Comments on: Sometimes you’ve just got to exert some control http://www.diversity.net.nz/sometimes-youve-just-got-to-exert-some-control/2008/06/28/ Commentary and Analysis for User-Centered Technology Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:02:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Control and trust rating - solving the ills of community contribution at diversity.net.nz http://www.diversity.net.nz/sometimes-youve-just-got-to-exert-some-control/2008/06/28/comment-page-1/#comment-4912 Control and trust rating - solving the ills of community contribution at diversity.net.nz Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:09:25 +0000 http://diversity.net.nz/sometimes-youve-just-got-to-exert-some-control/2008/06/28/#comment-4912 [...] other day I posted about Wikipedia and the fact that it has realised that a degree of control over authorship is [...] [...] other day I posted about Wikipedia and the fact that it has realised that a degree of control over authorship is [...]

]]> By: Facebook is the educational uber-panacea for all ills! While Wikipedia creates dunces! at diversity.net.nz http://www.diversity.net.nz/sometimes-youve-just-got-to-exert-some-control/2008/06/28/comment-page-1/#comment-4837 Facebook is the educational uber-panacea for all ills! While Wikipedia creates dunces! at diversity.net.nz Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:23:25 +0000 http://diversity.net.nz/sometimes-youve-just-got-to-exert-some-control/2008/06/28/#comment-4837 [...] Wikipedia is just one resource among many, it’s defining attribute however, that of citizen creation, arguably makes it a candidate for more inaccuracy than traditional encyclopedias (more here) [...] [...] Wikipedia is just one resource among many, it’s defining attribute however, that of citizen creation, arguably makes it a candidate for more inaccuracy than traditional encyclopedias (more here) [...]

]]> By: Yves Hiernaux http://www.diversity.net.nz/sometimes-youve-just-got-to-exert-some-control/2008/06/28/comment-page-1/#comment-4815 Yves Hiernaux Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:53:47 +0000 http://diversity.net.nz/sometimes-youve-just-got-to-exert-some-control/2008/06/28/#comment-4815 I am not sure it is as terrible as the failing of humankind. Comments from Jimmy Wales are coming at a moment where recent criticisms have been more present than in the past. I recently read articles about students failing because of Wikipedia (at least in their parents’ opinion), CAC40 (France) enterprises complaining about the negative impact Wikipedia was bringing, ... Co-founder Larry Sanger already left the boat 2 years ago to create a much more protected free encyclopedia: http://en.citizendium.org/. He already said then: Wikipedia is broken! What could bring a little bit more of control? 1) Wikipedia is based on the auto-control of the community. Each time something wrong is added, someone else will correct it. Well, it works as long as the article is popular and there are examples of wrong elements in Wikipedia that stayed there for months. So a little bit of control would at least prevent from this. 2) Writers are always subject to context. It is true for people writing in Wikipedia, it is also true for real historians, sociologists, etc … For example, looking at my Belgian history books, the period of the Congo colonization is far from being the same as perceived in UK (for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/congo.shtml ). So my point is, everyone is subject to context but it is certainly better controlled with people that focus on delivering the truth as a live experience. It takes years of studies to become a journalist; it takes years of studies to become an historian… it takes probably even more years to start saying something with a real objective look. People writing in Wikipedia are not on the same path and in that sense a lot more subject to context to people dedicating their work to it. So is it really the failing of humankind? I don’t think so. I think it is the proof that objectiveness is a hard path and that everybody who wants to participate needs a lot of work on him. Putting some control on such an encyclopedia is a way to say to everyone that simple fact. Now, we could still let it open but then the work is on the readers. Readers need to be remembered that one source of information is not enough and so is Wikipedia. When I see those parents complaining about students failing because of Wikipedia, I am in fact quite happy. I am happy because they learned to stay critical. I believe a move on the two sides is probably the best thing to do. I am not sure it is as terrible as the failing of humankind. Comments from Jimmy Wales are coming at a moment where recent criticisms have been more present than in the past. I recently read articles about students failing because of Wikipedia (at least in their parents’ opinion), CAC40 (France) enterprises complaining about the negative impact Wikipedia was bringing, …

Co-founder Larry Sanger already left the boat 2 years ago to create a much more protected free encyclopedia: http://en.citizendium.org/. He already said then: Wikipedia is broken!

What could bring a little bit more of control?

1) Wikipedia is based on the auto-control of the community. Each time something wrong is added, someone else will correct it. Well, it works as long as the article is popular and there are examples of wrong elements in Wikipedia that stayed there for months. So a little bit of control would at least prevent from this.

2) Writers are always subject to context. It is true for people writing in Wikipedia, it is also true for real historians, sociologists, etc … For example, looking at my Belgian history books, the period of the Congo colonization is far from being the same as perceived in UK (for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/congo.shtml ). So my point is, everyone is subject to context but it is certainly better controlled with people that focus on delivering the truth as a live experience. It takes years of studies to become a journalist; it takes years of studies to become an historian… it takes probably even more years to start saying something with a real objective look. People writing in Wikipedia are not on the same path and in that sense a lot more subject to context to people dedicating their work to it.

So is it really the failing of humankind? I don’t think so. I think it is the proof that objectiveness is a hard path and that everybody who wants to participate needs a lot of work on him. Putting some control on such an encyclopedia is a way to say to everyone that simple fact.

Now, we could still let it open but then the work is on the readers. Readers need to be remembered that one source of information is not enough and so is Wikipedia. When I see those parents complaining about students failing because of Wikipedia, I am in fact quite happy. I am happy because they learned to stay critical.

I believe a move on the two sides is probably the best thing to do.

]]>