Wikipedia Wierd Guardian article this morning about the Wikipedia in which a series of experts on a bunch of subjects were asked for their opinion on the accuracy of related entries. What isn't mentioned and perhaps hasn't been pressed upon the experts is that they have it within their power to go in edit anything they don't like -- improve the accuracy of the that thing they're criticising, which is something they couldn't do with any other encyclopedia without a long winded process of letter writing or if they life letter writing.
The article has had some effect. Checking the page histories, all have some evidence of editing today, all as a direct result the article. The Steve Reich entry has had some 'some minor sentence rewriting' and the result is much better. Haute couture has gained an 'expert required tag' as has Basque people. The others have escaped, but the article is mentioned to the point that in the Enycyclopedia history someone has written: "We need to encourage informed edits, not a frenzy of response to the Guardian article."
What can be learnt from this -- that this 'pedia is totally inaccurate and worthless? Well no. As always it's only as accurate as the people who contribute and the research that they've carried out. One contributor, Derek Barker, wasn't aware of the site and says "It's reasonably comprehensive but there are such a number of obsessive Dylan fans out there to make corrections that I can't see very much wrong." It would be nice to think that the other experts so ready to expound on what's wrong will take the time go in and improve what's there. And while there at it look at something else they interested in and layer in more information for those entries too. And tell their friends. Then slowly, articles such as this will be unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment