Comments on: Confessions of a journo-elitist

CNET News.com's Charles Cooper ponders whether the Wikipedification of the future is inevitable--and what that may mean.

[ahminotep]

Whoa !!

What's all this about ? Wikipedia gives people the ability to do what they want, in this case create a non-commercial source of knowledge with corresponding caveats. That adds to the pool of available choices without taking any away. (Unless Wikipedia turns out to be so good that it drives some other source of information out of business, which should also be perfectly acceptable)

It seems Mr Cooper has some personal generalized angst about this piece of new media and how it changes the world, which I sympathise with having felt similiarly myself on occasion. But that's hardly enough to base a column on. More thinking through wanted, Mr. Cooper !

[dmm]

You've got a point...sorta

It's true, there are some pretty bad blogs out there. But there are some pretty bad newspapers and magazines out there, too. ("Three-headed alien is reincarnation of Elvis, Princess Di, and Nostradama.") More importantly, there used to be a lot more, both good and bad. Publication costs have killed many city newspapers and small magazines, even in large markets like Philadelphia. And the MSM has become more and more monolithic. Local TV news programs often have syndicated content, some of which is tie-ins with network shows rather than actual news. So I think a shake-up is long overdue. The homogenized MSM is often of poor quality, and leaves a lot of niches unfilled. Will some consumers gravitate to muck-raking yellow journalism? Most certainly, yes, if history is any guide. But in the end, the bulk of people will patronize media outlets that give them accurate and reliable information presented in a fair, balanced, and professional manner. The internet will make this easier, and journalism will profit.

[michaelo1966]

Professional journalists do a great job -- Not

We really saw great professional journalism investigating the invasion of Iraq. And professional journalists really put the Lewinsky panty-gate scandal into perspective as a political witch-hunt. They did a fantastic job digging into the misdeeds of Enron and WorldComm.

[ihatetv]

Journalism ?

With consolidation and cross ownership of all almost all media
world wide... so called "Journalism" is dead... at least fair impartial
reporting of so called news is...

[jmdecombe]

Authority Management

Well, it is impossible to prevent the Wikipedia phenomenon, and
I personally think it is a great one, that has proven very useful to
me. What we will need in the future, however, is a standard for
authority (or reputation) management, so that any data element
can be tied to an author who itself can be related to a taxonomy
(or even better, ontology) of authoritative sources. Then, each
individual can decide what individuals, organizations (e.g.
Stanford University), or groups of organizations (e.g. Catholic
organizations) he wishes to trust in this ontology, and with what
level of confidence. Let's face it, :::drumroll::: there is no single
truth, no single way to look at the universe. But each individual
can decide what is his own truth.

[bluemist9999]

Need to know who the authors are.

I agree that we need to have some way to identify who wrote a piece. I don't think we need a specific detailed biography, but enough information to know the viewpoints of the author(s).

Let's face it, two different people can experience the exact same event and reach totally different, logical, conclusions.

So, we need to know some information about the authors of a particular article. Then we can apply the authority management idea here.

[ghostofitpast]

In praise of editors (again)

Whatever happened to the German experiment of introducing editors into the processing of Wikipedia content:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Mff23hgidqmHGqbcv.lfskakEtS6qLVHUEMFUG4-?cq=1&p=81

I continue to believe that really smart editors are just as important to "content generation" as "really smart people" (to quote Jimmy Wales). I was delighted that German Wikipedia was going to test this proposition, but I am still waiting to see the results. (Then we can start to argue about the authority of editors!)

[Len Bullard]

Mediocre: The Many To Many of Averaging

Wikipedia isn't us vs them. It is them vs them vs them vs ... whatever. In short, where the expertise of editing is first rate, so is the content. What you are saying is that on any given topic not every opinion is equally well-informed or trained and you are right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to let you come do trepanning on their kids for free.

On the other hand, this is a lot like the stories here about SL griefers, protests and the lot. It is the same fun reading that as reading a badly written high school review of the Pirates of Penzance. I mean, Mr. Cooper, did you take disco this seriously?

That is what all social networks come down to: the masses amassing and numbers derived from that soar straight to 'average' or 'mediocre' when taken in total. That is why the whole 'wisdom of crowds' thing is silly on the face of it. Sure, it gets an average number. Ever worked for a company managed by MBAs doing 'averaging' to determine qualifications for employment, benefits, etc.? Qui bono? They do. The customer on the other hand gets a mediocre average product. That is the Spy Vs Spy of technology companies in America today: they produced mediocrity because they can't afford to compete, so they accept 'average' and glorify it. But that is also what we can afford to buy at Wal-Mart once the MBAs take their cut and the middle class takes the leftovers.

"Oh it IS a glorious thing to be the Pirate KING!"

