[oclug] wikipedia
William Case
billlinux at rogers.com
Sun Apr 1 14:12:31 EDT 2007
Hi Brad;
I fully accept your starting a new thread on the Wikipedia subject as an
consenting to defend your position regarding Wikipedia. And, I agree
with Ross Jordon that this topic is an obvious troll. Nonetheless, it
might prove an interesting way to while away a few hours on dull Friday
evening.
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:24 -0400, Brad Barnett wrote:
"There is always a possibility of changing my mind, but first you have
to
actually provide reasons for me to do so."
Let's not set the bar so high. Rather than changing your mind, let us
say that the objective of this discussion is to refute your contention
enough to get your agreement that you will no longer bully your way into
other people's threads, make unsupported assertions and divert other
OCLUG members exchanges of information.
First lets get some data on the table.
There are 1.1 billion current Internet users as reported by Internet
World Stats. Alexa Web Tracking reckons that 6.2% ( or 70,000 ) of Web
users visit a Wikipedia page every day.
Wikipedia maintains 1.7 million articles in English on subjects such as
Reference, Art and culture, Geography and places, Health and fitness,
History and events, Mathematics and abstractions, Natural sciences and
nature, People and self, Philosophy and thinking, Religion and belief
systems, Social sciences and society, and, Technology and applied
sciences. It has 4 million account holders who can edit or write
articles if they wish. One of the major attractive features of
Wikipedia beside its articles is it's rather forgiving search engine
that facilitates finding information based on incomplete, generalized or
fuzzy search criteria.
Other features include a discussion page, a history page and a watch
page for each article. If the exact information searched for is not
available or clearly understood, Account Holders can ask questions at
the most closely relevant article.
Before you stick a refutation in here, let me admit that an appeal to
the large number of people who use and edit Wikipedia says nothing about
the 'accuracy' or 'truthfulness' of the information published by
Wikipedia.
However, when a belief is widely held the Burden of Proof falls on the
challenger of that belief. If the challenger can not or does not offer
any proof for his assertions, then the rest are justified in holding
that belief until some proof comes along that justifies altering or
abandoning a belief.
Which puts you in the position of the challenger of the validity of
using Wikipedia. It is up to you to offer proofs of your position, not
for others to defend Wikipedia. A show me, prove to me, attitude on
your part, is out of sync and is an irrational way for you to proceed.
Nor should others pick up the gauntlet of an irrational (illogical)
challenge, but should wait to refute any evidence if appropriate and if
offered.
Further, as a normal and usual way of argument, the Burden of Proof
rests with initiator of an argument. You have initiated the argument
under the post subject "wikipedia". It has also been my observation you
have initiated several other similar arguments over the months and years
on the OCLUG mailing list. The Burden of Proof rests with you and your
assertions, not other OCLUG members.
Now, before we examine whether you have offered any proof for your
assertions, lets look and another piece of empirical evidence.
A study was published in the December 15, 2005 edition of Nature
Magazine which purported to show that the accuracy level of Wikipedia
was nearly as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia
Britannica Online was chosen for several reasons, but one of those
reasons was for its prestigious name and reputation for accuracy. As
well as, for its strict editorial and peer review policy. One of the
objectives of the test was to see if Wikipedia's accuracy under its
discussion/edit by the general membership stood up to an encyclopedia
that had a more conventional review process.
As outlined in:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005
Nature took stories from Wikipedia and Britannica on 42 science-related
topics and submitted them to experts for review. The experts were not
told which encyclopedia the stories were from. "The exercise revealed
numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the
difference in accuracy was not great: the average science entry in
Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, around three,"
according to Nature.
The entries covered topics including Agent Orange, quarks and
synchrotrons. "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of
important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed,
four from each encyclopedia … but reviewers also found many factual
errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and
Britannica respectively."
Nature let the results stand on their own. To use as a rule of thumb, I
calculate that 3 mistakes by Encyclopedia Britannica is roughly
equivalent to 93% accuracy for the articles tested. In comparison,
Wikipedia had an estimated 90.5% accuracy level.
The original article Dated 14 December, 2005 can be read at:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
Encyclopedia Britannica responded to the release of Nature's study three
months later. Saying, "Almost everything about the journal's
investigation for identifying inaccuracies to the discrpancy between the
article text and its headlines, was wrong and misleading."
You can read the full Encyclopedia Britannica release at:
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
On March 28, 2006, Nature responded with a refutation of Encyclopedia
Britannica's complaints. The refutation can be read here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf
There the matter rests. In my view, after a full reading of the original
material (including appendices) what seems to have been established is
the following:
Nature Magazine, a reputable outside publisher, has established that
Wikipedia has an accuracy rate of around 90.5% for a small sample of
Wikipedia's relatively static scientific articles. Encyclopedia
Britannica suggests that it is not that high, but nowhere do they argue
that the Wikipedia accuracy rate is low or unusable.
Also, Nature Magazine has established that Encyclopedia Britannica has
an accuracy rate of around 93% for a small sample of Encyclopedia
Britannica's relatively static scientific articles. Encyclopedia
Britannica contends that it accuracy rate is higher.
A complete reading of the debate suggests that this is all an academic
and publishers tempest in a teacup. The two sides are protecting their
review processes and as publishers for readership and marketing reasons
are trying, within the bounds of propriety, to redefine the boundaries
that separate each other; Nature (which relies on Wikipedia) trying to
narrow the distance while Encyclopedia Britannica is trying to widen the
gap.
For our purposes here then, it can safely be argued that Wikipedia has a
90.5% accuracy rate, give or take a few percentage points for matters of
static fact.
As a sidebar look at Wekipedia's review process, visit the following
site:
http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf which says:
"As well as comparing the two encyclopaedias, Nature surveyed more than
1,000 Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of
Wikipedia and 17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10%
help to update it. The steady trickle of scientists who have contributed
to articles describe the experience as rewarding, if occasionally
frustrating."
Nature
Published online: 14 December 2005; | doi:10.1038/438900a
Challenges of being a Wikipedian
Vaughan Bell, a neuropsychologist at the Institute of Psychiatry in
London, UK, has reworked Wikipedia's entry on schizophrenia over the
past two years. Around five others regularly contribute to the
reworking, most of whom have not revealed whether they have academic
backgrounds. Bell says that is not a problem, as disputes are settled
through the discussion page linked to the entry, often by citing
academic articles. "It's about the quality of what you do, not who you
are," he explains.
While admitting it can be difficult settling arguments, Bell says he
often learns something by doing so. One user posted a section on
schizophrenia and violence that Bell considered little more than a
"rant" about the need to lock up people with the illness. "But editing
it did stimulate me to look up literature on schizophrenia and
violence," he says. "Even people who are a pain in the arse can
stimulate new thinking."
Others, particularly those who contribute to politically sensitive
entries, have found the editing process more fraught. William Connolley,
a climate researcher at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, has
fought for two years with climate-change sceptics over the entry on
global warming. When Connolley was insulted by one of the sceptics and
the editing became a 'revert war' — where editors repeatedly undo each
others' changes — the matter was referred to the encyclopaedia's
administrators.
Two of Connolley's opponents were banned from editing any climate
article for six months, but it was a bumpy process. The Wikipedia
editors who oversaw the case took three months to reach a decision. They
also punished Connolley for repeatedly changing the sceptics' edits,
placing him on a six-month parole during which he is limited to one
revert a day. Users who support Connolley have contested the decision.
"It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales,
the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work
and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense." Jim Giles
So far in this post, we have established that:
* The Burden of Proof falls on Brad Barnett and not the other way
around.
* Objectively, the accuracy rate of Wikipedia is around 90.5% for
Wikipedia articles of fact.
Later we can look at the proper rating and use of dynamic articles
submitted to Wikipedia.
To begin with, lets have a look at some of the things you say by parsing
them into plain language as understood by most English speakers and then
analyze those statements' substantive and qualitative content.
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:58 -0400, Brad Barnett wrote:
>
> Respond to this then, Bill, as a starter.
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:43:22 -0400
> Andy Civil <andycivil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All these references are trustworthy and informative:
> >
> > http://www.videohelp.com/glossary
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc
> >
>
Andy Civil was responding to a post by CroombeFP who had requested
information about 'Cryptic' letters on CDs. First Andy answered the
question and followed up by recommending the above sites for further
reading.
Brad Barnett immediately hi-jacked CroombeFP's thread with the following
Red-herring.
> Wikipedia?! Trustworthy?! Are you utterly, completely, and totally
> insane? ;)
>
* Parsed: Wikipedia is not trustworthy.
* Substantive argument: A simple declarative statement with no
proof offered. Perhaps it contains a hidden appeal to
Authority.
* Qualitative argument: A google search for Andy Civil shows that
he has been giving advice to people for at least the last 3
years, mainly on the OCLUG mailing list. A reading of the
threads in which he has participated shows that his advice has
never been outright rejected, but rather has been accepted as
valuable. That in itself gives Andy Civil the right to speak
with some Authority on the subject of Linux operating systems
and computers in general -- and on recommended sources of good
information in particular. Although, as with anyone giving
advice, his statements can be challenged, that should be done
with the acknowledgement that he does wield some Authority and
deserves the subsequent respect.
* On the other hand, if Brad Barnett's simple declarative
statement cited above has a hidden appeal to his authority,
that authority is not substantiated. A google search revels
very little of Brad Barnett's participation in computer matters.
No papers, books, citations or advice are listed for him. There
is one Brad Barnett of Gatineau who bid $250,000 in an online
auction to become leader of the Liberal Party.
* One can conclude then, that any declarative statements made by
him have no value and have no 'a priori' data, information,
debates, or proofs to which a reader can refer.
* Brad also commits the fallacy of 'Misleading Vividness" by using
the expletives "!?, utterly, totally, completely insane". They
neither add to or strengthen his argument. I refer to it as
arguing by shouting.
* The first line of his argument is, as well, an agrumentum ad
hominem attacking Andy's sanity rather than his
recommendations.
> I'm sorry, but I can't put it any other way. The Wikipedia is absolutely
> the _least_ trustworthy encyclopedic source you could ever imagine.
>
* Parsed: Wikipedia is not trustworthy.
* Substantive argument:A repetition of the previous simple
declarative statement with no proof offered.
* Qualitative argument: A repeat of the fallacy of 'Misleading
Vividness" with a rhetorical flourish that actually belies his
true state of sorrow.
* Giving Brad the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean to
include the phrase "you could ever imagine" which actually
renders his declaration meaningless. When the interpretation of
a statement is opened up to someone else's imagination the
statement could mean anything. He has no knowledge of, or
produces no understanding of, the trustworthiness that a reader
could 'ever imagine'.
> For example, 12 seconds before Croombe visits the Wikipedia page you list
> above, a vandal could modify the entire page with utterly false and
> completely absurd data.. that would seem truthful to Croombe.
>
* Parsed: A Wikipedia page can be inaccurately changed before
being used.
* : Such a change can take place in only a few seconds
before being read.
* : An undiscerning reader would not know it was
inaccurate.
* Substantive argument: The first substantive argument. Let's
examine it.
* First, I would refer you to: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:39:20 -0700
Ross Jordan <rjordan at numb.ca>. Secondly Bard's argument is
hypothetical and does not take into account the Wikipedia
guidelines for use and editing. To wit: "Because Wikipedia is an
ongoing work to which in principle anybody can contribute, it
differs from a paper-based reference source in some very
important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more
comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles may still
contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or
vandalism. Users need to be aware of this in order to obtain
valid information and avoid misinformation which has been
recently added and not yet removed. (See Researching with
Wikipedia for more details.) However, unlike a paper reference
source, Wikipedia can be constantly updated, with articles on
topical events being created or updated within minutes or hours,
rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias."
* Check out the Article "quality in Wikipedia" under Researching
with Wikipedia.
* Main article: Reliability of Wikipedia
* Most readers who use Wikipedia understand the cited ground
rules. In fact, in most case they are not required reading 'a
priori' before using Wikipedia. The cautions cited are highly
intuitive, and fall within the 'usual and normal' practises of
any individual who has done a modicum of research, learning or
information gathering.
* Qualitative argument: This argument is trivial. It argues from
an unsubstantiated hypothetical case to a broad generalization
and has elements of an 'undistributed middle'. Further, it
makes no distinction between how the proposed example is
different from any other case of inaccuracy in a source other
than Wikipedia.
> Further, there are extremely biased articles, fiefdoms of knowledge
> controlled by zealots, you name it.
* Parsed: Wikipedia is not trustworthy.
: Articles contain information written by people with a
bias.
* Substantive argument:The first statement is a repetition of
previous simple declarative statement with no proof offered.
The second statement is also a simple declarative statement with
no proof.
