That's kinda what PR departments are for, isn't it?
Yes, but it's not what Wikipedia is for.
Don't use "Wiki" to mean "Wikipedia", please.
It's a typo, but thanks for contributing.
It's interesting to see it all tracked down and laid out. But surely I'm not the only one cynical enough to have just assumed all along that it was happening?
but it's not what Wikipedia is for
But Wikipedia is vulnerable to this kind of thing. And now everybody knows.
But Wikipedia is vulnerable to this kind of thing. And now everybody knows.
Exactly. So how does democratized media protect itself against an inevitable occurence? Imagine staffers paid to do nothing but manage wiki pages, how would the creative commons (or whatever) combat it?
I'm not an uncritical fan of Wikipedia - its vulnerability to editing by interested parties is a running joke in my office - but doesn't the fact that we are all discussing this imply that the system actually works? PR folk did their worst and got caught. From what I saw, the edits in question were all reverted.
> Even more interesting would be a list of corporate edits to competitors' wikipedia articles.
This lists changes made by someone (or > 1) at Fox on pages that concern other networks' broadcasters.
There was another Wired page that ranked the interesting changes identified by the scanner, but I can't find it now.
To be honest, I think this is the best thing to have happened to wikipedia in a long time. It should hopefully cut down on the amount of crap that gets added by eejits who think they're anonymous.
Wikipedia articles are full of bias. It is not and has never been an objective source of information.
The only way to stop this problem is to institute a strict, industry-wide code of conduct. To start, I think that I and I alone should be given authority to write your own pages on the mofi wiki.
I'll start with Nickdanger's page, giving a completely unbiased analysis of his romantic involvement with courgettes, and indicate why he should never, ever be left alone with beagles.
Then I'll edit his MySpace profile, and list his hobbies as "obfuscating" and "ogling".
I'm not an uncritical fan of Wikipedia - its vulnerability to editing by interested parties is a running joke in my office - but doesn't the fact that we are all discussing this imply that the system actually works? PR folk did their worst and got caught. From what I saw, the edits in question were all reverted.
Well, see, we need to talk about it. And, besides, I don't think this qualifies as "their worst", more like experimentation.
...but doesn't the fact that we are all discussing this imply that the system actually works? PR folk did their worst and got caught. From what I saw, the edits in question were all reverted.
Everything I've heard indicates that this is a losing battle, though -- between the paid editors, spammers, crapflooders, angry partisans, hatchet men, and general dicks that molest their articles every minute of every day, it pretty much requires people to do nothing but check changes all day long to try to keep up. Editing articles then becomes a race condition -- asshats vs. people willing to babysit Wikipedia all day.
Let's also not forget the damage that pure evil can inflict on publicly edited articles, either.
It's an interesting historical point in the continuing virtualization of facts.
Or so I may have said at one point. Like just now. But you wouldn't know would you? Or maybe Mr. Tricycle edited my comments to make you think I may have said a fact at one point but now recanted that very comment and thereby unposted the truth about facts! Ha ha!
. . .
Hello?
Hey you know what was great about Star Trek? How Kirk always got the girl, y'know?
*eats ice cream, assuages lonliness*
I don't think there is any way Wikipedia can ever be considered objective, nor is there any way it ever will be.
For me, it's always been a "grain of salt" kind of reference, one that has to be backed up by another, more reliable source.
I hope people aren't making any important decisions based on the information therein, but I suppose they probably are.
I find it a handy starting point. But as it's becoming more and more standardized, it's actually less of a resource. All the juicy (i.e. libellous) bits about celebrities get left out...
WHAT!
Wikipedia says we don't exist? We're not interesting?
*lip quivers
Funny, they can't tell the difference between the MonkeyHaus and a blog.
Well, screw'em. SCREW'EM, I say!!
*shakes fist
From now on, I'll call 'em wiki (with a small w) any time I want to.
A web-pedia is a nice idea, and would probably be the only knowledge repository that could conceivably be current, but is way too subject to tampering, slanting, and inconsistency, obviously.
Using "wiki" to refer to Wikipedia is not hurting Wikipedia. It is simply misusing "wiki", and is often a sign of ignorance or laziness. Yes, I am well aware that idiocy and sloth are two of the principal forces of language change, and also that if merely pointing out people's irritating behavior was enough to change them then we would today be rid of boy bands, the Democratic party, and the Renault Clio.
Using "wiki" to refer to Wikipedia ... simply misusing "wiki", and is often a sign of ignorance or laziness
Fu yu.
;)
Using "wiki" to refer to Wikipedia is not hurting Wikipedia. It is simply misusing "wiki", and is often a sign of ignorance or laziness. Yes, I am well aware that idiocy and sloth are two of the principal forces of language change, and also that if merely pointing out people's irritating behavior was enough to change them then we would today be rid of boy bands, the Democratic party, and the Renault Clio.
Tell you what, fuyu, instead of repeatedly trying to derail this one, why don't you start your own thread?
Using wiki to refer to a wiki wiki web is rather a poor show, too. So there.
NickyD, if merely pointing out people's irritating behavior was enough to change them then we would today be rid of boy bands.
Blah blah derail whatever. Go whine to admin.
I'd definitely rather not have this thread derailed as this is actually a very interesting topic involving online communities and larger culture. I know I'm wont to quip about the theological implications of any post, but let's consider the anthropological implications for the moment.
(As you know, my background is in anthropology--and I've been interested in online communities and web-based information exchange and acceptance since '94).
Hmm, I wonder at what point a critical mass of PR departments decided Wikipedia was a 'trusted information source' because that's really the crux of these companies using it. Lord knows when the Napster controversy was raging Internet eons ago, the MSM had absolutely no idea what newsgroups were and the file sharing going on there.
But Wikipedia has become for so many the online information source (remember RefDesk, anyone?). I doubt it has Google level penetration, but it's clearly enough to convince the PR departments altering entries is worthwhile.
I wish I could recall the radio interview (or newspaper editorial?) from many moons ago where one commentator mentioned the depressing tendency for a book to automatically bestow the mantle of legitimacy on whatever position the author was taking. I know the thread of logic is that publishing a book is historically a more involved process with something resembling checks and measures--more so than other media forms. Naturally that's why politicians love to pen books (or have them ghost-penned).
While not the same as the printed word, the web has certainly gained some of that street cred market share in the minds of millions. I'm sure rigorously policed sites such as WebMD have helped foster public acceptance of the web as a trusted information source.
However, as we know, much of the Internet neighborhood isn't reputable news or information--what with the blogosphere, it's a level of spin I couldn't have imagined in '98 when I was thought WebMD would persevere amid the flock of health information sites. (On the other hand, the amount of how-to sites/blogs is quite handy). In some ways, Wikipedia is no better than the common wisdom passed back and forth in general store of yore, yet with no limit on how loquacious people might be. The fact that expertise and accuracy is a stated goal means that entries which are untrue or inaccurate should be excised--but darn if it isn't easy to edit. In that way it represents the ease of hearsay with the unstated assurance of the printed word.
That makes the current editing of what is deemed "truth" altogether delightfully insidious. Not dissimilar in olden days when companies and regimes would place agents in crowds and public gatherings to not only gauge the mood of the citizenry, but also put forward their own agenda. And I'm not just talking about ancient ancient history. The U.S. was all for it in WWI for instance with George Creel and the Committee on Public Information (yes, a topic a researched way back when). You can read about it at Wikipedia.....or you can go here if you're feeling self-conscious about Wikipedia.
Yeah, I know I'm not talking revelations, but it is intensely interesting stuff. We could also discuss what appears to be the blogosphere arms race between liberals and conservatives and how much people try and not only craft, but homogenize their message these days. I use Wikipedia myself, but it's times like these, I feel I should get a subscription or something to Brittanica. The role of the educated, disinterested (not to be confused with uninterested) researcher should be upheld, even on the brave new Interwebs. (-:
OK, convict me of both idiocy and sloth.
I call all tissues kleenex, and xerox everything on a Canon.
*lazy mind kicks back, enjoys a refreshing cola
Blah blah derail whatever. Go whine to admin.
We've been grumpy lately.
the web has certainly gained some of that street cred market share in the minds of millions
Yup, I read it on the web. I read it in my email.
I read it on USA Today. I saw it on Fox News.
I no longer have to think.
I no longer have to think.
Indeed. The Information Society certainly doesn't seem interested or able to morph into the Knowledge Society or the Wisdom Society.
Not that it could necessarily, without going disastrous like the double plus alpha colony did in Brave New World (if ficticious suppositions are to be believed). Reflection and analysis aren't as easy to dramatize as decisive action.
Blah blah derail whatever. Go whine to admin.
We've been grumpy lately.
No shit.
I think this post needs kittens!
It says on teh intarweb that kittens are the new mood enhancers.
AND I BELIEVE IT!
Dey is in a kleenex non-brand-specified tissue box!
It's not just grumpiness. I am just sick of the high cheese content on MoFi. Ever wonder why half the old guard are now on Metafilter? Yes, I know where the door is, I can show myself out, and I'll also let the door hit me on my backside for the amusement of all.