[dmm]

Multiple truths and Wikipedia

There are never multiple truths. But people don't always mean "truth" when they say "truth." Many people confuse opinion with truth. There can be many opinions. Examples of opinion: a) Native Americans were ruthlessly exploited by Europeans. b) Native Americans failed to adapt to changing conditions and paid the natural penalty. Both statements a) and b) are opinion, based upon known truths such as 1) the March of Tears by the Cherokee, and 2) survival of the fittest. Knowing truth #1 does not inevitably lead to opinion a), just as #2 does not inevitably lead to b). If you don't like this example I can come up with others. My point is this: there are NOT multiple truths. That's a load of nonsense, based upon sloppy thinking and an incorrect understanding of the word "truth."

The problem is that it can be very difficult to write about anything important without mixing opinion into the facts. Also, some facts are not agreed upon. For example, either a) God exists, or b) God does not exist. One of those statements is true, and the other is false. There is no getting around it. Either theists are wrong or atheists are wrong. Certainly we can, and should, agree to get along with each other, even if we disagree on important issues. But it is utter nonsense to say, "It's just an opinion; everyone has his own truth," as if we were talking about whether Coke or Pepsi tastes better.

Getting back to Wikipedia, another problem is that it is impossible to include ALL of the relevant facts in any article. Indeed, people with different opinions probably wouldn't even agree on which facts were relevant. So even if an article tries extremely hard to present only facts, opinions can still come through in the fact selection process.

Therefore, I like the Wikipedia system. If an article is too slanted (either by presenting opinions as facts, or by presenting disputed facts as agreed facts, or by selectively presenting only facts favorable to an opinion), many people will recognize it and point out needed corrections. Wikipedia's guidelines for authors should be required weekly reading for every journalist, scientist, teacher, and government official.

[jmdecombe]

I beg to disagree

Maybe in the world of formal Western logic, a statement is either
true or false, but there are other systems of logic where a
statement can be simultaneously true and false, or neither true nor
false. Ironically, the example being used ("G.d exists" or "G.d does
not exist") overlooks the fact that G.d, by "definition" (even though
there is no such thing), can both exist and not exist at the same
time, by virtue of divine prerogative. So let us not limit universal
logical thinking to mere Boolean truth tables.

[dmm]

divine prerogative

No, God cannot "both exist and not exist at the same time, by virtue of divine prerogative." God cannot do anything that it is not in his nature to do. He cannot commit suicide, because it is not in his nature to do so. He also cannot do ridiculous illogical things, like trying to make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it (thereby supposedly disproving his omnipotence whether he succeeds or fails). Omnipotent doesn't mean "able to do anything that any sceptic can think of, no matter how stupid or irrational." Omnipotent means "able to do anything that one wants to do."

There are no "systems of logic where a statement can be simultaneously true and false, or neither true nor false." There are moronic muddle-headed ways of thinking that try to pretend these things can be so, but they produce no useful benefits, unless you consider allowing people to deny reality in the short term to their own long-term detriment to be a useful benefit.

[dsherr1]

There are two kinds of truth

Wikis are opinion sinks. While opinion is a matter of belief, unless a person is disingenuous, I believe there are two sources of truth: (1) Discovered, as in empirical science, and (2) Revealed, as in time honored stories and myths. Discovered Truth is mostly about the world. Revealed Truth is mostly about how people are and what motivates them. Most often, people confuse both and think that they cannot co-exist. The key for anyone to discern the difference. Internet Wikis are a manifestation of the Collective Consciousness. Elitism is a form of gnostic imperialism where some people stake an area of knowledge with a claim and defense of complete sovereignty over it. Populism is the counter force to Elitism. The Internet is the innovation equivalent of Guttenberg printing press. Think of how the world has changed since the printing of Bibles after Guttenberg allowed free enterprise in God. Wikis are promoting free enterprise in all other concepts in the World Mind. Ten years is not enough time to measure the impact. Too bad we can't review a Wiki of the year 2207. Historical perspective is needed. Just an opinion. {:8>))

[adlyb1]

Taking the high road

You present a fair argument, but to call the work of wikipedia and its spin offs something less than good is simply hiding from the truth.

Several technical reviews of the articles contained in the site have determined that the accuracy is as good as some of the top scientific journals.

But, the real strength is the breadth and timeliness of the information. I don't care how 'perfect' an article is, if it doesn't come out until a year after the actual subject matter.

When the big knowledge companies went online, they did an excellent job of moving their existing knowledge into the medium, but the pace of new additions was glacial compared to what was happening in the real world, especially in the technical arena.

I agree some people are better at expressing themselves both verbally and in the written word, and there will always be venues for these folks, but that does not mean the one voice or opinion is better than another, just expressed in a more palatable fashion.