* Qualitative argument: Another 'ad hominem' argument. It is not
strengthened by its 'hyperbolic characterization'. This fallacy
is often referred to as 'Poisoning the Well'.
> Frankly, the Wikipedia is likely the
> worst source of information you could find for anything, for
> trustworthiness.
>
* Parsed: Wikipedia is not trustworthy.
* Substantive argument:A repetition of the previous simple
declarative statement with no proof offered.
* Qualitative argument: A repeat of the fallacy of 'Misleading
Vividness" with a rhetorical flourish that actually belies
'frankness'. Brad uses 'weasel' words in this statement such as
"'likely' the worst", imply that there are some cases (perhaps
many cases) that are not the worst source of information.
> Sure, some of its articles are relatively (and I use "relatively" with
> purpose!) well edited and factual.
* Parsed: Wikipedia is trustworthy.
* Substantive argument:The statement is a negation of previous
simple declarative statement with no proof offered -- based, I
suppose on a call to his own Authority. It does contain an
admission for the first time that Wikipedia might have some
articles that are trustworthy.
* Qualitative argument: His parenthetical use of "and I use
"relatively" with purpose!" adds nothing to the discussion. No
where in the subsequent debate does he explain, buttress or
defend his "purpose". Perhaps it is a vague appeal to his
personal authority.
* The use of this phrase is an old debating trick, 'Reserving
Judgement', that is used to allow a debater to make a
non-categorical statement, that if successfully challenged, he
can return to later and remake the argument based on other
terms. When I notice this tactic being used I refer it to myself
as a 'slip and slide' argument.
> However, since one can never know what
> article is correct or incorrect, any trip to the Wikipedia ultimately
> results in knowledge entering your head,
* Parsed: Since, Wikipedia is not trustworthy,
* : Any reading of Wikipedia results in knowledge
* : (I presume Brand meant: Any reading of Wikipedia results
in *incorrect* knowledge)
* Substantive argument: The first statement is a repetition of the
previous simple declarative statement with no proof offered.
* : In either the second or third statement
there is the assumption that reading process somehow puts wholly
and indiscriminately information factual or not into the readers
memory. This is not proved and is unlikely to be true.
* Qualitative argument: The argument is pedantic
self-righteousness and pseudo-psychology. It argues from a
fallacy and begs the question. If the second premise is in fact
what Brad intended, then it is a non-sequitor. If the third
premise reflects Brads real meaning, then it is 'Propter hoc,
ergo post hoc'.
> without even the most minor
> assurances that it is correct.
>
* Parsed: without even the most minor assurances that it is
correct. This statement is made in plain language and does not
have to be parsed to be understood.
* Substantive argument: There are several assurances given
previously that the Wikipedia articles are substantially correct
(90.5% +/-) and are adequately reviewed for correctness. These
assurances are not minor but have been fully disclosed for all
to see and challenge if they so wish. They have been challenged
by no less an entity than Encyclopedia Britanica and found that
there *may* be some need for a small adjustment in the claims of
Nature Magazine as to the assurances of accuracy.
* Qualitative argument: This is one of two of the cruxes of Brad's
argument. It fails on two counts. The substantive argument has
not been proved by him, and in fact has been disproved here.
And secondly, he uses the 'Perfect solution fallacy' in an
attempt to make his point. Voltaire stated this fallacy most
clearly saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Brad
seems to be making the argument that if some inaccuracy can be
found in any source of information, then the whole source has to
be abandoned. That logic would reduce the amount of information
available to all of us, from any source to a very few things
that are appropriate to learning.
> Articles are peppered with urban legends, slanted paragraphs, words
> slipped into strategic spots to change the flow of sentences, you name it.
>
* Parsed: Wikipedia is not trustworthy
* : because it has urban legends, slanted paragraphs, words
slipped into strategic spots
* Substantive argument: The first statement is a repetition of the
previous simple declarative statement with no proof offered. The
second statement is a simple declarative statement which has an
easy opportunity for proof. No examples of urban legends,
slanted paragraphs, words slipped into strategic spots are
offered however.
* Qualitative argument: The fallacy in this contention is, of
course, 'misleading vividness'.
> The worst part of all of this, is that many people on the web take the
> Wikipedia as some form of authoritative knowledge. Yes, these people also
> watch the news at night,
* Parsed: Many people believe Wikipedia is authoritative,
* : All of the people who believe that Wikipedia is
authoritative, watch the news.
