Who does what on Wikipedia?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdw031110.php

"If we want scientists to be collaborative," Ram said, "we need to
assign them to specific roles and motivate them to police themselves
and justify their contributions."

Someone needs to look at the effect of biased editors on the quality
of Wikipedia articles.

--Mike Jr.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:52:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr
wrote:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdw031110.php

"If we want scientists to be collaborative," Ram said, "we need to
assign them to specific roles and motivate them to police themselves
and justify their contributions."

Someone needs to look at the effect of biased editors on the quality
of Wikipedia articles.

--Mike Jr.

No.

Wikipedia is an experiment which is about to fail.

w.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:52:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr
wrote:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdw031110.php

"If we want scientists to be collaborative," Ram said, "we need to
assign them to specific roles and motivate them to police themselves
and justify their contributions."

Someone needs to look at the effect of biased editors on the quality
of Wikipedia articles.

--Mike Jr.

No.

Wikipedia is an experiment which is about to fail.

It has been superseded by STUPIPEDIA and STUPIDEDIA.

w.

On 3/13/2010 3:29 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:52:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr
wrote:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdw031110.php

"If we want scientists to be collaborative," Ram said, "we need to
assign them to specific roles and motivate them to police themselves
and justify their contributions."

Someone needs to look at the effect of biased editors on the quality
of Wikipedia articles.

--Mike Jr.

No.

Wikipedia is an experiment which is about to fail.

It has been superseded by STUPIPEDIA and STUPIDEDIA.

w.

Thought you were kidding:

http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/Hauptseite

On Mar 13, 3:49*pm, Frank wrote:
On 3/13/2010 3:29 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:



On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:52:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr
*wrote:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdw031110.php

"If we want scientists to be collaborative," Ram said, "we need to
assign them to specific roles and motivate them to police themselves
and justify their contributions."

Someone needs to look at the effect of biased editors on the quality
of Wikipedia articles.

--Mike Jr.

No.

Wikipedia is an experiment which is about to fail.

It has been superseded by STUPIPEDIA and STUPIDEDIA.

w.

Thought you were kidding:

http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/Hauptseite

My browser froze up and I had to stop a script running after I clicked
on your hyperlink.

Not funny.

--Mike Jr.

On 3/13/2010 5:23 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
On Mar 13, 3:49 pm, wrote:
On 3/13/2010 3:29 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:



On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:52:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr
wrote:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdw031110.php

"If we want scientists to be collaborative," Ram said, "we need to
assign them to specific roles and motivate them to police themselves
and justify their contributions."

Someone needs to look at the effect of biased editors on the quality
of Wikipedia articles.

--Mike Jr.

No.

Wikipedia is an experiment which is about to fail.

It has been superseded by STUPIPEDIA and STUPIDEDIA.

w.

Thought you were kidding:

http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/Hauptseite

My browser froze up and I had to stop a script running after I clicked
on your hyperlink.

Not funny.

--Mike Jr.

As far as I know, it is not a malicious link. Cannot say I explored it
that far but all was OK with Firefox browser and while my German is OK,
I put through translator with no problem.
Frank

On Mar 13, 10:52*am, Mike Jr wrote:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdw031110.php

"If we want scientists to be collaborative," Ram said, "we need to
assign them to specific roles and motivate them to police themselves
and justify their contributions."

Someone needs to look at the effect of biased editors on the quality
of Wikipedia articles.

--Mike Jr.

The policing of their own kind isn't going to happen any time soon,
although we can always try to add/subtract whatever and keep posting
copies of everything here as well as in personal blogs for good
measure.

~ BG

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:52:25 -0800, Mike Jr wrote:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdw031110.php

"If we want scientists to be collaborative," Ram said, "we need to
assign them to specific roles and motivate them to police themselves and
justify their contributions."

Someone needs to look at the effect of biased editors on the quality of
Wikipedia articles.

--Mike Jr.

Pretty simple: if the subject is controversial or political, the
Wikipedia article will be propaganda and lies. Usually Wikipedia leans
towards Marxist points of view.

If it is a subject that no one gives cares about, then it has a good
chance of being objective. There is always the crank with the hang up
about some subject who gets in there and edits in some wacko view from
time to time.

In short, for anything you're likely to care about, Wikipedia is utterly
useless as a source. At best, it can be a list of sources and references
but you have to remember that it is possible that you're only getting one
side of the issue.

On Mar 14, 1:01*am, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Pretty simple: if the subject is controversial or political, the
Wikipedia article will be propaganda and lies. Usually Wikipedia leans
towards Marxist points of view.

If it is a subject that no one gives cares about, then it has a good
chance of being objective. There is always the crank with the hang up
about some subject who gets in there and edits in some wacko view from
time to time.

In short, for anything you're likely to care about, Wikipedia is utterly
useless as a source. At best, it can be a list of sources and references
but you have to remember that it is possible that you're only getting one
side of the issue.

Marvin hits the nail on the head. Any non-political subject has a
pretty good chance of being objective and accurate. Maybe not 100 %
accurate (after all amateurs are often writing the articles) but
nevertheless enormously impressive just by the sheer VOLUME human
knowledge and experience collected there. It's an amazing resource in
that regard. If you want to learn about conga drums or some obscure
math theorem it's great.

But if politics is involved, you can forget it. That would be because
all issues with a political aspect has supporters and defenders who
are not about to let some story other than their own get published
even on the net. Thus any such topic ends up an "edit war" between
sides which forces editors to step in an lock the articles. And
unfortunately the editors ALSO have sides in these issues. and that
results in articles being locked in to points of view rather than
being objective. Most of the editors don't even try to pretend they
are objective.

So while I'm very much impressed with the Wikipedia idea as a
compendium of human experience, it is equally clear that the
objectivity problem with regard to issues with political sides has not
been solved. And this problem is sorely in need of solution if
Wikipedia is ever to attain it's full potential as a resource. Perhaps
the answer is "dualing articles" sort of the way courts give a
majority opinion and a dissent. I don't know what the answer will be,
but clearly one is needed.