I agree with fu yu. Why did Wolof leave? Because someone referred to wikipedia as "wiki". Why did Beeswacky leave? Because someone told him he should write a poetry page "on wiki". And why did tracicle leave? She left because she's a giant squid monster, and she likes to roam the endless depths only ever rising to the turbulent surface to destroy the merchant shipping of the innocent, uttering as she does so her blood-chilling roar: "WIKI ... WIKI ... WIKI ...".
So if you care about mofi don't abbrv. da 'pedia, cheesemasters.
I sometimes call Mr. Whiskers by the nickname "Wiki."
I am just sick of the high cheese content on MoFi. Ever wonder why half the old guard are now on Metafilter?
Lactose intolerance?
Honi kâua wikiwiki
Sweet brown quidnunc said to me
As he gave me language lessons
On the beach at Waikîkî
Honi kâua wikiwiki
He then said and smiled in glee
But he would not translate for me
On the beach at Waikîkî
Honi kâua wikiwiki
Nickdanger abbreviated mistakenly
And then fuyu had a thrombo
On the beach at Waikîkî
Honi kâua wikiwiki
Kittens frolic playfully
So I stuffed my face with cheeses
On the beach at Waikîkî
Honi kâua wikiwiki
You have learned it perfectly
Don't forget what I have taught you
On the beach at Waikîkî
I am just sick of the high cheese content on MoFi.
A personal attack on our es el Queso is certainly not warranted. Please be respectful of the Cheese.
I notice on the Blue that Wikipedia is cited quite often, and often there is much complaining about that fact. The good posts often cite WP as a starting point, and then have other links that further elucidate. IMO, this is an excellent use of the 'pedia.
I spent a week in a computer class of high school students trying to give them some critical thinking skills regarding what they saw on the net. We looked at examples of sites that were obviously written by someone batshit insane, and others that were extremely well written and extremely plausible, but with crazy agendas. Tried to get them to research the backstory on pages to see what the writers affiliations were, and to look for differing viewpoints and assess their validity. This is something I don't think 75% of adults know how to do. I would say half the kids understood why it was necessary to question what they were seeing, the rest were certain anything goes, because it was RIGHT THERE ON TEH INTARWEB! It behooves us all to be critical thinkers, in whatever the medium we obtain our information.
I blame myself for the high level of crankiness lately. I've neglected posting taglines. Let me rectify this sad situation:
MonkeyFilter: I can show myself out, and I'll also let the door hit me on my backside for the amusement of all.
MonkeyFilter: I don't think this qualifies as "their worst", more like experimentation.
Please forgive me.
fuyu, your tactics of late ("I don't even need to read it to know this link sucks"; "How could anyone post a link that suggests options other than my worldview?") have really left a lot to be desired. Sure, there's cheese here. There's also non-cheese. Regardless, it's not MetaFilter, and it doesn't want to be MetaFilter. If you want to hang, pick your spots and try to have fun. If you want MetaFilter, go hang out at MetaFilter. Just please stop pissing on everyone else's conversations. It's really annoying.
I know it's pointless to say this, but MoFi did start out as a holding site for people who couldn't get into Mefi. So, uh... a lot of people joined Mefi when it became an option.
Yes, others left, as they do any other site when they get tired of it or have other things to do. So it goes.
Cheesiness waxes and wanes. Especially the cheeses with wax rinds, like, I dunno, Gouda.
I have a heck of a time getting the college student who work with me to go any further than Wikipedia in their research. And my bosses are so twentieth-century that they don't completely understand why that's a problem.
*bursts in*
Hellowww!
/Squiggy
a holding site for people who couldn't get into Mefi
When the site first came up, I read MeFi for several years without posting (intimidated) until they closed the membership. Then I realized I might not get a chance to BE a member and wanted in, if only to jack up the numbers and show support. Unfortunately, I always missed the short open seasons on enrolling. The last time I tried to join, they were taking members by recommendations from a current member. So I emailed a Certain Person with an explanation of why I'd be a useful and productive member with thoughful posts and comments, and was shot down entirely. I believe one of the words used in Metatalk was puerile*.
WELL!
After that, I decided to take my puerile comments elsewhere. Took me a couple months to decide I wanted to post on MoFi, but eventually I realized that poo-flinging and cockpunch was where it was at. I still read MeFi, AFTER I read MonkeyFilter, but feel no need to subscribe.
Oddly enough, the poster that panned me is a member here, and we apparently have a comfortable relationship. He makes me laugh.
but late some dark and stormy night, there will be lightning, a crash of thunder, and a raised knife. You'll pay then. Oh, how you'll pay!
*throws back head and laughs insanely
*hey, can I help it that one of my favorite memes was this _______, it vibrates?
