tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6033919418961132722.post1071652125067116723..comments2012-06-22T22:10:55.453-05:00Comments on J 176: Media Fluency for the Digital Age: An example of a Wikipedia fail?Greg Downeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09154543464555817869noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6033919418961132722.post-83313014334631513372012-03-03T21:36:15.148-06:002012-03-03T21:36:15.148-06:00There's more on this story at MetaFilter tonig...There's more on this story at <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/113495/What-did-they-talk-about-all-those-days" rel="nofollow">MetaFilter</a> tonight. Folks might find their comment thread interesting. <br /><br />My own reaction is different from the commenters above. I believe that the point of research and reasoning -- and art and literature and philosophy, for that matter -- is often to overturn the majority view and the conventional wisdom. Wikipedia is not set up to evaluate evidence, only to parrot the assumptions and assertions of others. It relies on internet-based evidence that is easily citable within wikipedia, and it relies on the wisdom of crowds who can quickly do minimal web searching for "facts" but don't put forth the time and labor that new discovery requires. That is its greatest limitation versus other sources of professional research, analysis, and journalism. It's great to have a wikipedia to refer to when we want to know "what everyone thinks." But it's quite sad if that deludes us into believing that "what everyone thinks" is always right. That's when we lose the ability to think for ourselves.Greg Downeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09154543464555817869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6033919418961132722.post-38841433893688797392012-02-26T19:26:54.344-06:002012-02-26T19:26:54.344-06:00I completely agree with Kenneth. In most instances...I completely agree with Kenneth. In most instances the majority does indeed beat out the minority, so it is no surprise this idea is reflected in Wikipedia's filters. We've spent the last few weeks discussing how in the world Wikipedia is actually able to manage the vandalism and incorrect information that people try to incorporate into certain entries. Well, although I don't believe it's right, I can definitely understand how this would be one of the ways Wikipedia does that. Yes, the facts may be true, but it's a lot harder to fact-check them when there's no majority to back them up.Jordyn Eisenpressnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6033919418961132722.post-86714973681069014892012-02-22T20:49:55.885-06:002012-02-22T20:49:55.885-06:00I think this is the one time where Wikipedia's...I think this is the one time where Wikipedia's fact checking and desire to have high quality sources goes a bit too far. When facts come straight from sources like the Library of Congress how can Wikipedia say that these should not be expressed simply because they are not the majority opinion... even if the information is brand new and may, in fact, become the majority view soon! There may be such thing as being 'too careful' when it comes to Wikipedia - these key ideas are completely lost to the site. Perhaps one day they will be the 'majority opinion' and appear on Wikipedia, but for now they are lost. Very interesting stuff that few people realize when using Wikipedia!!Sidney Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6033919418961132722.post-59303256010917049852012-02-21T20:27:52.378-06:002012-02-21T20:27:52.378-06:00This is quite amusing, but I feel like this is jus...This is quite amusing, but I feel like this is just one of many examples of someone not getting his or her way on Wikipedia. Or possibly this is just a case of the gate-keeper having a bad day and took it out on the author. Even though these instances happen, I still think Wikipedia does a pretty good job at moderating considering how many people post each day on a vast amount of topics.Zoe Schroedernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6033919418961132722.post-8522315134161215252012-02-21T18:13:31.605-06:002012-02-21T18:13:31.605-06:00I think Wikipedia's policy is just a reflectio...I think Wikipedia's policy is just a reflection of most of our society today. The majority often overpowers the minority in many cases. It doesn't mean its right, but I don't feel that we should just start putting all the blame on Wikipedia. My guess is that, for the most part, this policy works. I tend to believe the majority myself because I can't help but think that the minority beating the majority is not as frequent. I do agree that there should be changes to Wikipedia's site so that it can accommodate the very possible chance that the minority is correct.Kenneth Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6033919418961132722.post-31626070216492418182012-02-20T18:05:56.161-06:002012-02-20T18:05:56.161-06:00This is actually really funny, if not a little unp...This is actually really funny, if not a little unpleasant. I find it interesting that people keep the gate that tight as to not let real facts come through.Joe Weissnoreply@blogger.com