User:Hillman/Media commentary on Wikipedia

In support of the arguments developed on my Wikipedia user page and elsewhere in my Wikipedia user space, I have collected here links (and some quotations) to some commentary on Wikipedia which I have come across outside Wikipedia. The links are listed by author (with the most astute critics listed earlier) and then by chronological order.

The first section is my attempt to pull out some common threads with my own perceptions concerning the woes of Wikipedia.

Summary
After some struggle, I believe one can extract from the following links and from my own essays a number of common conclusions:


 * 1) A stunningly naive cornerstone of the Wiki Faith states that "wiki pages will be naturally attracted to a state of perfection"; this conviction has proven to be utterly contrafactual, but continues to be regularly repeated by people who ought to know better,
 * 2) This overlooks not only Wikipedia's absurdly cumbersome procedures for dealing with vandalism, hoaxes, POV-pushing, guerrilla marketing, and other malicious edits, but also an important phenomenon which I call edit creep: over time, an article will tend to degraded by edits by inexperienced or careless writers who are unaccustomed to thinking about considerations of
 * 3) *organization,
 * 4) *balance (the relative weight given to different subtopics),
 * 5) *style,
 * 6) *consistentency of paragraph structure, verb tense, spelling, notation and terminology,
 * 7) Wikipedia policies and other "official" statements completely fail to stress some essential points:
 * 8) *every encyclopedia exists to serve its readers,
 * 9) *the editors serve the readers not by merely compiling information, but by evaluating, screening, sorting, organizing, and summarizing information in a concise and coherent fashion,
 * 10) Wikipedia's notorious instability (an excellent article as of this minute may be vandalized or munged by a well-meaning incompetent in the next few minutes) is distracting, disorienting, and does not serve the reader well,
 * 11) Wikipedia's unstructured collaborative writing process tends to suppress many elements of good writing, such as character, style, wit, and even values,
 * 12) As such, Wikipedia actually tends to promote a global trend toward erasing individual expression; this is highly inimical toward the freedom of expression that many Americans cherish,
 * 13) Wikipedia appears to ignore not only the needs of its own readers but also appears hostile toward its most expert contributors, an attitude which is particularly self-defeating when it comes to highly technical topics in science and mathematics,
 * 14) Wikipedia's encouragement of anonymous editing and tolerance of sockpuppetry discourages contributors from taking intellectual responsibility for their contributions, or even for assuming any individual responsibility whatever for their behavior at this website, with predictable results: rampant
 * 15) *vandalism,
 * 16) *hoaxery,
 * 17) *shilling,
 * 18) *guerilla marketing,
 * 19) *POV-pushing,
 * 20) *political dirty-trickery,
 * 21) *incivility,
 * 22) Wikipedia and Google are excellent at compiling information but absolutely dreadful at evaluating information; they render the finding of information so easy that the time consuming and intellectually far more demanding task of evaluating what one has found increasingly seems too onerous to be worth the trouble,
 * 23) By failing so badly at the filtering and evaluation of information, Wikipedia is failing miserably in its primary mission as an encyclopedia,
 * 24) Far from getting good information to the people, paradoxically enough, the ultimate effect of Wikipedia may actually be to impede the filtering/evaluation of raw information by students, teachers, reference librarians, journalists, other information brokers, policy makers, and even by academics--- which would be an extremely dangerous development, highly inimical to the best interests of a free society,
 * 25) By failing to state an unambiguous and self-consistent mission for Wikipedia, and to promulgate effective policies which further that mission, the Wikipedia leadership has failed to lead.

Larry Sanger
Larry Sanger is the father of Wikipedia but now an apostate who has departed from Wikipedia and has joined Digital Universe, a new rival which aims to address some of the problems discussed here and elsewhere in my user pages.

As such, he is one of the most knowledgeable critics of Wikipedia from both an internal and an external perspective.

(The other principals of Digital Universe are Joe Firmage and Bernard Haisch, a highly ironical fact which raises grave doubts in my mind about whether the leadership of Digital Universe is even more unsuited to their role than Jimmy Wales is, as I argue, unsuited to lead the Wikipedia. I argue elsewhere that Sanger should be lured back to head a new and improved Wikipedia, although I despair that this might ever happen.)

