Reliability and Veracity of Blogs and Wikipedia

Well, there is a minor internet kerfuffle over an Alaskan librarian, Greg Hill, who declared a number of things about bloggers and wikis. Why does this matter to me? Because librarians at the local level (and at the school level) are trusted sources of information. If you have only a few sources (as is more true in more isolated, rural communities) you're going to be more reliant upon your local paper and your local news and yes, your local librarian.

So that's why I care what a small-town librarian thinks.

The funny thing is that while Mr. Hill is declaring that blogs and Wikipedia aren't reliable, and librarians (those very models of reliability and editorial rigor) should avoid them, his article is riddled with errors. Another funny thing is that he does't cite any previous sources for his ideas.

A few of Hill's errors and biases::

1. "Dan Gilmour" wrote a book, Making the News
2. "Dave Berry" is a humorist, and his blog is about "funny inanities of American life sent in by his readers."
3. Blogs are deployed by the ignorant to spread their ignorance. "The reach and power of telecommunications and computers have enabled everyone to spread evidence of their ignorance farther and faster than ever before. For proof, look at the recent emergence of blogs"
4. Bloggers aren't interested in conversation "Blog owners usually don't allow their readers to add their own comments, preferring their monologues to others' dialogues."
5. Wikis are like blogs with comments "a "Wiki," which gets its name from the Hawaiian word for "fast," is a type of Web site that encourages active participation."
6. Wikipedia is a work of fiction, not fact, because its founder, Jimmy Wales, admires Ayn Rand. "Wales admires novelist Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as a doctrine "holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events." So he believes that contributors should "write about what people believe, rather than what is so."
7. "Wikipedia...contains millions of articles"
8. There is no history to this debate over the reliability or accuracy of Wikipedia--I [Greg Hill] am the first to raise this issue.

-----------------
1. Dan Gilmour Dan Gillmor wrote a book, Making the News We The Media. A search lasting as much as 30 seconds would have so revealed. Gillmor writes Dan Gillmor's column on Inside Silicon Valley (it is also available on dead tree media, which is where I usually read it). The book can be "downloaded, and is also available (as a hardback edition and has a blog.
2. Mr. Hill made a common error, writing 'Berry" for 'Barry". The humorist's name is Dave Barry. The Old Blog does seem to be small humorous bits of real life; the reach is much more international. The new, official Dave Barry blog is also international in flavor, and commented upon. I can't say much more because I don't follow Mr. Barry's blog.
3. Blogs are deployed by the ignorant to spread their ignorance. "The reach and power of telecommunications and computers have enabled everyone to spread evidence of their ignorance farther and faster than ever before. For proof, look at the recent emergence of blogs just a medium, the way printing is a medium. Before there were blogs there were other means of spreading your personal opinion--but less useful. Books, magazines, special interest publications like newsletters, mimeos--the difference is that the printing technology wasn't as useful because it wasn't searchable (except laboriously, by hand) or retrievable.
4. Bloggers aren't interested in conversation--"Blog owners usually don't allow their readers to add their own comments"... this is truly a remarkable assertion, as almost all the blogs I read do invite comments. I believe all the blog software I know of includes a comment feature--for example, in Typepad, you have to turn it OFF to have a commentless blog. I wonder where he developed the idea that blogs are commentless? Who is he reading? What are the facts?
5. Wikis are like blogs with comments ..."a "Wiki," which gets its name from the Hawaiian word for "fast," is a type of Web site that encourages active participation." It would have been much better if he had used the space wasted on all of this uninformative blather A recent Berry blog posting, for instance, had a hyperlink to the "Frozen Critters Inventory Price List," where consumers can purchase frozen whole skunks for only $75 apiece, a "Real Rattlesnake Egg with Real Head, Open Mouth, Peeking Out of Egg" for only $18, and, just in time for Thanksgiving, frozen unpainted turkey heads for only $40, with the painted ones running $15 extra. to say something like

Wikis (the general idea of permanent statements that are editable by anyone , and the code that made it possible, ) were developed by Ward Cunningham in 1995. There's a lot of experience in becoming a Wiki Master, and there are Wiki Design Principles that are upsetting, revolutionary, and anti-authoritarian. Anti-single author, too. In 1996, Jimmy Wales had the wild idea of creating a free encyclopedia, Nupedia and hired Larry Sanger to create it. Various complications developed, and the method, wiki, met the content managment of Nupedia, and out of the collision, Wikipedia was born on January 15, 2001.

6. The passage about Wales' admiration for Rand and writing about "to write about what people believe, rather than what is so" are interesting forms of discrediting Wikipedia. Is it an ad hominem fallacy ? It is true that Jimmy Wales was an admirer of Miss Rand's--like a lot of people. (Aside: I guess Jimmy Wales never got the memo about Randian Mind Control. And I have a vague memory of intellectual property or capital, in which a wiki would be organized theft) So Wales was or is an Objectivist. What in the name of John Galt does that mean for the veracity or usefullness of a group-authored encyclopedia? The phrase "write about what people believe, rather than what is so." is a bit of a straw man--Hill is implying that the whole Wikipedia is full of made up or ficticious articles. Hill has taken a passage out of context:

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

[...]