Wucy! I wuv you! I'm Wiki Wicahdo!
So, is it better to leave in a snit or a huff? I can never remember.
You can float off in a huff, but in a snit you're stuck on the ground.
Ralph, it's been way too long since I laughed that hard! My tummy hurts!
It's RIKIPEDIA.
Sounds like idiocy and sloth to me!
It's a sad fact, but telling someone to not derail a thread is the surest way to derail a thread.
Oh well. It still needed to be said.
Oh, and rerail:
Bearguy, I find your comments fascinating. I think that the surest safeguard against Wikipedia becoming co-opted will be the erosion of its perceived legitimacy. But, of course, by that point it will be too late, and what a blow that would be. It's extremely sad for me to consider this, just because the concept of a populist-edited resource like Wikipedia, with its "greater good" approach to intellectual property, appeals so much to my anarchist tendencies. The problems it faces are the problems any anti-hierarchical system faces, and its successes have buoyed my faith in humanity considerably. Now,the obstacles are mounting, and I watch with great interest and trepidation.
One thing that has come out of this is my renewed belief that transparency, in itself, remains a viable answer to such abuses. All the more worrisome in a country whose government is turning more and more opaque.
One thing that has come out of this is my renewed belief that transparency, in itself, remains a viable answer to such abuses.
You, indeed, have more faith than I. If it isn't governmental, then I'm sure it will be corporate--assuming that it isn't the same thing anymore. Symbiosis. Our government supports Halliburton; Halliburton supports our government. the tentacles of abuse are everywhere. Terrerism is the excuse to censor and control. If such transparency is to remain, it will have to come from outside, and be supported by gorilla fighters within.
You EXPECTED no derail? Com'on, we fling poo for fun and drink cockpunch. Just be glad it really didn't derail into this
I agree that transparency is the answer. How viable it is, I'm not so sure. Depends on how Panglossian I'm feeling from day to day. There will wlways be people who shun transparency, for various motives, and need to have it thrust upon them.
If such transparency is to remain, it will have to come from outside, and be supported by gorilla fighters within.
Yep, that's the trick. And once that transparency is lost, it's bugger all hard to get it back.
"rerail"????
"rerail"????
It could work! A fulcrum, a series of pulleys, one obedient elephant...
Yep, that's the trick. And once that transparency is lost, it's bugger all hard to get it back.
Because having secrets is intoxicating and not being as accountable is so much more relaxing--you can loosen your tie AND your morals.
But transparency even after secrecy IS doable. In the U.S., the "Government in the Sunshine Act" (see the verbatim stuff here) were passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal. When I was working for a government contract not 4 years ago, that Act was invoked by our legal division as to why some information had to be online.
Just as bad laws and habits can persist, good ones can weather storms as well. So I don't want to see transparency diminish for Wikipedia, but I think it could come back.
The worse case scenario would be for the 'pedia to lose its populist reputation--which I could picture happen one side feels that they've lost the culture war on that turf. Take the war to the meaningless Sunday talk shows I say!
Let me just google up the technique on Wikipedia here...
MonkeyFilter: loosen your tie AND your morals
There you have it, folks.
So how does democratized media protect itself against an inevitable occurence? Imagine staffers paid to do nothing but manage wiki pages, how would the creative commons (or whatever) combat it?
With all due respect to what mct said, I feel optimistic. In a battle of geek vs. nongeek on internet turf, the geekforce always wins: there are more of us, and we're obsessed and anal and better than they are, dammit.
(mct's analysis may be closer to reality, whereas mine is more coloured by emotion. Sigh.)
Using the word correctly now, did you know we had a Wiki wiki web wikipedia?
And a preview button, dog nab it.
What a piece of junk!
/Luke
(mct's analysis may be closer to reality, whereas mine is more coloured by emotion. Sigh.)
I hope not. Devil's advocate, though, I'm not entirely sure I see the inherent value in democratizing what's supposed to be a reliable resource of facts. Democratizing news, sure. Democratizing education, sign me up. But democratizing the encyclopedia?
Even factoring in the arguable good of differing perspectives coming into play that might not otherwise, bottom line is facts is facts and a resource for looking up those facts should be trustworthy. And no one with a brain in his head trusts teh Wiki as a reliable source of facts on anything other than lightsaber combat and why Pokemons rule. Oh, I suppose some of the entries for less controversial topics and fields in science and mathematics might be fine too, but even then, you've got to take it with a grain of salt to be safe. I don't really see a net good there. Experts exist for a reason.
But democratizing the encyclopedia?