The epistemology of Wikipedia

 * The epistemology of Wikipedia, by Larry Sanger, WikiMedia Meta-wiki, c. 2001.

In this memorandum, Sanger challenges a core precept of the Wiki Faith: the notion that a wiki article will be naturally attracted to perfection. He asks: "Is there anything about the Wikipedia process by itself, unaided by an approval process, that tends to the overall improvement of the reliability of the articles?"

Wikipedia and why it matters

 * Wikipedia and why it matters, by Larry Sanger, WikiMedia Meta-wiki, January 2002.

This is the text of a talk delivered to the Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory EE380 Colloquium, on January 16, 2002.

(To judge from his later writings, Sanger seems to have since largely abandoned these high hopes for Wikipedia.)

A particularly interesting passage describes a dangerous feedback loop:

The reason why such feedback is so insiduous is because this phenomenon has been explicitly recognized (see below) by cranks and guerrilla marketeers as forming the basis of a method for manipulating Google to sell your product (intellectual or commercial, metaphorically or literally).

Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism

 * Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism, by Larry Sanger, Kuro5hin, 30 December 2005.

Robert McHenry
Robert McHenry is one of Wikipedia's most astute "external" critics. He was Editor-in-Chief of Encyclopedia Brittanica from 1992 to 1997 and has written several essays which explore various internal contradictions and challenge certain dogmas cherished by the wikifaithful. McHenry often writes for Tech Central Station Daily. He is the author of several books, including the following, which explores a highly pertinant question: why hasn't the dawning of the information age made the average human any better informed than he was before the advent of Google and Wikipedia?:



McHenry maintains a website called How to Know, where he explains that McHenry's law states:

(Hmm... I think I'd reverse these percentages: 85% percent of human behavior consists of whispering "Hey, just look at that jerk!" and the other 15% consists of yelling "Hey, look at me!", and any remaining points are devoted to struggling with simple arithmetic. But I digress...)

The Faith-Based Encyclopedia

 * The Faith-Based Encyclopedia, by Robert McHenry, Tech Central Station Daily, 15 November 2004.

In this famous essay, McHenry
 * criticizes the idea that "wiki pages will be naturally attracted to a state of perfection",
 * decries Wikipedia's systemic disregard for the readers it presumably exists to serve,
 * gives the earliest description I have seen of edit creep,
 * points out that Wikipedia is good at compiling information, but terrible at evaluating it; yet, as he says, the latter task should be the primary function of the editorial team preparing any encyclopedia.

The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks

 * The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks, by Robert McHenry, Tech Central Station Daily, 14 Dec 2005.

This is McHenry's response to the Siegenthaler defamation scandal.

The Scribe's Problem Child

 * The Scribe's Problem Child, by Robert McHenry, Tech Central Station Daily, 3 January 2006.

The real bias in Wikipedia

 * The real bias in Wikipedia: a response to David Shariatmadari, by Robert McHenry, Open Democracy, June 7, 2006.

Wikipedia's visionless, self-selected, value-light online encyclopedia is a deformed shadow of what the global public deserves, says former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, Robert McHenry. This essay contains McHenry's most pointed criticism to date of the problems which flow from the stunning failures of leadership at Wikipedia. In particular, he points out that what I call balance cannot be achieved without careful planning:

Because the wiki model depends upon attracting volunteer editors knowledgeable about topic X and willing to collaboratively author a good article on topic X, I doubt that Wikipedia can hope to achieve global balance, but I believe it can and must try to achieve local balance within each subject area in which Wikipedia can boast a core pool of knowledgeable editors. This would however require drastic changes in the sociopolitical and technical structures, in order to ensure that the most experienced/thoughtful writer/editors can control the organization and guide the continued improvement of mature articles.

He also points out that Wikipedia is systemically hostile to I speculate that for most readers and editors, using Wikipedia is like going to a convenience store where the clerk is rude, or staying in a job with an overbearing supervisor: many people will tolerate considerable abuse in exchange for convenience.
 * its own readers,
 * its most expert contributors

Jaron Lanier
Jaron Lanier is a composer and technocrat who writes about the social implications of new digital technology.


 * Digital Maoism by Jaron Lanier, The Edge May 30, 2006

Lanier has contributed one of the most fascinating--- and most damning--- indictments of Wikipedia which has yet appeared. He notes that Wikipedia, in common with numerous other contemporary digital ventures, is rushing to amalgamate all information, and asks: is this really a good thing?