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

7. "Wikipedia...contains millions of articles". This whole passage misleads. Wikipedia itself reports better. A simple search for /wikipedia "number of articles"/ leads to Wikipedia's own report on itself has a discussion in What constitutes and article and

On the 10th October 2004, the English Wikipedia alone had 342,000 articles of 200 characters or greater, and the combined Wikipedias for all languages exceeded the English Wikipedia in size, giving a combined total of 954,000 articles in 109 languages. The English Wikipedia alone has now reached 118 million words in size, comfortably eclipsing the largest previously existing encyclopedias.

8. There is no history to this debate over Wikipedia. --I [Greg Hill] am the first to raise this issue. This is just nonsense. Wikipedia itself has articles on criticisms, which Hill did not see fit to address.

March 2002 The first seems to have been Peter Jacso's, "Peter's picks & pans", http://www.infotoday.com 26 (2), 79-82, (March/April 2002) which doesn't seem to be online any more. it was published about a year and three months after Wikipedia started.
July 12, 2004 Hiawatha Bray published an article in the Boston paper, One great source -- if you can trust it, which points out that the "pedia" part may lull the unsuspecting into thinking that the sited has professional, dispassionate editing.
August 25, 2004Al Fasold's article in which he reflected the thoughts of Susan Stagnitta--who herself was roundly criticized;
August 29, 2004 Alex Halavais intentionally vandalizes Wikipedia; the ensuing events and discussion are quite interesting.
October 14, 2004 The Red Herring article on the Wiki Wars over Bush (much more interesting than Hill's trivial example)
November 1, 2004 An article on the reliability of Wikipedia with interviews with real school librarians from the Online Edition of School Library Journal.
November 15, 2004 Hill's article appears.

This is at the core of wiki. Trust the people, trust the process, enable trust-building.

Hill's whole article is a fine example of special pleading

-----------
Poor Mr. Hill. He should have remembered his own column "There's often confusion when cultures collide, and this extends to the language of gestures. .....It's one of those realities they don't mention in library school, but occasionally the evil eye visits the library. That's why American public librarians seek out training and books on translating and using body language to defuse hostile or confusing situations. Perceived maltreatment, misunderstanding the library's rules of personal conduct, and alcohol can all lead to confrontation, so librarians learn how to use low voices and not block the pathway to the exit, to be quick to raise their hands palm up and try to get everyone to sit down, and to lean forward attentively and not crossing their arms when the aggrieved are speaking. There are many other tricks of the trade, but if someone's in the right mood, any gesture can be misinterpreted. "

--------------
Kerfufflers: Dan Gillmor; Dave B.--Barry or Berry, take your pick; Little Miss Attila; Blog Without A Library, which is possibly the most cogent commentary, as Amanda Etches-Johnson writes about blogs and libraries; The Blog Herald (more blog news more often); Trudy Schuett engages in and curious email conversation with Mr. Hill; Classical Values; Frank Paynter (who opens his post with one of my favorite Dylan lyrics) also references Joi Ito, who is amused by the contrast between the dismissal of Wikipedia's accuracy and Hill's own errors and in France, Mme. Levy reflects on blogging and how Hill's article generates a salutory righteous sense of indignation. The Librarian in Black was saddened to see a fellow member of my profession spouting off this technophobia and making unwarranted generalizations. The blog Library Stuff writes, I'm all for free speech, but think of how these types of negative articles can affect our profession. I'm just glad that not everyone in library land agrees with all of Mr. Hill's thoughts.. Rochelle Mazar, one of the commentors who is an aspiring librarian wrote what I think are telling points:

I find it extremely amusing that Greg Hill decided to post about blogs, something he clearly knows absolutely nothing about, on the webpage of his weekly (read: frequently updated) column (with a complete lack of a comment function). Reads a bit like a personal rant, don't it?

Maybe he couldn't figure out how to install Movable Type and is just bitter about it.

Yes, I mock, but this article is absolutely infuriating and frustrating. I've spent the last 6 months slowly introducing the concept of blogging to library staff with much success. I wish people would do a little research before spouting off. A librarian should have known better.

Ms. Mazar then went back to her blog; her take on l'affaire Hill is that Hill's problem is personal.

Thomas Wagner had the point that HIll is perhaps historically ignorant, recalling that true purpose of the internet...was to be a place where we could exchange information and thoughts. The man who has been a journalist for 26 years, and now teachers journalism and believes in the poser of story, says, merely says, "File it all under Oops, I guess.". The Secular Franciscan wrote I can only assume Mr. Hill’s attitude toward bloggers is little more than snobbery..

Previous Wikipedia accuracy discussions: if you search for /wikipedia accuracy/ in Google the first page today is on wikipedia accuracy and soon after, wikipedia criticisms. There's also a list of articles in which accuracy is being disputed, and a discussion of accuracy disputes in Wikipedia

-----------
complete digressions:
(and an amusing ditty by the laughing librarian) and one librarian's declamation that The Internet is the librarian's dream reference tool (most of it is free although some services are provided through subscription) containing information on just about everything from the stock market to deformed frogs. And there is even a library news blog, in which Greg Hill wrote a history of libraries--which perhaps is correct? Who can say?
-------------------------
---------------
The entire Greg Hill article:

---------------
A Librarian's Thoughts on Blogs and Wikipedia: Farther-reaching, faster ignorance thanks to Web

By GREG HILL

Will Rogers noted in a New York Times article 80 years ago that "everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." That seems even more true today.

