Hope you had a good holiday, as you celebrate it, and a good new year. The end of the year came with no layoffs here, but my thoughts go out to my friends Patti Cole and Teshia Morris, who went down in the wreckage of the Washington Times as a complete newspaper rather than a competitor to Politico, Roll Call, whatever. If you happen to have any copy editing jobs open...
The Financial Times on Saturday ran a long analysis piece on Wikipedia, from which I will excerpt because some people might encounter a subscription wall:
"In spite -- or perhaps because -- of its success, Wikipedia is proving slow to adapt. Even relatively simple ideas aimed at reinforcing its basic quality and reliability have turned out to be hard to push through....
"'There's this almost religious zeal among Wikipedians that everybody has an equal role to play in the system,' says Larry Sanger, who co-founded the site with [Jimmy] Wales but fell out with him over direction of the system.
"Not that there seems much chance of a competitor displacing Wikipedia. As a charity that does not look to revenues, it hardly presents an attractive target for the Internet's other established powers....
"Any critique of Wikipedia's fundamental quality has to begin with an acknowledgement: In the field of supposedly objective reference information, there are no absolutes.
"'How many publications in human history can you trust?' asks Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist... and a Wikimedia Foundation adviser. "All have been subject to some disinformation that has been put in there by the powerful; disinformation has been a nromal part of human reality forever.' Idealists such as Mr. Newmark argue that, freed from the inherent flaws of publications dominated by a narrow range of interests, Wikipedia could become 'more reliable than anything we've ever seen.'
Yet even optimists such as he agree with the more sceptical observers on this: that, in terms of reliability and service, Wikipedia still has a long way to go. ... It points to a fundamental tension at the heart of Wikipedia that has stalled its development. Founded on an ideal of complete openness, any adjustment that seems to favor one group of contributors over another can seem like a betrayal of principle....
"The idea that experts should have a superior status is a taboo, guaranteed to produce a strong backlash. For a site -- Wikipedia prefers 'community' -- founded on ideas of radical egalitarianism, it smacks of revisionism. Yet even some enthusiastic supporters say there is no alternative in the long run. 'You need experts balanced by citizens, and vice versa,' says Mr. Newmark....
"While this struggle over the south of the Internet's most successful experiment in user participation rages, the watchword for visitors to Wikipedia will remain the same: caveat lector -- or, as the site itself helpfully translates, 'Let the reader beware.'"
And so here we are once again waiting for Pure Communism to emerge out of socialism, War Communism, whatever. It never has before, but always each generation will be the one that, empowered with new tools and new understanding, finally gets it right. I guess if my generation hadn't been through this in the '60s, it wouldn't be so bothersome. Newmark is right in that any reference is flawed; I would hate to read an encyclopedia from the 1930s or 1950s on any number of issues involving difference in races, for example. But, I'm sorry, of course experts should have a superior status in areas involving their expertise, and anything that wishes to be taken seriously as a reference needs to publicly recognize that it is calling upon experts, and needs to be led by people who are expert in evaluating experts.
The funny thing is, Wikipedia in so many aspects is, despite my occasional rants about it, reliable. I could check any 10 entries on department stores and never find a thing seriously wrong, and thanks to the fact that someone out there has, say, a Jones Store Jones, there is a record of the history of the Kansas City store that would never have merited being published on paper except in a history of department stores that might or might not be easily available. No other single reference would include Doctor Einstein and Jo Grant, the companion of the Third Doctor. But as long as Wikipedia says "we are the universal encyclopedia" and "anyone can contribute to anything," it contradicts itself. It wants to be two things at the same time.
The OED experienced such growing pains -- and the OED also was founded upon submissions from hither and yon. In that sense, Wikipedia's idea is not that radical, with the exception of the elimination of a Smoke-Filled Room at the top in which the final decisions were made. That elimination, though, is another expression of the Link Economy, in which all links, all ideas, are theoretically equal; that theory led newspapers to go after ever-non-monetizable massive numbers of hits regardless of who or where they were. And that brings us to the Washington Post ombudsman's column of Sunday, which will be the next post.
