|
12
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by The purpose of permanent editors on the Wikipedia staff is to establish an ultimate authority on the content of the site's entries. For example, a few years back when congressional staffers were updating rival congressman's pages with such quips like "ineffective" and "smells of cow dung" along with other false modifications, it was necessary for the editors to step in and control the situation.
Wikipedia has been no friend of OmniNerd following a blacklisting that decried, "ON is an extraordinarily low quality reference," so perhaps it is with a none-so-subtle, bittersweet joy that we find Wikipedia continuing to come under fire for questionable modifications by even its senior-most editors. One of the site's co-founders, Jimmy Wales, was implicated in favorable entry modifications in exchange for a donation of approximately $5000. He has also been accused of editing the entry of an ex-girlfriend's entry to sustain a continued sexual relationship with her. More recently, a columnist has fought with a Wikipedia editor over the accuracy of climate change details described by scientist Benny Peiser. Despite directly interviewing Peiser and making allegedly appropriate updates, the Wikipedia editor continues to revert a series of climate change pages claiming, "We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."
While Wikipedia proves to be a useful tool for knowing what questions to start asking, it is clear the public is recognizing the differentiation between user-generated and expert-generated content for reliability. Do you trust Wikipedia?
Add a Comment (6)
Email This
Message Author
RSS
Wikipedia, or not? by johnny_boy :: NR5 :: on 23 April 2008
I trust Wikipedia to provide detailed and timely information about technical and scientific subjects, but steer clear of it for political or controversial subjects -- and unfortunately, climate change seems to currently fall more into the political realm than the technical or scientific.
I must have missed some history with respect to Wikipedia's spat with Omninerd. It seems odd that Omninerd would be considered a reference site at all. I've always thought of it as a nerd news / personnel commentary / authoring and discussion site for like-minded individuals. Still, the "extraordinarily low quality" jab does seem needlessly harsh.
RE: Wikipedia, or not? by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 23 April 2008
It seems odd that Omninerd would be considered a reference site at all. I've always thought of it as a nerd news / personnel commentary / authoring and discussion site for like-minded individuals.
Well ... the daily material serves no purpose as reference material. But OmniNerd exists for the original articles which are quite relevant to their topics as reference material. We've just had a dearth of new articles lately!
RE: Wikipedia, or not? by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 24 April 2008
I agree with the previous poster. There is a wold of difference between what you think your website is (i.e. an authority site) and what it is actually perceived as (well, whatever it is perceived as in this case, not by you and your spouse, but by the average joe). Don't mean to play down the importance of the articles posted here, because they are well-written and researched, but people associate authority with a narrower field of expertise. Is there such a thing for OmniNerd? I don't believe so. Now, if ON were actually OmniNerd for Oil Independence and all you wrote was articles on gas saving tips and peak oil and how global warming is really a hoax perpetrated by the liberal media hawks, then you will probably have a better time trying to convince Wikipedia that you are an authoritative site.
I agree with you though that authority at some point is defined rather subjectively, but still, I don't think ON should not be delusional in believing it will make the list of references in Encyclopedia Britannica (or its more popular, less noble counterpart which is Wikipedia).
On the other hand, if VnutZ were to start a blog hosted on an independent and famed blog platform and build an audience and become an authority for ninja saber fighting, then Vnutz will be quoted on Fox News maybe and then he could say that he is a founding member of ON, an "anything-nerdy-goes" website.
My Ninjas are Already Watching You by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 25 April 2008
Your statement both reinforces my point and shows the misperception about aggregators. You are exactly correct in saying OmniNerd is not an authoritative site. It's never claimed to be.
For instance, if I were arguing that particular driving habits are absolutely influential on fuel economy and simply said - "because OmniNerd said so" than by all means, call me an idiot and dismiss the source. But if I make the statement that the driving habit of using an air conditioner at high speed burns more gas than driving at high RPM in the wrong gear and cited the researched and experimental data from Improve MPG: The Factors Affecting Fuel Efficiency than I would be making a valid reference worth citing.
The article itself stands by itself. Just as you may have researched and written a fantastic paper in college but been a complete dud at every other class you took. Does that take away from the reference quality of the paper? Absolutely not. If it stands on its own and can serve to educate someone else, than it serves its purpose and does it well.
So the fact that a compendium of community knowledge would simply dismiss an article that is highly relevant to its topic as "poor quality" just based on who is hosting it is ridiculous. For years an article I'd written on another site was well regarded by Wikipedia as authoritative ... but when I ported it to ON and changed the link it was immediately blacklisted. I changed it back to the old link (the exact same content!!) and the editor seemed perfectly content again. That to me is evidence the editing is not based on any sense of verification on content but rather simply whims that suit whoever "claims ownership" of a Wikipedia entry.
So like I said, your comment that individual articles "re well-written and researched, but people associate authority with a narrower field of expertise" is on target. But that should make somebody wonder. Are magazines like Popular Mechanics that feature an excellent article on home building authorities in that field? No. But the author who wrote that article and did that research may be. It's really the same thing.
RE: Wikipedia, or not? by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: on 24 April 2008
Wikipedia is also a good reference for all things geeky... such as your favourite obscure anime series or internet meme, or that classical myth you never studied in school. I roleplay in my spare time and find it an excellent source for worldbuilding. It's also good for general introductions to topics you know nothing about. When you need to quickly find out what a new word refers to, wikipedia is *usually* great place to go.
When it comes to politically charged topics... well, I still like it. You can watch the debates unfold in real time, especially if you follow the talk pages or use your watch-list to track the articles you're interested in. The thing is, with an expert-generated encyclopedia, you are still at the mercy of the writers' biases and preconceptions, it's just that you get them with an air of authority. At least with Wikipedia you know what you're getting into. But like anything, it's never good to make it your sole source of information.
RE: Wikipedia, or not? by milhous :: NR5 :: on 24 April 2008
bottom line: Britannica, Internet, Advertisement
If someone at Britannica realized that they don't have to charge money to make money, their "authoritativeness" on information and the internet's ability to bring a site revenue through advertisement would render Wiki inop......the same can not be said of a site such as OmniNerd...it is unique and nothing out there currently could capitalistically stunt ON....and on top of that, ON will melt your face off....