The Intellectual Dishonesty of Vandalizing Wikipedia

[TuringAI]

Given Wikipedia's reputation, I believe this discussion belongs here. I will start by linking you to this page.

http://www.personalloanportfolio.com/29/pr...ving-criticism/

Clearly there is solid evidence (not necessary of the type you can touch with your hands, but you can still see it and it is a very good source) that numerous people have been engaging in the act of trying to blank out other people's judgments, via means of editing, or even whitewashing sections of Wikipedia relevant to their 'interests'. Now in this discussion I will accept as a given this occurrence.

My question is, where does this rate on the 'intellectual dishonesty' - o - meter? What can WE do about such things? Most important, what do we have to gain by judging those who do this and acting on the behalf of the truth of the matters currently under dispute?

Edited July 22, 2008 by TuringAI

[DavidOdden]

Are you more interested in that specific entry, or the general problem of Wikipedia?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Given Wikipedia's reputation, I believe this discussion belongs here.

I think the problem is the nature of the Wkipedia being able to be modified by just about anyone who can log on and goes through the effort. What makes you think that under such circumstances that only the best and most rational entries will win out? Typically, it is one or a few against a multitude who just loves to get in there and mess up an entry. I've heard that entries regarding Ayn Rand and Objectivism are like that -- i.e. they are completely overrun by those who hate Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I think the whole idea of a wiki -- i.e. community editing -- is a throw-back to the Kantian idea that everyone being involve will make it objective. It ain't so. Only the singular human mind focusing on the facts and reason can be objective. Wikipedia never had a good reputation with me because of that well-known fact. I go there only occasionally, and I sure as heck would not refer to it as some sort of objective standard for encyclopedias.

[DavidOdden]

I sure as heck would not refer to it as some sort of objective standard for encyclopedias.

A proper encyclopedia reflects the intellectual judgment and standards of the editors -- they select the specialists who can be entrusted with the task of writing an objective article on the topic, based on their objectivity and knowledge of the subject matter. The Wikipedia article on Objectivism, for example, was cobbled together by such respected illuminaries as Karbinski, DAGwyn, KD Tries Again, Skomorokh, Pink!Teen, Epbr123, Zime2005, Xenure, Chase me ladies I'm the Cavalry, Alfred Centauri, Woodie, Chinesearabs, Yamanbaiia, and scores of others whose judgement we should consider as credible because of what? My mother told me, if you leave the front door open, don't be surprised if the house gets full of flies.

[TuringAI]

Are you more interested in that specific entry, or the general problem of Wikipedia?

I'm more interested not in the problem of people vandalizing wikipedia from wikipedia's POV, but of the general character of those who do so. So it's a little of both.

So to clarify, I'm interested in the concept that "what other people think about you" is important.

Oh, and for the record, Wiki DOES have quality standards. They just aren't all that quality when you compare Wikipedia with encyclopedias you have to pay for.

Edited July 22, 2008 by TuringAI

[eriatarka]

Wikipedia is an amazing resource and one of the 21st century's greatest achievements so far. Theres no doubt that it has problems, but the good far outweighs the bad, and I really dont understand the people who prefer to dimiss the project altogether.

I think the whole idea of a wiki -- i.e. community editing -- is a throw-back to the Kantian idea that everyone being involve will make it objective. It ain't so. Only the singular human mind focusing on the facts and reason can be objective. Wikipedia never had a good reputation with me because of that well-known fact. I go there only occasionally, and I sure as heck would not refer to it as some sort of objective standard for encyclopedias.

Some would argue that the Kantian approach is to form a judgement purely on a-priori grounds without actually looking at reality. Yeah, the principle of community editing doesnt sound like it could create a worthwhile encyclopedia, but I think the existence of wikipedia shows that this intuition is incorrect.

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[Capitalism Forever]

Wikipedia is an amazing resource and one of the 21st century's greatest achievements so far.

Why? Encyclopedias have been written for centuries, and today many are available online. What distinguishes Wikipedia from them is precisely what's Wikipedia's greatest vice: that its content is the result of a consensus of a number of random people from the Internet, rather than carefully selected, well-qualified professionals.

Would you like to dine in a restaurant where the food is made by a bunch of random people walking in from the street and trying to reach a consensus on what recipe to use? Perhaps such a restaurant might be cheaper than a normal one with a professional chef, but wouldn't the quality of the food rather depend on luck, to put it mildly? Would such a restaurant really be "one of the 21st century's greatest achievements" ? And how can you be sure that organizations like Al-Qaeda won't send their operatives to "contribute" some arsenic to people's meals?