Showing posts with label wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wikipedia. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Wiki Week
My colleague Bob Kelley sends me a Wiki wonder:
Blocking is physical contact between the offensive player and the defensive player. Blocking fouls are issued when a defensive player arbitrates the path of the offensive player in the shooting motion. Blocking fouls are easily called when the defensive player is standing in the "restricted zone".[1]
Restricted zone: In 1997, the NBA introduced an arc of a 4-foot (1.22 m) radius around the basket, in which an offensive foul for charging could not be assessed. This was to prevent defensive players from attempting to draw an offensive foul on their opponents by standing underneath the basket. FIBA will adopt this arc with a 1.25 m (4 ft 1.2 in) radius starting in 2010.[2]
Many people believe that basketball was a death sport to summon the Demon Jashin.
Blocking is physical contact between the offensive player and the defensive player. Blocking fouls are issued when a defensive player arbitrates the path of the offensive player in the shooting motion. Blocking fouls are easily called when the defensive player is standing in the "restricted zone".[1]
Restricted zone: In 1997, the NBA introduced an arc of a 4-foot (1.22 m) radius around the basket, in which an offensive foul for charging could not be assessed. This was to prevent defensive players from attempting to draw an offensive foul on their opponents by standing underneath the basket. FIBA will adopt this arc with a 1.25 m (4 ft 1.2 in) radius starting in 2010.[2]
Many people believe that basketball was a death sport to summon the Demon Jashin.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Wiki Weekend No. 2
From the page for Casa Grande, Ariz.:
"Little Rock, Arkansas was supposedly the only city in the United States of America that was an adjective but this is proven false as Casa Grande means 'big house' in Spanish."
Oh, Little Rock being an adjective is too-low-hanging fruit. Let's assume this meant to say "Little Rock, Arkansas, was supposedly the only city whose name was an adjective-and-noun phrase." South Bend? Terre Haute? Baton Rouge? OK, still too easy. How about "an adjective and noun phrase dealing with size"? Big Spring, Texas, easily comes to mind -- it's big enough to have a daily newspaper -- and you might be able to stretch it to include Great Falls, Mont. (Grand Rapids doesn't work because it's on the Grand River, and let's leave out Little Falls, N.Y., because it only shared a daily newspaper with nearby Herkimer. We must have SOME standards.) Beyond that it does get hard, except that doubtless there are cities with American Indian-based names meaning "big" or "little." Perhaps we can say "Little Rock and Casa Grande are the only U.S. cities whose names are adjective-and-noun phrases in European languages involving size but not involving water." Whoops, forgot about Alamogordo, N.M. -- meaning "fat cottonwood." So we have to make it "two-word adjective-and-noun"...
But I guess it's still OK to say that "Little Rock and Casa Grande are the only U.S. cities that are adjectives." Put that in your next travel piece and say, "But I checked it against an encyclopedia."
"Little Rock, Arkansas was supposedly the only city in the United States of America that was an adjective but this is proven false as Casa Grande means 'big house' in Spanish."
Oh, Little Rock being an adjective is too-low-hanging fruit. Let's assume this meant to say "Little Rock, Arkansas, was supposedly the only city whose name was an adjective-and-noun phrase." South Bend? Terre Haute? Baton Rouge? OK, still too easy. How about "an adjective and noun phrase dealing with size"? Big Spring, Texas, easily comes to mind -- it's big enough to have a daily newspaper -- and you might be able to stretch it to include Great Falls, Mont. (Grand Rapids doesn't work because it's on the Grand River, and let's leave out Little Falls, N.Y., because it only shared a daily newspaper with nearby Herkimer. We must have SOME standards.) Beyond that it does get hard, except that doubtless there are cities with American Indian-based names meaning "big" or "little." Perhaps we can say "Little Rock and Casa Grande are the only U.S. cities whose names are adjective-and-noun phrases in European languages involving size but not involving water." Whoops, forgot about Alamogordo, N.M. -- meaning "fat cottonwood." So we have to make it "two-word adjective-and-noun"...
But I guess it's still OK to say that "Little Rock and Casa Grande are the only U.S. cities that are adjectives." Put that in your next travel piece and say, "But I checked it against an encyclopedia."
Friday, July 18, 2008
Weekend Wiki
I don't know if I will be able to pull this off, but it's always nice to end the work week with a laugh, and Wikipedia, for all its strengths, offers so many. So I may try to find a Wiki of the Week.
My wife and I are great fans of "The Tudors," the occasional series on Showtime. We both know enough about the life and times of Henry VIII to know it's not entirely accurate. We enjoy it anyway, although Sam Neill's Wolsey is badly missed -- but at least "The Tudors" doesn't play with history so much as to make Wolsey a continuing character down through Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves. ("Off with his head! Wait, sign him up for 16 more.")