Like Sanger and McHenry, Lanier challenges the assumption that wiki articles will be attracted to perfection:

I myself have pointed out that because the collaborative wiki process tends to suppress any individual style, it tends to eliminate any trace of humor. Picking up this theme, Lanier notes that, more seriously, Wikipedia also tends to eliminate any trace of values, character, or soul (if I might so put it). All too often, the result is that Wikipedia articles appear pallid and pithed:

He points out that while Wikipedia claims to have the laudable goal of bringing information to the people, by dominating Google (see the feedback loop described by Sanger above), it can have quite the opposite effect:

I have argued that one of Wikipedia's most damnable failings is its striking tendency to discourage editors from taking intellectual responsbility for their edits, and more generally (given Wikipedia's tolerance of and even encouragement of anonymous and/or multiple identities), from assuming any individual responsibility for their behavior at Wikipedia. Perhaps Lanier's most acute observation is his suggestion of what might be driving the rise of Wikipedia and other innovations whose ultimate effect, he argues, is (paradoxically enought) to erase individual expression from the web:

He specifically contrasts the Wikipedia "hive mind" with the scientific community:

Why should we care? Lanier warns:

Indeed, this would be a good place for many readers to jump out of this page and read some recent writings by Salman Rushdie on the contemporaneous epic struggle between the forces of Fundamentalist religions and the tattered remnants of the Enlightenment. Then compare the You Tube phenomenon with Islamic terrorist websites featuring on-line video repositories.

Stacy Schiff

 * KNOW IT ALL Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?, New Yorker, July 31, 2006

Schiff offers a good summary of history of Wikipedia, and reiterates some now familar points:

Wikipedia is populist rather than scholarly-elitist:

She stresses the increasing tendency of discussions about policies and procedures to dominate content creation/improvement:

She quotes Eric Raymond, who make a key point:

She stresses the tendency of Wikipedia to promote the notion that what matter is rapidly and conveniently finding an answer to any question, not finding a good answer, and quotes various prominent critics who decry this trend:

She somewhat murkily recognizes phenomena such as chronic imbalance (both local and global) and edit creep, saying:

She points out that the Encyclopédie was also as much a political manifesto as an information resource, saying:

Over all, one of the best outside assessments of the state of Wikipedia which has yet appeared.

Clay Shirky

 * News of Wikipedia's Death Greatly Exaggerated, Clay Shirky, Many2Many blog, May 25, 2006.

In this fine essay, Shirky responds to a piece by Nicholas Carr, who once wrote "The open source model is not a democratic model. It is the combination of community and hierarchy that makes it work. Community without hierarchy means mediocrity" (an insight with which I agree), but who later expressed fears about the "death of open-ness" in the Wikipedia, e.g. with the advent of semi-protection.

Roy Rosenzweig

 * Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past, by Roy Rosenzweig, The Journal of American History, Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117-46.

This long paper is one of the most important profiles of the Wikipedia which has yet appeared! Detailed commentary to follow.

Elizabeth Svoboda

 * One-Click Content, No Guarantees, by Elizabeth Svoboda, IEEE Spectrum, May 2006.

One of the most intelligent introductions to what Wikipedia is and how it works (or fails to work). By the way, for anyone who doesn't know, IEEE Spectrum is a widely read magazine published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which is regularly read by most information theorists and also by many computer scientists.

Svoboda well describes the importance and difficulty of cruft patrol at Wikipedia:

She picks up Sanger's theme of Wikipedia's hostility toward expert contributors, recounting experiences like this one:

Her conclusion is much more optimistic than that of Sanger, McHenry, Lanier, or myself, however:

Scott McLemee

 * A Wiki Situation, by Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed, June 14, 2006

Inside Higher Ed is an American newsmagazine for college and university faculty members (also read and enjoyed by graduate students).

Like many critics, McLemee notes the instability, dubious reliability, and the lack of accountability in Wikipedia articles:

Like McHenry, he stresses the fact that the lack of any coherent evaluation of information presented at Wikipedia is a crippling defect in a nominal information resource, and like Lanier, he fears that far from empowering more traditional information resources such as journalists and reference librarians, it may actually be helping to destroy these professions, with presumably deleterious results for a free society:

A followup comment by a reader, incidently, supports my contention that the ease of manipulation and almost complete lack of individual responsibility at Wikipedia is fueling a dangerous trend toward widespread manipulation of information in the Wikipedia:

Somehow this trend reminds me of an interesting conversation I once had with a colleague from India, where corruption is endemic. He told me, in essence, that while corruption is certainly all to common in the United States, he felt that Americans who have not directly experienced the kind of endemic and open corruption which prevails in his own country fail to appreciate the enormous social and economic damage with a culture of corruption causes. Much as we Americans love to loathe our journalists, should it ever come to pass that no-one is even paying lip service to trying to provide some approximation to truth, it might be far too late to do more than belately recognize what we have lost.

Andrew Orlowski

 * Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief, by Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 15 June 2006.

Orlowski slams the tepid and self-justifying response by the Wikipedia leadership to the Siegenthaler defamation scandal as an un-subtle attempt to duck the primary responsibility of any encyclopedia (to screen, sort, and summarize information, rather than merely presenting masses of raw information, misinformation, and disinformation; see above):

He picks up another idea which has been noted above: far from empowering students, Wikipedia may actually be further eroding the chance that they will actually learn any useful skills before being desposited in the job market:

Steven Strauss

 * The errors of Wikipedia's ways, by Steven Strauss, CBC News Viewpoint, Jan. 3, 2006.

Strauss mentions that, while on the job as a reporter, he was misled by a WP science article, wrote a factually inaccurate news story as a result, and it came back to bite him. But mostly he criticizes both Brittannica (peevish and petty) and Wikipedia (far too tolerant of abusive and slanted articles) and even Nature (snooty and unhelpful).

Robbie Hudson

 * Talking point: Wikipedia may be fallible, but we'd be crazy to stop consulting it, by Robbie Hudson, Times of London OnLine, June 25, 2006

I have argued in Wikipedia talk pages with more than one user who claimed that no intelligent person could possibly be deceived by a slanted article touting something like polywater (a pseudoscientific "no cost energy" scheme, apparently being promoted at Wikipedia by someone hoping to attract private investment in his alleged "technology"). Hudson provides some anecdotes which support my contention that many people are easily fooled, and many even appear to be eager to be fooled (a characteristic which is of course exploited by many con artists):

See again the commentary by Orlowski and Strauss cited just above!

Sam Vaknin

 * The Six Sins of the Wikipedia, Sam Vaknin, Global Politician, 25 June 2006

In common with many other observers, Vaknin notes the lack of individual accountability at Wikipedia, its anti-elitism, the anarchic nature of its growth, and he too attacks the idea that Wikipedia articles are naturally attracted to perfection:

He too warns that far from improving the quality of public education, Wikipedia may be further degrading it, and he too notes its vulnerability to manipulation by anonymous users pursuing some hidden agenda:

Incidently, Vaknin claims that this essay earned him some unsubtle retaliation:

Since the article Sam Vaknin has been deleted, I could not attempt to verify the substance of these allegations.

Linda Knapp
Linda Knapp is a freelance writer who writes for the Seattle Times.

Wikipedia can be useful tool (sic)

 * Wikipedia can be useful tool, by Linda Knapp, Seattle Times, June 3, 2006.

Rather naive, with a somewhat misleading description of how Wikipedia cruft control operates (or rather, all too often, fails to operate).

Wikipedia a lesson on verifying research (sic)

 * Wikipedia a lesson on verifying research, by Linda Knapp, Seattle Times, July 1, 2006.

Alexandra L. Smith

 * Fighting the Google generation, by Alexandra L Smith, Guardian Unlimited, June 19 2006

Smith notes that Google and Wikipedia can be used as a powerful and convenient device for generating plagiarism:

She briefly discusses some proposals to thwart plagiarism by junior high schoolers by using special purpose software, but fails to pick up a more worrying trend: increasingly widespread plagiarism by nationally recognized journalists. A little known fact is that despite the widely publicized tragicomedies of figures like Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke, and Jayson Blair, these journalists in fact often continue to work as journalists despite repeated exposure as habitual plagiarists. C.f. for example Nina Totenberg.

Dave Watson

 * Please contribute your Wikipedia headline here, by Dave Watson, The Georgia Straight, Vancouver, BC, 29 June, 2006.

I have contended that the likely result of Wikipedia/Google is to degrade the quality of information available on the web, not to improve it. Despite his generally positive review, I think it is telling that Watson is the only journalist (AFAIK) who has managed to read the fine print with sufficent care to correctly describe the semi-protection policy! See my comments about the apparently degrading effect of Wikipedia is having on the journalistic profession.

Sharda Prashad

 * Just the Facts by Sharda Prashad, Toronto Star, July 1, 2006

Prashad compares Encyclopedia Brittanica, Encarta, and Wikipedia. She says of Brittanica:

Daniel Terdiman

 * Wiki Becomes a Way of Life, by Daniel Terdiman, Wired, Mar, 08, 2005.

Back when WP had only a half million articles, Terdiman profiled some of the most prolific contributors, including WikiProject Mathematics's very own User:Charles Matthews and User:Derek Ramsey (whose name is also familiar to long-time sci.math readers).

Robert Steele

 * OSS CEO Speaks Out on First Amendment, Open Source Intelligence as Antidotes to State Secrecy and Questionable Practices, a press release, apparently written by Robert David Steele, from Open Source Software Net, July 2, 2006

I am squirming here, because while I tend to agree with the outrage of Steele, he is explicitly calling for members of his group to join him in slanting a particular Wikipedia article, which is precisely the kind of manipulation to pursue a hidden agenda (presumably hidden at WP, at least) which I am warning about!

See also the AfD debate for the article in question.

Ivor Tossell

 * Here come the Wikipedia police, by Ivor Tossell, Globe and Mail, 23 June, 2006.

So he vandalized it, and earned the customary warning on his user talk page. Tossell continues:

Sheesh! And no, unfortunately, I do not think he is kidding.

Eric Zorn
Eric Zorn is a journalist and a grandson of mathematician Max Zorn, who frequently writes about mathematics ((which is a highly unusual activity for a journalist, alas).

Sigh...this is getting a bit stale: Zorn admits to violating WP:POINT in May 2006 by creating a hoax article on Zorn's law (the name echoes the famous lemma attributed to this illustrious grandfather):


 * Zorn's Law, by Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, 26 May, 2006.


 * Test tube tube steak, an idea whose time is coming, by Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, 5 June, 2006.

Eric and Ivor, you are not helping! with this kind of prank.

Francois Joseph de Kermadec

 * A trustwiki world, by Francois Joseph de Kermadec, O'Reilly Net, January 3, 2006.

Kermadec says: even if it were to become the worst, most inaccurate encyclopedia around, it would still have its place on the web. I think he means that Wikipedia probably won't build a better Brittanica, but it might build a better blog (see my user page).

Gregory M. Lamb

 * Online Wikipedia is not Britannica - but it's close, by Gregory M. Lamb, Christian Science Monitor, January 05, 2006.

"Serbs and Croats are also working together on Wikipedia articles"? What is he smoking?

Guerilla Marketeer Handbook

 * How to Place a Company in the Wikipedia?, a tutorial from [http://www.seroundtable.com/ Search Engine Roundtable, May 9, 2006.

A guerrilla marketer's howto on manipulating the Wikipedia to sell your product.

ABC News

 * Student Reporters Expose 'Royal' Sex Offender, from ABC News, Jan. 13, 2006.

This article describes an example of digging which most people would term legitimate. A registered sex offender in his early twenties apparently created a hoax article at Wikipedia on a nonexistent "Duke of Cleveland" explicitly in order to pursue a criminal agenda, in which he registered as a student at an American High School under false pretenses. Four genuine high school students became suspicious and used Google and Wikipedia to uncover his true identity and his status as a registered sex offender.

Reuters

 * Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia, Reuters, July 5, 2006.

A minute by minute account of the latest rumor mongering in a high profile Wikipedia article on a subject current interest, the recent death of the late and unlamented felon, Mr. Lay

Cyrus Farivar

 * Green-Collar Crime: How I stopped an Internet sex hoax, by Cyrus Farivar, Slate, Aug. 1, 2005.

In this opinion piece, Farivar discusses how he discovered hoax articles in the Wikipedia and elsewhere on an alleged practice called Greenlighting, which were apparently produced collaboratively :-/ by the members of an organization called Wookiefetish. Farivar boasts "Yes, I added an entry on myself to Wikipedia. Why haven't you?".