The reach and power of telecommunications and computers have enabled everyone to spread evidence of their ignorance farther and faster than ever before. For proof, look at the recent emergence of blogs.

A blog, short for "Web log," is a "frequent, chronological publication of personal thoughts and Web links" that resides on the World Wide Web, according to the marketingterms.com online dictionary.

A fuller explanation of a "blog" is given in Dan Gilmour's book, "Making the News" as "an online journal comprised of links and postings in reverse chronological order, meaning the most recent posting appears at the top of the page."

Blogs focus on whatever subjects their creators care to expound upon. While some are academically rigorous, most are merely personal rants. When bloggers feel passionately enough about a subject, often themselves, they create and regularly update blogs expressing their views, usually including hyperlinks to other Web pages that confirm their opinions. All it takes is some inexpensive and user-friendly blogging software, strong opinions and time. Actual knowledge is purely optional.

There are many credible blogs dealing with serious subjects, but most bloggers aren't experts. As the old computer maxim GIGO states, "garbage in, garbage out," and the person believing everything he reads--especially on blogs--is living dangerously indeed.

Some blogs are intentionally unserious, like humorist Dave Berry's blog that features funny inanities of American life sent in by his readers. A recent Berry blog posting, for instance, had a hyperlink to the "Frozen Critters Inventory Price List," where consumers can purchase frozen whole skunks for only $75 apiece, a "Real Rattlesnake Egg with Real Head, Open Mouth, Peeking Out of Egg" for only $18, and, just in time for Thanksgiving, frozen unpainted turkey heads for only $40, with the painted ones running $15 extra.

Blog owners usually don't allow their readers to add their own comments, preferring their monologues to others' dialogues. On the other hand, a "Wiki," which gets its name from the Hawaiian word for "fast," is a type of Web site that encourages active participation. It's the approach taken by Wikipedia, the most pervasive quasi-encyclopedia on the Web. Wikipedia is free and contains millions of articles in scores of languages that pop up early in many Google searches, but the articles' authors are anonymous and can be anyone, so their credibility is dubious.

A computer programmer from Alabama named Jimmy Wales created Wikipedia in 2001, inviting Web surfers to add articles on any topic, and they did, with 1 million articles being added as of last September.

Wales admires novelist Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as a doctrine "holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events." So he believes that contributors should "write about what people believe, rather than what is so."

Instead of gathering a stable of acknowledged authorities to write its articles, as do traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia describes itself as "collaboratively edited and maintained by thousands of users."

There are vandals and ignoramuses among those users, but Wales anticipates that faulty and malicious postings by the ignorant and mean will be quickly ferreted out by ever-watchful "Wikipedians," who are notified by e-mail whenever one of their favorite articles is changed. But Wikipedians can hold conflicting views on the same subject, thereby causing the outbreak of "wikiwars": the editing and re-editing of each others edits ad infinitum, like the debate in the article on "potato chips" over terming salt, barbecue and other taste enhancers "seasoning," "flavoring" or "flavouring."

Librarians abhor using reference sources that don't have established credibility editorial rigor, and while Wikipedia is an interesting social experiment and "includes information more often associated with almanacs, gazetteers and specialist magazines," it's too untrustworthy to be used as a secondary source. I prefer the expensive and more reliable traditional encyclopedias for my research, for as Gabriel Biel, the German philosopher, put it 500 years ago: "You get what you pay for."

Greg Hill is director of Fairbanks North Star Borough libraries.

Comments

[Liz]

Boy it is jump on Wikipedia week. Frank Poynter points out an article on TechCentralStation by Robert McHenry, formerly Editor in Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which likens a user of the Wikipedia to a"visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security."

Frank says that most knowlegeable adults use encyclopedias as first order approximations--"They use an encyclopedia to drive a stake in the ground for further study of a topic". Only rubes rely upon encyclopedias.

[Simon]

Wikipedia is destroying the web as a source of information. Those articles are licensed to the public, so sites like free-definition.com, yourencyclopedia.net, tutorgig.com, informationblast.com, freepedia.org, mutualsearch.com, gamesinathens.com, gogoglo.com and hundreds of others publish the wikipedia articles under their own name - but they don't update them, so that old, outdated and inaccurate articles are floating all over the net. Few of these bother to explain how these articles were written.

People crow that wikipedia fixed the Alexander Hamilton article as soon as McHenry mentioned it, but if you paste the text from an older version of the article - even one a year old - into google, you'll find it's still there, still being read by someone.

[Black Friday Sales]

I always say shopping is cheaper than a psychiatrist. -Tammy Faye Bakker :o) Happy Holidays!

[custom essays]

WOW, this'll keep me busy for years. I've been subscribing to your RSS feed for months, but somehow I missed this great list.