At any rate, yesterday I decided to check out the page for "The Tudors," and found that this sentence was in the lede:
"The Tudors is a historical fiction television series created and entirely written by British screenwriter Michael Hirst. The series is loosely based upon the early reign of English monarch Henry VIII. It is marred by its misleading inaccuracies (see treatment below of "Princess Margaret"), and this deprives it of any authoritative status."
Later in the day the second sentence read:
"It is marred by its misleading inaccuracies (see treatment below of "Princess Margaret"), and the "departures from history" (dealt with below) which deprive it of any authoritative status, and make it at most, an entertaining well-acted fiction based largely upon real events."
But if you'd called up the page, oh, seven minutes later:
"It is marred by its misleading inaccuracies (see treatment below of "Princess Margaret"), and the "departures from history" (dealt with below) which deprive it of any authoritative status, and make it at most, an entertaining well-acted fiction based largely upon real events. It is devoid of real historical interest and is midleading as it is impossible for the general viewer to distinguish fact from fiction."
One minute later, an editor swoops in and changes it back to what it was the day before:
"The Tudors is a historical fiction television series created and entirely written by British screenwriter Michael Hirst. The series is closely based upon the early reign of English monarch Henry VIII." (end of paragraph).
But the anti-"Tudors" watch is lurking and within 10 minutes it has been changed to:
"The Tudors is a historical fiction television series created and entirely written by British screenwriter Michael Hirst. The series is loosely based upon the early reign of English monarch Henry VIII. It is marred by its inaccuracies (see treatment below of "Princess Margaret"), and the "departures from history" (dealt with below) which deprive it of any authoritative status, and make it at most, an entertaining albeit arguably well-acted fiction based largely upon real events. It is devoid of any real historical interest and is downright midleading as it does not give the general viewer assistance to distinguish fact from fiction. In this sense, it is an extraordinarily arrogant work from the point of view of the general viewer, as it alters facts and produces fiction, prserving accurate historical knowledge as the province of an elite and disseminating inaccuracy."
And three hours later, that's all gone again and it's back to the way it was two days ago. I visited the page with its second iteration of "Hollywood schlock!" and said, "Wow, that's the lede of the entry on 'The Tudors'?" I had no idea that a guerrilla battle was going on. Meanwhile, the article itself consists in about 2/3 part of a list of historical errors of "The Tudors," probably put there by the writer of "extraordinarily arrogant" and "province of an elite." That's still there. Perhaps it's useful, and perhaps it's totally made up.
"The Tudors" is not "Hill Street Blues." It's not epochal television. It's a fun costume drama. So I didn't expect the depth that would be devoted to a true cultural change, like, say, Pokemon. I mainly wanted to see if there was a reason Henry Czerny was not brought back. (How can you have Henry VIII without Norfolk?) I did not find that, but I did find all this. Maybe Henry Czerny was dropped from the cast and devotes his days to rewriting "The Tudors" site on Wikipedia as revenge.
So why, if, for example, if I want to check a fact on Desmond Llewellyn, the famous "Q" of James Bond films, and Wikipedia tells me that his name was Desmond W. Llewellyn and he was born Sept. 12, 1914, should I believe it? Maybe it says that today. Maybe tomorrow it will say "Desmond Llewellyn was the stage name of Rhys W. Llewellyn, born in Wales on May 1, 1912 (although many records give his birth date as Sept. 12, 1914). Llewellyn felt that international audiences would not know how to pronounce "Rhys," so he changed his first name to honor Nick Desmond, a local troubador." And maybe one of the Wikipedia editors will catch that and send someone a note for violating Wikipedia's quality standards. Or maybe they won't, for days or weeks. (How many times a day does someone look up Desmond Llewellyn? I'm sure there's a way to see. Does it really matter?) And someone somewhere will post a Web page repeating that, and Rhys Llewellyn will become a possible truth.
Well, watch "The Tudors" page, which for a few hours was even more interesting than "The Tudors." And now we have a new Wikipedia axiom. Check a fact against it, then come back four hours later and see if the fact's still there. If it is, it might be a fact.