See also
 * Votes_for_deletion/Greenlighting
 * Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar

I'd like to add here a link to recent news stories in Irish newspapers on the controversy over an allegedly malicious depiction of the town of Ballymena in Ireland in said WP article as the heroin capital of Northern Ireland, but
 * 1) the news stories are apparently not available without a subscription,
 * 2) it seems that the suspect characterization was not inaccurate after all!

Romi Carrell Wittman

 * Cyber Sightings: Spend hours following trail of fun links, by Romi Carrell Wittman, Tucson Citizen, August 3, 2005.

In a generally positive review comparing WP with Encarta and HighBeam Encyclopedia, Wittman cautions "beware its free-edit, free-posting nature. Since people are free to post items, the veracity of the site's content can sometimes come into question. Just remember: You can't believe everything you read".

Bernard Haisch

 * Why Wiki Can Drive You Wacky: When free-form information gets it wrong, watch out, by Bernard Haisch, Los Angeles Times Op-Ed pages, July 24, 2006

Motivated by his recent bad experience re Bernard Haisch-Stochastic electrodynamics, Haisch makes some points very similar to some I have been trying to establish:

Haisch argues that trying to improve a WP article is so exhausting that this places an intolerable burden upon someone who feels the current version of some article is intolerably flawed, but adds that simply ignoring a bad article may not be a viable option either:

Ironically, of course, that editor was me :-/ FWIW, I think Haisch misunderstood my motivations and badly mischaracterizes my version of his wikibiography (which survives almost as I left it months ago), and I feel that his impatience with our wikiways was in fact largely responsible for the edit war he mentions. Haisch opens his editorial by quoting (seriously out of context, in a highly misleading fashion; see Talk:Bernard Haisch for the original) part of a talk page message from User:KSmrq:

It is unfortunate (but perhaps inevitable given human nature) that Haisch omitted to mention that Bernard Haisch appeared in the context of my uncovering and challenging his own questionable Wikipedia edits as an IP anon! Or that KSmrq was chiding him for repeatedly calling me "Christine", despite being told repeatedly that I go by "Chris". IOW, I was acting as an editor of good faith trying to combat wikishilling (the manipulation of information presented in WP articles, in a manner consistent with seeking financial gain or other clear personal benefits, by an editor who misrepresents his IRL identity in order to disguise his hidden agenda), and KSmrq was urging Haisch to behave with greater civility in an admittedly difficult situation.

But context aside, I tend to agree with the main points of his editorial. The common denominator seems to be this: Haisch and myself have both concluded that Wikipedia may become more of a Danger to Everyone than providing as originally intended (reliable) Knowledge for Everyone, but unfortunately by focusing on the single issue of living persons who object to their wikiprofiles, his essay might appear too personally aggrieved in tone to appeal to many readers. Also, I think my view is far more nuanced than his, as one might expect given my far more extensive experience as a Wikipedia contributor.

Seth Finkelstein

 * I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here, The Guardian, September 28, 2006

Finkelstein is a programmer who has been honored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He describes his unhappy experience in unsuccessfully attempting to get his own wikbio deleted after it was turned into (he says) something resembling an attack piece, saying:

Haisch mentions similar fears about the possible public perception that Wikipedia has the "institutional status of an encyclopedia". I think the cure for this lies in campaigning to inform the public that Wikipedia not does not in fact enjoy the status of its elder rival, the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Indeed, it is not an encyclopedia at all (despite the presence of a million "articles", a tiny handful of which at various times have not been inferior in quality/reliablity to Brittannica articles, but who knows what they look like right now?), but rather a kind of überblog.

Finkelstein also mentions the Siegenthaler defamation scandal and the Angela Beesley affair (commenting that the latter represented "a pretty stunning vote of no-confidence", and I'd agree). He adds:

I entirely agree: the Wikipedia community has been unwilling to acknowledge deep-running contradictions at Wikipedia which have undermined the encyclopedic mission, or to recognize the seriousness of the many threats to the integrity of information in Wikipedia articles. I for one have concluded that these failures of insight and of moral courage, and a stunning inability to adapt to changed circumstances, are fatal institutional flaws which are essentially unfixable, at least at Wikipedia itself. The result is that all the work by a relatively small but very dedicated band of true-hearted encyclopaedists at Wikipedia has been for nought, which I find very sad. The alternative überblog mission seems to have captured the soul of the Wikipedia, and I fear that this website will probably become a domain where political attack groups, disgruntled employees, angry ex-spouses, and disaffected persons generally, can vent their spleen or attack individuals they dislike under guise of "informing" [sic] the public.

