Is easy to say that after TWO years of the original post… =)

Here’s the new (correct as of date of email, Feb 18, 2007) for the History Flow graphics gallery:

http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/gallery.htm

I suspect that the minimal effort to make a change (e.g., during a lunch break) is what allows it to grow at the periphery. If so, it seems to me that having a clear model of this would allow for its applicatoin in other contexts. Think of it as a kind of antidote to the broken window hypothesis. Seeing that things are getting cleaned up encourages others to take just a moment to do the same. But understanding those micro-motivations would get us a lot closer to understanding Wikipedia.

First, I don’t think that announcing the experiment was influential to Wikipedia in any way; the people there are committed (and they proved it when they defeated Alex’s small-scale experiment) to providing accurate information and they obviously take seriously their commitment. Therego, it is very unlikely that they go to Google in hunt for information about vandals which plot to defeat Wikipedia and is very likely that they take their time for their mission/commitment. Will somebody argue this? I think it’s obvious.

Second, I agree with many people here: why spit at Wikipedia for inaccuracies when the most paper sources of information are (in _times_) more inaccurate. Also: why requiring 100% accurate information for anything? Virtually everything beyond the traditional and well-known sciences as physics and chemistry (not just these, of course) is a temporary information in a sense, and is subject to change over time in a variety of ways: ambiguous statements will be clarified, insufficient details will be filled, more opinions on the topic will be listed, new discoveries will be made, and so on. Also, if you want 100% accuracy, you should pay a team of scientists and analyzers for it; there is no free lunch and most of the information on the whole Web is published _voluntarily_ with the free will and the blessing of the author. Anyone who thinks that he/she will ever stumble upon perfect information (beyond the simplest things like what is “electrical impedance”) was perhaps never been an author of information which were of use to other humans. In short, at this point I say that yes, Wikipedia surely has errors in it, but it has been developed in such a way that it could evolve (fixing the errors, growing the information, clarifying). The paper encyclopedias and other sources cannot do this, at least not as fast and not as cheap in the terms of money.

Third: about what is “accurate”. I agree with other humans here that some information is not really an information, but just an information, if you follow me. Example: politics, tries for analysis of commercial products (like processors and video cards), religious articles. They (and many others) are all subjective, mainly because the authors have relied on what other humans said (which could always be a lie due to political goals or commercial interests) or because the topic is not exactly scientific. My experience with Wikipedia was that the authors have _tried_ to give some information in a scientific way, for example to say that the Christians are worshipping Jesus because of his sacrifice on the cross and also they could point that other Christians are worshipping other humans and actions more, like those who worship Holy Maria in greater extent (no criticisms here, please, I never actually read the Christian article on Wikipedia). But these are just scientific methods when one tries to classify the information he/she gots. Anyone felt offended? Well, there are a number of forums where you can argue forever on these topics. Again, Wikipedians _tried_ to give some information. How far they succeeded, they and they alone can judge themselves only. No other humans. If there is fault here, it is the subjectivity of the topic itself. Will somebody support me at this point?

Fourth: it’s almost all about the money and about the resistance to change, or even both at a time. Somebody used Alex’s experiment to try to spit at Wikipedia. Big deal! Smart humans always analyze the performer’s reasons _first_ and before analyzing the deed itself. My personal thought is that if commercial encyclopedian (or paid news site) owners are trying to ruin Wikipedia’s reputation, this is because if their users know better Wikipedia, their money flow will eventually go dry. Their users are accustomed that Mr. Actual News or Mrs. Expert In Everything will inform them for money and so they question the reliability of a free source like Wikipedia — and yes, when you give money, you expect perfect servicing. But apart from these bad words I said, I do not think that commercial informers and free sources of information can be compared at all. They exist in different universes. And finally (on this point) let us not forget that if humankind stops to rely on The Big Brother to supply it with everything (including information) and if the humankind becomes careful in thinking and responsible of what it produces and how this can help others, then the humankind will not be so easily manipulated so that not to stop some world leaders to destroy foreign countries with reasons which nobody actually believes in (and many other horrible acts throughout the history, too). So, such humans will try to compromise and ruin Wikipedia and the like as long as they can breathe and speak at all, be sure of that! Since I have read here that some countries (unfortunately, mine too; it’s Bulgaria) are teaching kids with false history, I assume there are humans who support me on this point. :)

Fifth: how Wikipedians did the job. Does it really matter that they used RC Patrol? Everybody with a normal level of IQ could say that they anticipated such abuse and they have taken care that their machines will help them coping with this problem in the best possible regard. So, isn’t it stupid somebody to say that if it weren’t RSS, they could never do it. Well, if it weren’t some guys which never cared for Earth’s atmosphere, perhaps today you would still go to your job with a horse, right? :) It’s the result which is important. How do they do it — it is their business. Are you one of them? No. So, what do you care? The system obviously works. How it works, you don’t care. It would be more useful if the critics proposed to Wikipedians something which will make their life even more easier and help them more to fulfill their noble mission, not to speak like a child — “if I did not injured myself on the leg yesterday, today I would outrun you”. Pfew, how could such humans ever write such stupidities on a public anyway? Don’t they feel little stupid about it? Please, somebody tell me.

Sixth: the useful things that could be done. While so many humans took the time to write about the topic, I did not seen not a one of them to have been gone through changelogs of even a single Wikipedia article and write about it. That would be far more useful than criticizing the scientificness of the Alex’s approach. Yes, I am in this number also, I know. I agree with few others here which pointed that analyzing changelogs will be far more painless and harmless for Wikipedians. I personally know four people which regularly take their lunch time for correcting slight errors (or, more often, making clarifications and eliminating ambiguities) in Wikipedian articles they read, since they are almost experts on the topic and sometimes they need the whole picture. It’s nothing hard, really: get your lunch in a box from the near restaurant, return to office while nobody is there, eat slowly and easy and do the edit job (also easy, else errors will occur and you will become vandal without actually knowing it).

If anybody could point me to Wikipedian article with a good chance for finding old errors and their fixtures, I will handle a single article changelog analysis myself. I even intend to find article in my area (programming) and do a job I feel it’s worth doing. I will post it when I am done.

Summary:

It’s all about wanting to contribute and to help. Everybody can criticize. It’s not always necessary to do it — the people which post information to such big source like Wikipedia are expected to be (and proved to be) responsible enough to criticize themselves alone in order to achieve development of the good information.

I am looking forward to see comments from everybody which felt affected by my post, including Alex.

Best wishes.

—————————–
[Dimitar Panayotov, Bulgaria]

My suggestion about many listing currently in the encylopedia, especially political ones, is that a wide spectrum of ‘opinions’ be provided in appropriate settings.

That is there is good, bad and evil in most all things, and we must be careful not to stereotype most things as ‘black or white’, things change over time, and observations are relative to time and space.

There is a resistance to change, even thought the change is truthful, and we should also judge this vehicle on the basis of its ability to overcome ‘paradigm paralysis, and communicate to the world, important truths that may be in conflict with the ‘power forces’ at play.

Caesar J. B. Squitti