My wife and I are great fans of "The Tudors," the occasional series on Showtime. We both know enough about the life and times of Henry VIII to know it's not entirely accurate. We enjoy it anyway, although Sam Neill's Wolsey is badly missed -- but at least "The Tudors" doesn't play with history so much as to make Wolsey a continuing character down through Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves. ("Off with his head! Wait, sign him up for 16 more.")
At any rate, yesterday I decided to check out the page for "The Tudors," and found that this sentence was in the lede:
"The Tudors is a historical fiction television series created and entirely written by British screenwriter Michael Hirst. The series is loosely based upon the early reign of English monarch Henry VIII. It is marred by its misleading inaccuracies (see treatment below of "Princess Margaret"), and this deprives it of any authoritative status."
Later in the day the second sentence read:
"It is marred by its misleading inaccuracies (see treatment below of "Princess Margaret"), and the "departures from history" (dealt with below) which deprive it of any authoritative status, and make it at most, an entertaining well-acted fiction based largely upon real events."
But if you'd called up the page, oh, seven minutes later:
"It is marred by its misleading inaccuracies (see treatment below of "Princess Margaret"), and the "departures from history" (dealt with below) which deprive it of any authoritative status, and make it at most, an entertaining well-acted fiction based largely upon real events. It is devoid of real historical interest and is midleading as it is impossible for the general viewer to distinguish fact from fiction."
One minute later, an editor swoops in and changes it back to what it was the day before:
"The Tudors is a historical fiction television series created and entirely written by British screenwriter Michael Hirst. The series is closely based upon the early reign of English monarch Henry VIII." (end of paragraph).
But the anti-"Tudors" watch is lurking and within 10 minutes it has been changed to:
"The Tudors is a historical fiction television series created and entirely written by British screenwriter Michael Hirst. The series is loosely based upon the early reign of English monarch Henry VIII. It is marred by its inaccuracies (see treatment below of "Princess Margaret"), and the "departures from history" (dealt with below) which deprive it of any authoritative status, and make it at most, an entertaining albeit arguably well-acted fiction based largely upon real events. It is devoid of any real historical interest and is downright midleading as it does not give the general viewer assistance to distinguish fact from fiction. In this sense, it is an extraordinarily arrogant work from the point of view of the general viewer, as it alters facts and produces fiction, prserving accurate historical knowledge as the province of an elite and disseminating inaccuracy."
And three hours later, that's all gone again and it's back to the way it was two days ago. I visited the page with its second iteration of "Hollywood schlock!" and said, "Wow, that's the lede of the entry on 'The Tudors'?" I had no idea that a guerrilla battle was going on. Meanwhile, the article itself consists in about 2/3 part of a list of historical errors of "The Tudors," probably put there by the writer of "extraordinarily arrogant" and "province of an elite." That's still there. Perhaps it's useful, and perhaps it's totally made up.
"The Tudors" is not "Hill Street Blues." It's not epochal television. It's a fun costume drama. So I didn't expect the depth that would be devoted to a true cultural change, like, say, Pokemon. I mainly wanted to see if there was a reason Henry Czerny was not brought back. (How can you have Henry VIII without Norfolk?) I did not find that, but I did find all this. Maybe Henry Czerny was dropped from the cast and devotes his days to rewriting "The Tudors" site on Wikipedia as revenge.
So why, if, for example, if I want to check a fact on Desmond Llewellyn, the famous "Q" of James Bond films, and Wikipedia tells me that his name was Desmond W. Llewellyn and he was born Sept. 12, 1914, should I believe it? Maybe it says that today. Maybe tomorrow it will say "Desmond Llewellyn was the stage name of Rhys W. Llewellyn, born in Wales on May 1, 1912 (although many records give his birth date as Sept. 12, 1914). Llewellyn felt that international audiences would not know how to pronounce "Rhys," so he changed his first name to honor Nick Desmond, a local troubador." And maybe one of the Wikipedia editors will catch that and send someone a note for violating Wikipedia's quality standards. Or maybe they won't, for days or weeks. (How many times a day does someone look up Desmond Llewellyn? I'm sure there's a way to see. Does it really matter?) And someone somewhere will post a Web page repeating that, and Rhys Llewellyn will become a possible truth.
Well, watch "The Tudors" page, which for a few hours was even more interesting than "The Tudors." And now we have a new Wikipedia axiom. Check a fact against it, then come back four hours later and see if the fact's still there. If it is, it might be a fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)