* Substantive argument: The first premise assumes, that many
(with no sense of what 'many' means in this context) people
uncritically and absolutely trust everything written in
Wikipedia. He offers no basis for that judgement and dismisses
people's ability to make critical judgements and their ability
to retain but reserve data until further proved. He makes no
distinction between types of articles that people might put
different levels of trust in (static versus dynamic
information). Putting aside for the moment that the second
premise is a complete 'non-sequitor' and a 'Red Herring', he
makes no effort to substantiate his claim but implies that
watching the news makes individuals uninformed.
* Qualitative argument: As mentioned above, this entire statement
is a 'non-sequitor' and a 'Red Herring' argument. Presumeably
Brad is hoping someone will respond to the Red Herring in way
that allows him to return to the Wikipedia question at a later
time using arguments developed by others in refutation of the
'media' question. It is an old debating technique I refer to
mentally as 'turning the sword around'. It saves work and
thought for the debating antagonist.
> and think that reporters and televised media has
> a goal to inform, rather than to shock and awe.
I am not going to bother parsing these statements or doing a substantive
analysis of their validity. To do so would to get sucked into Brad's Red
Herring started in the previous statement.
>
> Well, no matter. Please, just don't call Wikipedia trustworthy, ever. At
> least with an author's webpage, you have an idea of who wrote it.
>
* Parsed: Wikipedia is not trustworthy
* : Authors' webpages are more trustworthy
* Substantive argument: The first statement is a repetition of the
previous simple declarative statement with no proof offered.
The second statement is the second crux of Brad's argument, weak
though it is. It is another simple declarative statement
perhaps with some hidden appeal to his own authority. Brad
makes the claim that an Author's Web page -- let me repeat that
for emphasis -- Web page is more accurate than a Wikipedia
article. Besides offering no proof, Brad does not take into
account the complete lack of review of a personal web page, the
lack of a collaborative effort and the possibility for an Author
to disregard any respect for facts or the truth. Personal Web
pages are notoriously self-serving and amateurish. This
assertion is so ludicrous, I am beginning to feel that I am
mistaken and that this argument is another of Brad's Red
Herrings.
* Qualitative argument: The conclusion does not follow from any of
the terms in the first premise, lacks a second premise and puts
up a False dilemma or All or nothing argument.
> The wikipedia?
>
> It's the blathering of fools distorting the wisdom of a few... with the
> false legitimacy that only the media and urban legend can create.
This Brad's summary of his total arguments.
Parsed: Wikipedia is not trustworthy
: written by people are uninformed
: who distort the wisdom of those that are informed.
: with a false legitimacy
: a legitimacy similar to the media and urban legends.
Substantive argument: The first statement is a repetition of the
previous simple declarative statement with no proof offered. The second
statement calls on Brad's own authority in a vast array of matters to
judge all the writers in Wikipedia as uniformed. He is capable of
distinguishing between who is informed and who is not and sets the class
of people who he has personally declared as fit to pass on knowledge as
a class apart -- perhaps as some kind of super men that are better than
the rest of us. Brad, of course, assumes he is a member of that super
class although he has demonstrated otherwise. In his third concluding
statement, sounding like Ann Rynd positivist, he simply assumes that the
great unwashed distort the works of the super class. With his fourth
statement he implies that he and other members of the super class must
always be vigilant against any argument or action that might challenge
his interpretation of how the world should work. He ends with the worst
epithets he can think of -- the media and urban legends -- though the be
Red Herrings that add nothing to his point.
My summary:
Brad falsely argues mainly by Repetition of previous arguments, an
'argumentum ad nauseam', and 'misleading vividness'. Some of the other
fallacies he uses are: 'agrumentum ad hominem', 'unsubstantiated
hypothetical', 'Poisoning the Well', Propter hoc, ergo post hoc',
'Non-sequitor', and 'Red Herrings'.
* The Burden of Proof falls on Brad Barnett and not the other way
around.
* Objectively, the accuracy rate of Wikipedia is around 90.5% for
Wikipedia articles of fact.
* Brad Barnett speaks with no known authority.
To reiterate my personal belief -- and Brad it is only a belief that I
make no effort to impose on you or during any of your initiated threads;
"Wikipedia is a resource for the curious and a starting source for the
serious."
--
Regards Bill
More information about the OCLUG
mailing list