, and it could be said they are biased because they can't totally dominate and promote their ideas/ideologies about the race that are rooted in institutional racism, thus they seem to be making a concentrated purposeful attempt to be an extension of the white imposition of such terms, and of the tactic of forcing it on the race and others, and in ignoring/ostracizing Afrimerican, Wikipedias objective integrity is nil. It appears like wikipedia wants to be the dominant internet word and information reference source on all topics about the race, and another source of feeding the lies and alternating views to keep the matter in perpetual pointless debate, but they can't with Afrimerican because it is wholly Afrimerican owned and stands on it's own merit(s), it is what it is, and to ignore that brings the whole character of Wikipedias enterprise into question.

When it comes to matters about the Afrimerican word and definition, and Afrimericans as a race, Wikipedia is extremely biased, misleading, misinformed, and misinforming,

This writer gives Wikipedia a no confidence vote.

Warning! Don't try to play scrabble with that one, Mr. Bruce.

"Afrimerican is a term created, and defined in 1989 as an accurate academic, legal term of description,..."

Perhaps the next logical step would have been to submit "Afrimerican" to Merriam-Webster's wordsmith in charge, to make it official. I've made up quite a few words in my day, when discussing philosophy while drunk, but none of them are listed here, and neither is "Afrimerican". See http://www.onelook.com/

[jefraz]

Afrimerican is not a real word

Stop making words up. I couldn't find Afrimerican in any of the dictionaries I have at home and I couldn't find it in any of the online dictionaries below:

http://www.m-w.com/
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx
http://dictionary.reference.com/
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
http://www.yourdictionary.com/
http://www.onelook.com/

[208774626618253979477959487856]

Go Wiki!

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

[Earl Benser]

Ignore Andrew Berber.....

... he plays games without intelligence.....

[webwhiz]

Is Wikipedia a credible source?

Well, considering that the Wiki content is provided by a large colloboration of users from across the world who have the power to edit, change and even abuse the content. Can we honestly say that wikipedia is without flaw an accurate source of information for scholors and learners everywhere. Infact, many people are even mislead to beleive that the content is all verified and just. Isn't it time we bring light to the misconception out there and hold wikipedia accountable for the accuracy of the content provided?

Please feel free to read my article for further analysis of this revolutionary information portal: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable-source-for-accurate-content/

[Dailypiglet]

Wikipedia growing pains

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that noticed that Wikipedia sucked. Too many people insert data from that site, having no idea that much of the data is completely incorrect.

Thanks for refreshing story.