Ben MacIntyre

 * How wiki-wiki can get sticky, London Times on-line, July 21, 2006.

MacIntyre mentions the recent Congressional staffer WP editing scandal and other widely publicized recent incidents, saying:

He mentions Digital Maosim (but fails to cite Jason Lanier; see above; maybe that is just the nature of The Times style of op-ed):

He concludes by echoing a point made by Haisch:

This is actually quite close to a comment left on my user talk page.

Daniel McNally

 * HOO likes Wikipedia??, Daniel McNally, The Cavalier Daily, student newspaper, July 21, 2006

McNally suggests the next sacred text may be written on a wiki. He's joking, but it's an intriguing thought.

Onion staffers

 * Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence, The Onion, July 26, 2006

My favorite vegatable explains why The United States of America is notable:

Bill Thompson

 * Not as wiki as it used to be, Bill Thompson, BBC News, 25 August 2006

Needless to say, I think that in focusing on the wikiness, Thompson has
 * 1) utterly forgotten that Wikipedia is a social experiment whose stated goal is to build an encyclopedia; given the experimental nature of Wikipedia, it's not written in stone that Wikipedia must be "forever wiki"--- being a "truly open wiki" might be appropriate for very small and youthful wikis, but obviously is not appropriate for one of the largest and most popular websites on Earth,
 * 2) hugely underestimated the problems posed by manipulation of information presented at Wikipedia to further some hidden agenda (to give just one very recent example, see Edits by Danras for my comments on a veritable farrago of misinformation inserted by a registered user,, into Black hole),
 * 3) hugely underestimated the unacceptable burden placed upon loyal contributors in
 * 4) *reverting bad edits, including vandalism (to give just one very recent example, see Recent bad edits by anons over approximately the past 15 days for my recent study of vandalism rates at Black hole, which shows little if any improvement from vandalization rates over last year), vanispamcruftvertisement, edit creep, and so on,
 * 5) *curbing problem editors, e.g. in AfDs, RfCs, RfAs, etc.,
 * 6) *dealing with retaliation by angry editors whose ambitions to manipulate information to further their personal agenda has been thwarted, and so on,
 * 7) *trying to contribute thoughtfully to tortuous policymaking discussions, and so on.

Nonetheless, Thompson suggests an alternative to the first tentative baby steps toward some kind of stabilization/bastion system in the German Wikipedia:

This thoughtless proposal completely ignores the fact that the burden already placed upon loyal contributors who have, to use the phrase of User:DV8 2XL, become "stakeholders", to try to control cruft and revert thoughtless bad edits, vandalism, and so forth, in articles they have worked very hard to improve, is already utterly unacceptable. This burden has in fact has driven many loyal contributors out of the Wikipedia entirely, particularly experienced contributors with expert knowledge of some highly technical or otherwise challenging field of scholarship, i.e. the very contributors Wikipedia most needs to deploy during the promised Year of Quality; see User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion. This proposal also completely overlooks the fact, which I should think would be utterly obvious, that having absolutely no interest in or knowledge about most of the often bizarre topics covered in random Wikipedia articles (e.g. obscure sports stars or pop music groups), I cannot be expected to "check" articles on such topics. Even more to the point, how on Earth is a random Wikipedia to be expected to "check" gtr-related articles? From talk page discussions (and much prior experience in newsgroups), it is very well established that the best we could expect is that such readers acknowledge their own bafflement and decline to make any changes on the grounds that they have no idea how to improve the article. At worst, there is a certainly positive probability that some reader will make a very bad guess, incorrectly "correcting" [sic] an article, as in this edit at 00:57, 13 August 2006 to Black hole, in which (the shawcable.net anon from near Kelowna, British Columbia) changed a correct statement to an incorrect statement. Hmm... bad example, checking more recent contribs shows this anon has established a clear pattern of both POV-pushing edits and vandalism.