A VC« A Dialog Instead of A Diary (continued) | Main | Alley Wag »
Wounding Wikipedia (continued)
It seems like every parent of school age kids I talk to has had the same conversation with their school about Wikipedia and it goes like this, "kids shouldn't use Wikipedia to do their research because you can't trust the information there".
It really frosts me that the schools are taking this tack with Wikipedia, which to my mind is one of the all-time great innovations in the world of information, research, and fact finding. I totally buy into the idea that the aggregated knowledge of the entire world has to be better than the knowledge of a few "experts" who put together encyclopedias, which apparently the schools believe are trustworthy.
Now we all know that at any particular time, there can be some inaccurate stuff in Wikipedia and that's certainly a problem, as I posted about in my prior wounding wikipedia post.
So I found the column by Randall Stross in today's New York Times an interesting read. Randall suggests that Wikipedia needs to take one more page out of the open source playbook and give each page in Wikipedia an authoritative figure who has the power to decide what edits to allow and which to disallow.
Jeff Bates of the Open Source Technology Group (slashdot, sourcefourge, etc) is quoted in Randall's column as saying:
In every open-source project, he said, there is "a benevolent dictator" who ultimately takes responsibility, even though the code is contributed by many. Good stuff results only if "someone puts their name on it."
I agree with the notion that people who are willing to put their name on something are more reliable. It sounds like a good idea to me. Hopefully Jimmy Wales will consider something like that to insure that Wikipedia remains the incredible source that it is.
As for the schools, I suggest they stop trashing Wikipedia and embrace it, warts and all. At a minimum, they should be recommending it as an important source that needs to be fact checked against other sources. Kids shouldn't have just one source for information anyway. We certainly make more than one due diligence call when we check out companies. Kids should do the same with Wikipedia. But they shouldn't avoid it.
Comments (9) | | TrackBack (1)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2c969e200e5503689018834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wounding Wikipedia (continued):
» Does Wikipedia need a benevolent dictator? from P2P Foundation
Well, not one, but many thats the gist of a proposal by the a VC (= venture capitalist) blog, who cites a column by the New York Times.
Were citing the entry extensively as it goes to the heart of our interes... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 15, 2006 5:14:40 AM
Posted March 12, 2006 in Venture Capital and TechnologyComments
A source, even a reputable one is only as good as it's creator:
In my native Sweden, there is a "Childrens Encyclopedia" that is widely used in schools: It is published by what most people would consider a reputable publisher, however there are problems..
The whole encyclopedia is literred with errors and even worse, a political agenda: It goes on to compare a market economy with a planned economy stating "there is no certainty as to which is more efficient, however a planned economy is likely more fair than a market economy" (not an exact quote, but the gist of it).
It is also filled with all sorts of other pure socialist propaganda that would have made the old soviet politbureau proud, and it is pretty overt, and facts take a definite backseat to a political agenda.
My point being? Even a perceived "reputable source" can be very untrustworthy.
Wikipedia is probably more trustworthy than most sources, as it is subject to heavy peer-review and scrutiny: driving a specific agenda or lies is much harder on Wikipedia, than it is in a traditional book created between an author and an editor.
Posted by: Wille Faler | Mar 12, 2006 1:20:41 PM
I agree completely. The fact that schools still teach that there is a binary of "authority" rather than a continuum is crazy. Wikipedia can be an awesome teaching tool used in conjunction with other primary and secondary sources to show how information is filtered, skewed and shaped by how and who presents it.
Keep up the good work Fred, I grow more impressed by the day with how prolific your output is.
Posted by: Zach Coelius | Mar 12, 2006 2:18:40 PM
Fred,
I think this makes quite a lot of sense. I think the title " Anonymous Source is not the same as Open Source" explains a lot.Of course, Jimmy will have to decide what needs to be done procedurally.
On the issue of the schools, I think not only are they missing an opportunity to use a great source which Wikipedia certainly is, they are missing the opportunity to explain to students the many advantages AND some limitations that are inherent in any system/process/technology/anything. It's a very good form of "participative knowledge" which is what a class room is essentially as well.
cheers
Gaurav
Posted by: Gaurav | Mar 12, 2006 2:40:51 PM
This has happened to me recently. For an upcoming informative speech essay, we are explicitly not allowed to use Wikipedia because many view it as an unreliable source of information (which is understandable). This is the same teacher that said dont use information from any website with the TLD of .com. Only use .org and .edu.. sigh
Posted by: Kenny | Mar 12, 2006 2:54:01 PM
I believe using Identity and reputation to filter, as opposed to censorship, would be a better approach. Though I do not have specific data to back this claim, I believe it to be generally true; accountability may deter people from participating. Furthermore identity in social collaborative publishing may inadvertently inhibit contributors since they may be accountable. So how about shifting the burden of marshaling the quality of the content to the consumer of the content as opposed to the author? Enable individuals to contribute anonymously should they chose t, enable subscribers to filter the content as they see fit. At ConnectedMix we are creating mechanisms for users to filter the content based on the reputation of the author in the context of the content and relevance to the user. We also enable collaborative validation: content by reputed author may individually carry more weight as opposed to content by anonymous author. However If anonymous author’s content may hold its own if its backed by significant user traction (aggregated perception of the quality of content by other users, Explicitly: votes, ranks etc, Implicitly Track backs, book marks, unique views etc).
Posted by: Lalit Sarna | Mar 12, 2006 3:43:18 PM
Competent educators should embrace Wikipedia's flaws because such flaws force people to think critically about what they are reading--or, at least, in an ideal world, such flaws should engage people's critical minds. Education being education, few kids are learning to think critically.
It is not clear to me given the state of education in America, that Wikipedia can be considered a reliable resource. In the absence of critical thought, it is next to useless.
Posted by: Dave | Mar 12, 2006 6:18:49 PM
This all feels a little breathless and giddy to me. Do you all really want to discard source verification and authority? How abiout in science? Would you rather look to the journal Nature or to Wikipedia for info on say, whether life begins at conception? Would you rather look to New England Journal of Medicine or to Wikipedia for the facts about say, what causes HIV and AIDS?
The entire argument is becoming moot anyway -- Wikipedia and community-authored refernec works are themselves acknowledging the need to for source verification and editorial policies and standards and policing, and moving more and more away from Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland "hey gang, let's put on an encyclopedia!"
Posted by: steve | Mar 13, 2006 5:48:23 AM
Isn't the opportunity here to get the kids involved correcting Wikipedia when it's wrong? Instead of teaching our kids to cower in front of 'Authority', let them be skeptical, inquisitive, and become authorities themselves.
Posted by: bg porter | Mar 13, 2006 10:34:39 AM
The more I learn in life, the less certain I become of any one right answer to a given question. I tend to approach any research project by finding as many conflicting views as possible, then weeding through them (and their supporting documentation) to see which holds the most applicability. Usually, I then find some way to test the information in the field if possible (easier to do in engineering or design than, say, history or literature).
Wikipedia is a good starting point for a general overview. Sometimes, that's even enough. But usually, a good research project involves some primary sources and some experimentation.
An educational system that values single answers over critical thought is not education-- it's indoctrination. When I teach classes, my primary goal is to show students how to get information on their own and assess it's value to their project. I would be equally skeptical of an education that disallowed sources like wikipedia or one that focused exclusively on a specific, approved list of resources.
Lalit's idea of allowing anonymity while filtering by reputation is definitely interesting. Seems like a good way to embrace wide participation and acountability at the same time.
Posted by: johntunger | Mar 13, 2006 3:18:10 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
