Wikipedia in the Times (of London)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Wikipedia today.
The leader starts:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6930419.ece
Who Knows Best?
Wikipedia is alienating its editors as it strives to safeguard its
credibility
Wikipedia (pronounced WI-ki-PEE-dee-a), the web-based, collaborative
encyclopedia launched in 2001 by a few people with very big
scrapbooks and maybe a little too much time on their hands [citation
needed], is under threat [see page 6].
The online site � the name derives from a combination of the
Hawaiian word wiki, meaning �quick�, and pedia, the Latin for
�feet�, denoting a surfer�s ability to sprint through reams of
information very rapidly [requires verification] � is suffering from
an exodus of the volunteer editors who write, fact-check and edit
Wikipedia entries.
....
Page 6:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece
Wikipedia shows signs of stalling as number of volunteers falls
sharply
Murad Ahmed, Technology Reporter
It was one of the internet�s most ambitious, radical and ultimately
successful ideas.
Eight years ago Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia that allows
anyone to write and edit articles, declared that it would provide
access to �the sum of all human knowledge�. It soon became one of
world�s most popular websites.
The site assumed that facts and information could be provided by
all. Anyone was allowed to log on, write and change articles. Any
subject � from Barack Obama�s election to characters in the Star
Wars films � was considered worthy of inclusion. The pages have been
updated and improved upon thousands of times and they are used more
than 300 million times a month by everyone from primary school
pupils to speechwriters � even if they should know better.
Surprisingly to sceptics, who have long warned that inaccuracies
abound on the website and that they can come to be regarded as fact,
the project seems to have proven the wisdom of crowds. A recent
study suggested that its pieces were just as accurate as those in
the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Fears are increasing, though, that the Wikipedia project could be
starting to stall. Research reveals that the volunteers who create
the pages, check facts and adapt the site are abandoning the site in
unprecedented numbers.
....
....
....
Page 7:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6930656.ece
Shifting sands offer poor foundation for a dependable truth
Tim Glanfield
Twenty five per cent of those who have visited Wikipedia have read
something they know to be inaccurate, according to Rasmussen
Reports.
The occurrence of mistakes in Wikipedia is no surprise; there are
errors in every reference text. A study conducted by the British
journal Nature concluded that on basic scientific fact, the number
of errors found on the site is comparable with the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, but Wikipedia does not just include scientific fact.
Comscore data shows that usage of the site has increased by nearly
12 per cent in the past year, attracting 15.5 million unique UK
users in October alone, about 40 per cent of all adult users.
This number of users on an �open-edit� platform, combined with the
broad coverage of topics that Wikipedia offers, has attracted a
unique set of errors driven by misinformation, self-interest and
malice.
The mistakes on Wikipedia fall into four categories: vandalism,
battlegrounds, proving a point and accidents
....
....
....
This writer points out problems and wants to see the end of Wikipedia:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6930560.ece
Wikipedia: an anti-intellectual venture to its core
Oliver Kamm: Commentary
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ray O'Hara
"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:sqjqg5dtod9ahna6v...@4ax.com...
> The Times (of London) has "third leader" and two pages of aricles on
> Wikipedia today.
>
>
The Times, like The Country Club {in Brookline Mass}, should never have to
be qualified.
All others with the name are imitators.
John Varela
Similarly, there is only one Royal Navy and only one Royal Air
force. All other kingdoms must use an adjective.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Nick
> The Times (of London) has "third leader" and two pages of aricles on
> Wikipedia today.
>
> The leader starts:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6930419.ece
>
> Who Knows Best?
> Wikipedia is alienating its editors as it strives to safeguard its
> credibility
>
> Wikipedia (pronounced WI-ki-PEE-dee-a), the web-based, collaborative
> encyclopedia launched in 2001 by a few people with very big
> scrapbooks and maybe a little too much time on their hands [citation
> needed], is under threat [see page 6].
>
> The online site — the name derives from a combination of the
> Hawaiian word wiki, meaning “quick”, and pedia, the Latin for
> “feet”, denoting a surfer’s ability to sprint through reams of
> information very rapidly [requires verification] — is suffering from
> an exodus of the volunteer editors who write, fact-check and edit
> Wikipedia entries.
> ....
And today someone has written in to explain that this isn't the meaning
of "pedia" in the name.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Peter Moylan
If they had spelt it "Wikipaedia" there would have been none of this
confusion with feet.
I would imagine that pedophiles get very upset about being mistaken for
paedophiles.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
James Silverton
Unfortunately, US spelling of encyclopedia confuses this issue.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
aquachimp
wrote:
> The Times (of London) has "third leader" and two pages of aricles on
> Wikipedia today
>
> This writer points out problems and wants to see the end of Wikipedia:http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6930...
>
> Wikipedia: an anti-intellectual venture to its core
> Oliver Kamm: Commentary
>
Might anyone offer a rewording of:
"Wikipedia is routinely cited in online articles as a substitute for
explanations of concepts, events and people."
because I'm not at all sure I know what that means. 5should I consult
our friend wiki?°
Steve Hayes
>our friend wiki?�
A few examples would be helpful.
Is the author saying that passing references to concepts, events or people
need to be fully explained in an article on something else, thus turning every
article into an encyclopedia on its own?
Does the author think the same applies to footnotes and bibliographies in
printed articles -- that the entire cited work should be included in the
article itself?
I sometimes cite Wikipedia in articles if, for example, I refer to a person,
and if there's a good article on the person in Wikipedia, in case a reader
wants to know more. That's the same use as footnotes and bibliographies in
printed articles (and very often the Wikipedia article contains footnotes and
bibliographies too).
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
aquachimp
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:12:21 -0800 (PST), aquachimp
>
>
>
> <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 4:52 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> >wrote:
> >> The Times (of London) has "third leader" and two pages of aricles on
> >> Wikipedia today
>
> >> This writer points out problems and wants to see the end of Wikipedia:http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6930...
>
> >> Wikipedia: an anti-intellectual venture to its core
> >> Oliver Kamm: Commentary
>
> > Might anyone offer a rewording of:
>
> >"Wikipedia is routinely cited in online articles as a substitute for
> >explanations of concepts, events and people."
>
> >because I'm not at all sure I know what that means. 5should I consult
> >our friend wiki?°
>
> A few examples would be helpful.
Indeed.
Especially when looking at the online explanation for "explain"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain
and comparing that with a look at various articles in Wiki. it does
look like Wiki explains concepts and events rather well. And even the
terrm "people" as well. Though, it fairness it doesn't generally try
to "explain" particular individuals. That might be a job for a
psychiatrist?
Perhaps what the comment intended to convey it that because its
articles are usually well expressed, Wikipedia is routinely cited
unquestionably and therefore serves as a substitute for independent
thinking or unique perceptive.
;That it can at times be a rubber stamp of stereotyping.
Or it could mean something else entirely.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
And one day later someone has responded pointing out that the previous
letter writer had failed to grasp the joke. He then writes:
I�d call her a pedant, if only I could be certain that its etymology
supported my meaning.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6935275.ece