Comments on: Criticisms of Wikipedia

By: Syo9

Syo9 — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:12:53 +0000

“Whichever version is chosen, it is an attempt to influence the readerâ€™s mind (the first and third wants the reader to think that there was something uniquely horrible about the bombings, the second wants the reader to think that bad as it was, it wasnâ€™t the worst calamity to hit the country; there were others.) “…

I disagree: The second version simply states facts that are irrelevant to the 1993 bombings (at least this early in an article)–it wouldn’t make any sense to me to find information about some completely unrelated riots in an article on the bombings! In an excessibly long article (like wikipedia’s articles often are ;o)), one might later discuss whether or not this is the worst case of criminal violence; but generally, this fact is rather irrelevant information compared to the event itself. (What does that show us? That every reading of a text is inherently subjective, just in the line of your reasoning…)

Apart from that, I fully agree with you. (Of course. :o))

By: yum yum

yum yum — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 04:04:54 +0000

Maybe in time, a software will be available that averages out all the views and spews out text inoffensive to all

By: swami

swami — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:13:16 +0000

And oh, I forgot to add… Dilip of course will maintain that all these posts of his are not criticisms but his “expression of fascination” at Wikipedia…

And I challenge, no one can disprove that claim…

By: Nilu

Nilu — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:02:04 +0000

I still do not get what Dilip’s point is.

Can someone please explain why the obvious is being restated?

By: swami

swami — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:58:01 +0000

“Wikipedia makes no claim to faultlessness”…

Yes, and any such claim is inherently ridden with problems… A “faultless” “encyclopedia” (two big words) is a very precarious position to defend…

The article on Kashmir - infact - has many positives though full of such political debates. Think of the tourist from Australia who is planning a visit to Ladakh and thereabouts. I am sure such heated political debates in Wikipedia will be immensely helpful to him and highly informative as a fair warning…

By: seven_times_six

seven_times_six — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:34:56 +0000

yes; it seems Dilip and Co are a trifle muddled in their thinking about this.
There are two types of info:

objective: like 1+1 = 2; I don’t think Dilip et al are protesting the “lack of accuracy” about
things of this sort on Wikipedia. Most wikipedia articles on objective matters contain links to outside material anyway.

subjective: it is here that Dilip et al want to protest. But, as you rightly point out; it is HERE that you NEED an open discussion as opposed to closed statements from “experts”.

Basically, they are taking an obvious *advantage* of Wikipedia, and fanning their lace hands into a faint at such a disadvantage of it not being “rock-solid”.

How do they manage such double-think?

By: Ramnath

Ramnath — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:12:15 +0000

“It would be just as unsatisfactory, but it would have a stamp of approval because they are from â€œauthoritative sourcesâ€. It is far better to have a system where every single line is vigorously checked and discussed in the open.” - absolutely

By: Jagan Mohan

Jagan Mohan — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:28:48 +0000

Agree.

Point worth deliberating is that Wikipedia is still evolving. Pieces of information are being written, rewritten, debated, refined and so on.. this process of continued morphing will eventually ensure that a democratic viewpoint will float over to the top.

As such, if Wikipedia is frozen at any particular point for introspection, surely one can find thousands of articles that won’t stand the test of objectivity, logic or factuality. Nevertheless, this should not be construed as fatally flawed.

Wikipedia makes no claim to faultlessness. So let us enjoy wikipedia with all its warts for its spirit of democratic particpation of the masses.

Cheers, Jagan.