Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

A New Twist in Wikipedia?

<< < (2/2)

mashmata:
I saw this on a Wikipedia page, but haven't seen it since:
 (see attachment in previous post)
Has anyone seen that?

I think it's a fantastic addition as I've seen some Wikipedia articles that have been flat out dominated by massively slanted views.
-Renegade (June 19, 2011, 11:52 AM)
--- End quote ---

I guess the idea with this is that they look at the average stats within a framework rather than just haphazardly replying to random users

IainB:
I do not understand. This folly makes me want to rant.
How, exactly, could it be considered to be a "good thing" to give the people who read Wikipedia articles the opportunity to rate whether they think the articles are:

* Trustworthy
* Objective
* Complete
* Well-written?This is just an opinion poll, there is probably nothing intentionally democratic about it, and it would be incorrect to say that opinion polls prove anything other than what a relatively narrow and non-random sampling of general opinion might be about a thing.
Therefore, unless you are attempting to forecast something like (say) election polling results, if you extrapolate the results of the poll in an attempt to indicate that it is significant - i.e., that it actually means/indicates a valid truth or argument - then you are on a hiding to nothing.

For example, surely millions of Germans couldn't have been wrong about their Austrian leader called Hitler - could they? Well, yes they could have been, and they apparently were - big time.

It is not possible to attempt to ameliorate the mediocre state of something written by the unqualified and uninformed in Wikipedia by saying "Well, it has the consensus of the majority of equally unqualified and uninformed readers (peers), so it must be true/correct."
That would be a non-sequitur.
You don't vote on a logical argument to prove whether it is right. The argument must be able to stand the hard light of scrutiny - of critical thinking and the test of reason - before it can be said to be correct/true.
"Nullius in verbo." Motto of the Royal Society, London. Take nobody's word for it; see for yourself.

I am embarrassed to admit that I had created a few Wikipedia articles and contributed to several more, before this epiphany hit me. Now I only create and update Google knols, with chosen collaborators (where I can find them) who are at least as qualified as I am in the subject in question. I became tired of the irrational, biased, self-important and ignorant edits and comments on Wikipedia, and the seemingly perpetual moronic or ignorant vandalism. In a knol there is stability and control. The quality of the result is likely to be as good as the minimum quality and depth of knowledge of the authors/contributors.

I was brought up to use and explore Grolier's Children's Encyclopaedia (a set of volumes), and later the Encyclopaedia Britannica (an even bigger set of volumes)    :Thmbsup:   - from the age of 11 years.
EB could never have been able to achieve and then maintain its authoritative standing if it had not been meticulous and rigorous in its choice of academic contributors and the peer review of their contributions - and I don't mean the fatuous so-called "peer review process" of the IPCC climate material. "Scientific consensus"? Yeah, right. And I believe in fairies too.

For these and other, lesser, reasons, it is difficult to see how Wikipedia could be regarded as being able to even approach authoritative credibility. If Wikipedia editors believe that there is some sound rationale for implementing such a poll, then they are compounding the folly. Deming would be rolling in his grave.

mahesh2k:
I think every page with objection from experts or inquirer should have a link to talk page. That way if anyone changes article to reflect his/her political/religious or other beneficial views should get it sorted in that talk page and this talk page should be linked in respective page so that any such queries gets redirected. If pages get updated this way then surely quality of encyclopedia will be improved. In that case - Trustworthy,Objective,Complete,Well-written voting is not necessary. They need more moderators than such voting systems but i guess they're using stats from such voting polls to keep eye on such pages. Who knows what they're thinking with this experiment ?

40hz:
Who knows what they're thinking with this experiment ?
-mahesh2k (June 21, 2011, 08:06 AM)
--- End quote ---

I suspect they're hoping to substitute the voting booth for responsibility as Hesse so nicely phrased it.

I've personally never had a great deal of belief in "the wisdom of crowds." Because while it may be true that different people have different opinions and standards, it's equally true that not every opinion or standard deserves, or should be given, equal weight. To do otherwise is to surrender to the lure of "magical thinking" and all the potential for harm that goes with it.

IainB:
@40hz: Wot you said. Hear, hear.   +1          :Thmbsup:
(Whoops! That's a vote innit?)      ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page