This is an edited and updated version of an entry posted in December of 2007
Wikipedia is attacked often as a resource for inaccuracies. There have been studies done, however, that show it compares well to other encyclopedias. Of course, I recall being taught as a high school student that encyclopedias in general aren’t great reference citations. That’s because they’re secondary. Someone wrote the entry in the encyclopedia based on other sources. Go to those sources. That doesn’t mean an encyclopedia isn’t a good place to start research. And Wikipedia is no different in that regard. However, Wikipedia is a little different from the normal encyclopedia, in that it is constantly being edited, and it isn’t at first immediately clear at what stage of the editorial process a particular article is in. But there are ways to evaluate individual articles.
Whenever I am looking at a Wikipedia article for research purposes I:
1) Check to see if for the particular information I write down there is a source citation. I write that citation down so I can look that up later. Citations are heavily encouraged at Wikipedia, and an article that doesn't have them usually has a warning message on it at the top stating that the article lacks citations. Particular facts within the article may also be labeled as needing a citation.
2) I look at the "History" of the article to see how old it is, and what the more recent changes have been. If it is a relatively new article, that decreases its reliability in my mind. The more people who have read it, and made changes to it, the more accurate it is likely to be. If it is a very new article, I may click on the names of the editors to look at their user profiles and see if they claim any expertise.
Wikipedia at one time considered requiring people to submit proof of academic credentials to back up what they say on their user profiles. These proposals were ultimately rejected out of fear that it would lead to a less democratic system. Though while not required, more editors who do have professional experience will now provide some support of those statements on their profiles. While professionals are known to err at times, the knowledge that a professional worked on an entry does increase the odds that it is reliable
I also check the most recent edits to see if any of them impact the information I am interested in. If this is new information, I'll see if I can verify it elsewhere.
3) Finally, I look at the "Discussion" page to see if there have been any disputes over the content of the page.
Yes, this is more work. But these added steps do help one judge whether a particular article is reliable, and it is still quicker than going to the library. And if there is a source citation, I can take that to the library, and save a lot of time I would have spent there trying to find the information. (I will first check to see if the book has been scanned in Google Books, and if not, I will check WorldCat to find the nearest library that has a copy of the book. I'm lucky to live nearby several good university libraries as well as a strong public library system.)
What people have to realize is that the editorial process that goes on at print encyclopedias goes on at Wikipedia too - it just happens live. There's no way to know at what point in the process the article is unless you check the history and the discussion page. Like many tools - Wikipedia is neither inherently bad nor good – it depends upon how you use it
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
SNGF: The Day I Was Born
Randy Seaver's Saturday Night Genealogy Fun this week is to conduct some research on one's own birthdate.
2 and 3) Using Wikipedia, I looked up January 21
Five events on my birthdate
1793 – After being found guilty of treason by the French Convention, Louis XVI of France is executed by guillotine.
1861 – American Civil War: Jefferson Davis resigns from the United States Senate.
1948 – The Flag of Quebec is adopted and flown for the first time over the National Assembly of Quebec. The day is marked annually as Quebec Flag Day.
1985 – The inauguration of President Ronald Reagan to a second term, already postponed a day because January 20 fell on a Sunday, becomes the second inauguration in history moved indoors because of freezing temperatures and high winds. The parade is cancelled altogether.
2008 – Black Monday in worldwide stock markets. FTSE 100 had its biggest ever one-day points fall, European stocks closed with their worst result since 11 September 2001, and Asian stocks drop as much as 14%.
Five famous people born on my birth day
1338 – King Charles V of France (d. 1380)
1824 – Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, American, Confederate army general (d. 1863)
1905 – Christian Dior, French fashion designer (d. 1957)
1924 – Benny Hill, English actor, comedian, and singer (d. 1992)
1969 – Tsubaki Nekoi, Japanese manga artist (shares my year as well.)
Also using Wikipedia I was able to look up Shevat in Jewish History
On the Second of Shevat
76 BCE - Hashmonean King Alexander-Yannai (Jannaeus), a Sadducee and an enemy of the Pharisees, died on this date. Known as a ruthless leader, he persecuted the Pharisees and those loyal to them (approximately 50,000 were killed in the years 82-76 BCE). As a result, the day of his death was declared a holiday in Talmudic times.
1800 -The yahrtzeit (anniversary of the death) of Chassidic Rabbi Meshulam Zusha of Anipoli (1718?-1800). He was a disciple of the 2nd leader of the Chassidic movement, Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezeritch- The Great Maggid of Mezeritch.
1) What day of the week were you born? Tell us how you found out.1) Using one of my favorite perpetual calendars/calendar converters at Calendarhome, I confirmed I was born on a Tuesday. The date is January 21st on the Gregorian Calendar, and the 2nd of Sh'vat on the Hebrew calendar.
2) What has happened in recorded history on your birth date? Tell us how you found out, and list five events.
3)What famous people have been born on your birth date? Tell us how you found out, and list five of them.
2 and 3) Using Wikipedia, I looked up January 21
Five events on my birthdate
1793 – After being found guilty of treason by the French Convention, Louis XVI of France is executed by guillotine.
1861 – American Civil War: Jefferson Davis resigns from the United States Senate.
1948 – The Flag of Quebec is adopted and flown for the first time over the National Assembly of Quebec. The day is marked annually as Quebec Flag Day.
1985 – The inauguration of President Ronald Reagan to a second term, already postponed a day because January 20 fell on a Sunday, becomes the second inauguration in history moved indoors because of freezing temperatures and high winds. The parade is cancelled altogether.