[eriatarka]

Would you like to dine in a restaurant where the food is made by a bunch of random people walking in from the street and trying to reach a consensus on what recipe to use

If this method had been proven to generate high quality food then sure. I dont get these rationalistic arguments about wikipedia - it exists and the quality is high, so trying to argue that its method would produce a low-quality encyclopedia ignores the facts that are in front of you.

And how can you be sure that organizations like Al-Qaeda won't send their operatives to "contribute" some arsenic to people's meals?

what Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[Capitalism Forever]

it exists and the quality is high

Like this?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.

[eriatarka]

I imagine that if they got a qualified climatologist to write the article you'd like the results even less.

[softwareNerd]

The Wikipedia has problems when it comes to controversial topics. Of course, on something like global warming, or whether Keynesian works, a conventional source may be just as bad. The Wiki has a form of scrutiny too, but is more like the type in CNN cross-fire -- both sides can say their piece.

On other topics -- e.g., science, some aspects of history, various trivia -- the quality is very decent. As long as one reads those knowing that it is the result of contributions that may not have been subject to scrutiny, there is much value there. I've used the Wiki countless times, and have found it to be extremely useful.

[Capitalism Forever]

I imagine that if they got a qualified climatologist to write the article you'd like the results even less.

If he deserved his qualification, he would write that "global warming" is an unscientific hoax.

[eriatarka]

So to clarify, when you say that an encyclopedia should be written by "carefully selected, well-qualified professionals", you arent actually referring to leading scientists in the relevant fields who publish their views in peer reviewed journals, but rather to people who write things that you happen to agree with?

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

I'm more interested not in the problem of people vandalizing wikipedia from wikipedia's POV, but of the general character of those who do so. So it's a little of both.

So to clarify, I'm interested in the concept that "what other people think about you" is important.

People who vandalize Wikipedia are immoral, comparable to illegal downloaders and internet trolls. I saw no evidence of vandalism in that particular article. (The best-known incident of Wiki vandalism was the vandalism of the Jimmy Wales entry in the wake of the Seigenthaler incident -- real vandalism, not just disagreements).

I don't think that "what other people think about you" is important, rather what is important is whether anyone should believe what you say. I would tend to believe an article in physics written by Leon Lederman, but not one written by David Letterman. The reason isn't based on "what other people think about" these folks, but because of the actual facts -- Lederman is a Nobel-Prize winning physicist, Letterman is a late-night clown with no competence in physics. Of course if I read an article listing the top 10 reasons to believe in a magnetic monopole, I'd suspect that the article was written by a clown, whereas if I read an article by Lederman purporting to report evidence of the existence of a magnetic monopole, I would take the claim very seriously. This is because Lederman is a very credible scientist.

My rule of thumb is that one can use Wikipedia as a source of ideas and links to follow up on and research independently, and in some rare instances actually trust, but most of the time if you want to know something, you can only use Wiki as a focusing device to point you in the right direction. In my own area, I find it useless because it misprepresents facts, can be very biased (because a small number of people with a theoretical ax to grind are constantly moving an entry in the direction they want the article to go), and is very shallow in coverage. If you're looking up something in an area of your expertise, you can probably see based on what you already know whether an entry is good or not. But then what use is it to you, if you already know the stuff? This is where reputation becomes important: it is not practical to have to learn an entire scientific disipline and get a Ph D in physics just to be able to evaluate a simple article. In my opinion, this is where Wikipedia fails completely, in establishing a reasonable basis for trust. Occasionally I ask biologists if the taxonomic information on e.g. caprinae is correct (seems to be). The entry on syllables is about of the quality of a short term paper for an introductory class -- it's not horrid, but there are too many half-truths and quarter-truths.

[Capitalism Forever]

So to clarify, when you say that an encyclopedia should be written by "carefully selected, well-qualified professionals", you arent actually referring to leading scientists in the relevant fields who publish their views in peer reviewed journals, but rather to people who write things that you happen to agree with?

Your premise is apparently that leading climatologists all share Al Gore's view. It would be off topic to discuss this here, so I'll just remark for the benefit of the better-informed who may be reading this that this is a good example of the kind of premises you may be led to believe if you consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information.

[eriatarka]

Your premise is apparently that leading climatologists all share Al Gore's view. It would be off topic to discuss this here, so I'll just remark for the benefit of the better-informed who may be reading this that this is a good example of the kind of premises you may be led to believe if you consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information.

It's not offtopic, because I think that a fair amount of wikipedia hostility comes from people who are upset that their fringe positions arent represented in articles.