That's one of the reasons I sometimes feel the urge to get a Brittanica subscription (and may well go ahead and do that before long to put my money where my thought is). There's any number of reasons to support experts and the notions of accuracy and expertise. There's any number of concepts supported for 'the common good' that can break down because they're not supported BY enough people doing good. Public bulletin boards (real space) or penny trays could be examples of this. With Wikipedia being online, it amplifies the petty behavior all the more. So in that sense, I'm not sure if it can ever overcome these issues and I take MCT's point as being, in part, do we even want to? Don't we want experts and absolutely trusted sources of information? (Whether we want them or not, we always need them, something I always point out to the peeps who are down on science).
However, I also consider open-source software and similar projects and it seems the ethical motivation to bring those projects to pass does power through baser tendencies of peeps.
I'd also mention that democracy and transparency can be quite different, but democracy usually aids increased transparency.
democratizing the encyclopedia?
The idea is that self-selection will keep the wikipedia from becoming amateur hour. I know nothing about bio-chemistry and will therefore NEVER attempt to edit a bio-chemistry article. And, so far, the system has worked reasonably well. Never before has so much valid information been so accessible. Obviously, there are weaknesses, pitfalls and shortcomings, and anyone using the wikipedia needs to be well aware of what those are.
Although an encyclopedia is supposed to be unbiased, every country, every era, every expert has an agenda. I have some ancient encylcopedias in which the prejudices of the time are quite obvious, and I'm sure the Brittanica will reflect some in the future. But always, the attempt must be made.
I'd also mention that democracy and transparency can be quite different, but democracy usually aids increased transparency.
Democracy? Democracy has wings. Watch it fly out the window.
I dunno - I tend to think that democracy depends more on transparency than vice versa.
We have a sign over the copier at work that reads, "NO TRANSPARENCIES!" in huge letters.
Yes, but was it put there by popular vote, or is it a sign of a corrupt and indifferent dictatorship?
Xerogracy now!
HW, that first link made me laugh till rice pudding came out my nose.
And she wasn't even eating rice pudding!!
Euwwwww!
Brains. Tasty braaaaaaaains
I like rice pudding.
Maybe she snorks with rice pudding.
I dunno - I tend to think that democracy depends more on transparency than vice versa.
See, I think democracy drives the establishment of transparency in a society, but if the transparency is not maintained, that then comes back and damages democracy.
(I can't speak to how this affects rice pudding snorking.)
Rice pudding, people. Click and learn.
For the record, I made mine in a pot on the stove, risotto style, with vanilla and cinnamon and a pinch of saffron. Fully snorkable!
(shouldn't the brains-coming-out-your-nose thing be in this thread? So maybe they just got the mummies to laugh really hard?)
MonkeyFilter: Fully snorkable!
Aaaand we're out! Good job, people! That's a wrap!
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Just for the record though, I think we should get a wiki around here. Something more, like, official and stuff.
1. Now I've GOT to try that rice-cooker-rice-puggling recipe I found.
2. Rice pudding tastes better whn you pronounce it "puggling."
3. I've also got to buy a second snorkulator for work because I keep losing mine by bringing it back and forth from home
4. Whenever I'm having a bad day, all I have to do is say to myself, "Wucy! I wuv you! I'm Wiki Wicahdo!"
Oh. My. God.
She's snorking at work.
Next thing she'll be sleep-snorking, and then heaven help us all!
I keep losing mine by bringing it back and forth from home
I can see the ad in the classifieds now:
Lost
1 snorkpot. Only slightly snotty.
Looks like a teapot, BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T DRINK OUT OF IT.
Small reward.
Wasn't "Worksnorking" a hit for R.E.M.? Like from their Automatic For The People album?
Not according to Wikipedia.
Not yet you mean.
Heh heh heh
TUM, sweetie, sit down.
You have a problem.
When you can't stop snorking, when you're hiding your snork pot from your coworkers, when you lead your friends and relatives to believe that what you're doing in the bathroom has more to do with what's coming out the bottom than what's going in the top...
You need help.
MONKEY INTERVENTION!!
Everybody supply your own boogers, please.
I'm not hiding it! I'll proudly snork in front of anyone who wants to see!
For a quarter, that is. No tickee, no lookee.
Oh, Lord! It's even worse than I thought.
SHAMELESS!!
Outta my way, y'old bag!
*pays quarter*
Hot Snorkin' Action? Hells yeah.
I once participated in daisy-chain snorking, but it was in college, and I didn't know any better.
OK, I've been watching the I Love Lucy marathon on TV Land, and the whole time all I can think of is "Wucy! I wuv you! I'm Wiki Wicahdo!"
kleenexnon-brand-specified tissue box!