2008 – Black Monday in worldwide stock markets. FTSE 100 had its biggest ever one-day points fall, European stocks closed with their worst result since 11 September 2001, and Asian stocks drop as much as 14%.
Five famous people born on my birth day
1338 – King Charles V of France (d. 1380)
1824 – Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, American, Confederate army general (d. 1863)
1905 – Christian Dior, French fashion designer (d. 1957)
1924 – Benny Hill, English actor, comedian, and singer (d. 1992)
1969 – Tsubaki Nekoi, Japanese manga artist (shares my year as well.)
Also using Wikipedia I was able to look up Shevat in Jewish History
On the Second of Shevat
76 BCE - Hashmonean King Alexander-Yannai (Jannaeus), a Sadducee and an enemy of the Pharisees, died on this date. Known as a ruthless leader, he persecuted the Pharisees and those loyal to them (approximately 50,000 were killed in the years 82-76 BCE). As a result, the day of his death was declared a holiday in Talmudic times.
1800 -The yahrtzeit (anniversary of the death) of Chassidic Rabbi Meshulam Zusha of Anipoli (1718?-1800). He was a disciple of the 2nd leader of the Chassidic movement, Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezeritch- The Great Maggid of Mezeritch.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Neil Gaiman, Truth, and Verifiability
Neil Gaiman poses an interesting ethical dilemma on his blog.
Gaiman is a fantasy and science fiction author. Some of his well-known works include The Sandman comics, and the novels Coraline, The Graveyard Book, and American Gods.
He's a bit elliptic in the post, but apparently, when writing the novel, American Gods, he made something up. Authors often do that, especially in works of fiction. Then someone wrote a reference book on something, and borrowing largely from his novel, wrote about this thing Gaiman made up as fact.
And now the Wikipedia article on this something from the novel, which used to correctly cite Gaiman as the source, now no longer mentions Gaiman at all. It now treats this made up thing as fact, and cites the reference work.
Gaiman knows how Wikipedia works, and knows he can't just 'fix it.' Because in the world of Wikipedia - "Verifiability" is more important than "Truth." And "Original Research" is frowned upon.
He somewhat likes the notion, in a twisted-author-sense I think I understand, that something he made up is now considered a fact.
However, he doesn't progress his problem one step further. What happens on Wikipedia when he creates his explanatory blog entry, and then fixes the Wikipedia entry, saying he made this something up, and then cites his own blog entry as evidence?
Does anyone with experience editing Wikipedia believe they'll let him get away with that? Yes, Gaiman says it's the truth. But that's irrelevant. In the world of verifiability the "reference work" is probably more reliable than he is. [Note, Gaiman doesn't provide the nature of the reference work, so this is an assumption.]
Gaiman can write his blog post, but until some other equally reliable reference cites this something as his creation, only then will there be a way to 'verify' that he is the creator.
[He could also try to get the author/publisher of the reference work to publish a corrected edition, and that I suspect would be sufficient.]
***
A good genealogist would likely not take Neil Gaiman's word for it either. But, when he points out that American Gods has an earlier publication date than the reference work, it would suggest the need for further research. We could, for example, search Google Books for an earlier reference, and without finding one, grant that he is likely correct that he invented it. But this is 'original research.' Something genealogists do a lot of, and Wikipedians aren't supposed to do.
Update Neil Gaiman has found several more references to his made up fact in his own Google Books search, along with many other online references. So he's not up against only one source.
Gaiman is a fantasy and science fiction author. Some of his well-known works include The Sandman comics, and the novels Coraline, The Graveyard Book, and American Gods.
He's a bit elliptic in the post, but apparently, when writing the novel, American Gods, he made something up. Authors often do that, especially in works of fiction. Then someone wrote a reference book on something, and borrowing largely from his novel, wrote about this thing Gaiman made up as fact.
And now the Wikipedia article on this something from the novel, which used to correctly cite Gaiman as the source, now no longer mentions Gaiman at all. It now treats this made up thing as fact, and cites the reference work.
Gaiman knows how Wikipedia works, and knows he can't just 'fix it.' Because in the world of Wikipedia - "Verifiability" is more important than "Truth." And "Original Research" is frowned upon.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources. - (emphasis theirs - follow the links above for more details)There's already a source that says this something is fact. He realizes he needs to create a source that says it's fiction - his fiction. So - he says...He could create a blog post that explains how he made this thing up, and then cite that. He wonders if he should.
He somewhat likes the notion, in a twisted-author-sense I think I understand, that something he made up is now considered a fact.
However, he doesn't progress his problem one step further. What happens on Wikipedia when he creates his explanatory blog entry, and then fixes the Wikipedia entry, saying he made this something up, and then cites his own blog entry as evidence?
Does anyone with experience editing Wikipedia believe they'll let him get away with that? Yes, Gaiman says it's the truth. But that's irrelevant. In the world of verifiability the "reference work" is probably more reliable than he is. [Note, Gaiman doesn't provide the nature of the reference work, so this is an assumption.]
Gaiman can write his blog post, but until some other equally reliable reference cites this something as his creation, only then will there be a way to 'verify' that he is the creator.
[He could also try to get the author/publisher of the reference work to publish a corrected edition, and that I suspect would be sufficient.]
***
A good genealogist would likely not take Neil Gaiman's word for it either. But, when he points out that American Gods has an earlier publication date than the reference work, it would suggest the need for further research. We could, for example, search Google Books for an earlier reference, and without finding one, grant that he is likely correct that he invented it. But this is 'original research.' Something genealogists do a lot of, and Wikipedians aren't supposed to do.
Update Neil Gaiman has found several more references to his made up fact in his own Google Books search, along with many other online references. So he's not up against only one source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