When it comes to scientific articles, Wikipedia endeavours to report the views of the majority of scientists in the field. The majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is man-made, and the article on wikipedia will reflect this. If you want to posit some conspiracy theory where the world's climatologists are engaged in an Al Gore-led plot to deceive humanity then thats fine, but its a fringe position which isnt likely to be worthy of much space in the main article. Your original claim was that wikipedia should be written by 'qualified experts in the field', and the simple fact is that most qualified experts in the field disagree with your position and support the view on wikipedia. So I'm not sure why you think that a 'proper' encyclopedia would be more friendly to global warming sceptics. I dont have access to a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica but I'd be willing to bet that their entry on global warming is also heavily slanted towards the view that it exists. In other words, dont shoot the messenger.

In any case, wikipedia has a large article on the global warming controversy anyway, so the point is somewhat moot. Also the issue isnt whether theres an absolute 'consensus' (theres rarely an absolute consenus on any controversial scientific topic), its whether the majority of scientists in the field agree on something. And they do.

edit: to clarify, there are certain subjects where I disagree with the current scientific consensus and hence disagree with the wikipedia articles on these topics, but I realise that this is not a problem with wikipedia itself, nor is it the result of some global conspiracy to suppress dissenting views for political reasons. I think the wikipedai NPOV and NOR policies are generally good ideas, and science articles should report only the beliefs of the majority of scientists in the field. Whether these scientists are right or wrong is irrelevant in this context: an encyclopedia isnt the place for challenging the status quo - it's a place for describing it as it stands. Even on subjects where I disagree with the majority opinion, I think that wikipedia should report this opinion, because the alternative is far too open to abuse by cranks who wish to insert their nonsense into every article and the last thing wikipedia needs is to be overrun by usenet-style loons who want to prove that Cantor/Godel/quantum physics/whatever is wrong. The proper place to challenge scientific opinion is in scientific journals, not wikipedia articles.

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[adrock3215]

My mother told me, if you leave the front door open, don't be surprised if the house gets full of flies.

For clarification, did you write the entry on David Odden?

[DavidOdden]

For clarification, did you write the entry on David Odden?

No: I wasn't aware of its existence until now. It contains no falsehoods, and is "proportionally representative" (for a 4-dozen word stub says what I would say if I had been asked to write such synopsis).

[Capitalism Forever]

to clarify, there are certain subjects where I disagree with the current scientific consensus and hence disagree with the wikipedia articles on these topics

Out of curiosity, is anthropogenic "global warming" among these subjects?

[eriatarka]

I havent studied the subject enough to form a strong opinion, but given that climatologists are in broad agreement that humans are a cause, thats probably the best theory based on current data.

The issues where I disagree with scientific conesnsus are generally conceptual/methodological in nature rather than being about specific questions of fact - when it comes to purely factual/scientific matters, those who actually work in the field full-time and keep up to date on the latest research are usually in the best position to assess the evidence.

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

I havent studied the subject enough to form a strong opinion, but given that climatologists are in broad agreement that humans are a cause, thats probably the best theory based on current data.

Have you studied the topic enough to be able to objectively establish the claim that climatologists are in broad agreement that humans are a cause (and also please be more explicit as to "of what")? I would be very surprised if you could make a convincing argument that most climatologists hold this view.

[eriatarka]

Have you studied the topic enough to be able to objectively establish the claim that climatologists are in broad agreement that humans are a cause (and also please be more explicit as to "of what")? I would be very surprised if you could make a convincing argument that most climatologists hold this view.

Well the national science academies of pretty much every major Western country have came out and agreed with the IPCC position that theres a human contribution to climate change , for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

Well the national science academies of pretty much every major Western country have came out and agreed with the IPCC position that theres a human contribution to climate change , for instance.

How does that constitute evidence for the beliefs of the majority of climatologists? Feel free to be explicit in laying out your reasoning.

[TheEgoist]

Wikipedia has it's ups and downs. I think when researching things that aren't mostly of a political nature, you'll find some pretty good entries. Also, I think people use wiki as a reference alone, but many pages have great references. I got a lot of my research done on my last college paper from the "Reference" section at the bottom of entries.

Wikipedia is definitely a great starting point. I've seen many professors moving over to the " pro-wiki " side after only a semester.

[eriatarka]

Because a lot of those societies are specifically for atmospheric scientists, and generally speaking the official opinions of scientific societies can be taken as representative of their members. Also because there isnt even one major scientific organization (let alone an atmospherical sciences one) which seriously questions the IPCC findings. I'm not sure what youre getting at here. Short of questioning every single climatologist in the world, the best way to gauge scientific opinion is through the stated opinions of relevant scientific societies, and a review of the literature.

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka