Wikipedia

From IAE-Pedia

Introduction

The IAE-pedia makes use of the MediaWiki software, as does the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The Wikipedia is a huge success story. It represents the work of many thousands of volunteers, writing and editing each other's work.

This open writing and editing process has not been with its difficulties. Thus, there is a growing amount of literature on successes, trials and tribulations, and changes that had to be made to deal with certain difficult situations. Some of these are presented here.

Editing by Special Interest Groups

Tracking Wikipedia's not-so-neutral editors (Wired Campus, 8/14/07) is a short article that summarizes research done on who is editing Wikipedia entries. Quoting from the reference:

The answer… is in Mr. Griffith’s Wikipedia Scanner, a searchable database that links anonymous Wikipedia edits with the businesses and organizations from which those markups came.

The result is a pretty entertaining Web site — and a useful tool for students looking for insight into the inner workings of Wikipedia. Web surfers can watch as an editor from Bob Jones University calls the campus museum “the great collection of religious art in the Western Hemisphere.” And they can gasp as an official with Diebold, the company that makes a controversial line of e-voting machines, deletes wholesale a 15-paragraph section describing computer scientists’ concerns with the devices.

The article goes on to point out that often these one-sided editing efforts are quickly edited by other people, tending to lead to articles presenting a somewhat unbiased point of view.

West, Andrew and Insup, Lee (October, 2011). What Wikipedia Deletes: Characterizing Dangerous Collaborative Content. Retrieved 10/27/2011 from http://www.cis.upenn.edu/%7Ewestand/docs/wikisym_11_revdel_final.pdf. Here is the abstract of the article:

Collaborative environments, such as Wikipedia, often have low barriers-to-entry in order to encourage participation. This accessibility is frequently abused (e.g., vandalism and spam). However, certain inappropriate behaviors are more threatening than others. In this work, we study contributions which are not simply “undone” – but deleted from revision histories and public view. Such treatment is generally reserved for edits which: (1) present a legal liability to the host (e.g., copyright issues, defamation), or (2) present privacy threats to individuals (i.e., contact information).

Herein, we analyze one year of Wikipedia’s public deletion log and use brute-force strategies to learn about privately handled redactions. This permits insight about the prevalence of deletion, the reasons that induce it, and the extent of end-user exposure to dangerous content. While Wikipedia’s approach is generally quite reactive, we find that copyright issues prove most problematic of those behaviors studied. Normal.dotm 0 0 1 10 57 University of Oregon 1 1 70 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false

Boom, and Then Possibly a Bust?

Giles, Jim (August 2009). After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust? NewScientistTech. Retrieved 8/9/09: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17554-after-the-boom-is-wikipedia-heading-for-bust.html. Quoting from the article:

Wikipedia has rapidly become one of the most used reference sources in the world, but a new study shows that the website's explosive growth is tailing off and also suggests the community-created encyclopaedia has become less welcoming to new contributors.

…

Launched in 2001, the English language Wikipedia grew rapidly to its current size of almost 3 million articles. However, when the Palo Alto team analysed a downloaded version of the encyclopaedia they found its growth has peaked.

The number of articles added per month flattened out at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by around a third. They also found that the number of edits made every month and the number of active editors both stopped growing the following year, flattening out at around 5.5 million and 750,000 respectively.

Angwin and Fowler (11/27/09). Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 11/29/09: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html. Quoting from an ACM summary of the article:

Despite being the fifth-most popular Web site in the world, Wikipedia, which receives about 325 million visitors each month, is losing unprecedented numbers of its volunteers, who write, edit, and police its content. In the first three months of 2009, Wikipedia lost more than 49,000 editors, compared to a net loss of 4,900 during the same period in 2008. The exodus of editors has raised questions about the eight-year-old online encyclopedia's ability to continue expanding its breath and improving its accuracy. Executives at the Wikimedia Foundation, which funds and oversees the nonprofit encyclopedia, acknowledge the decline in editors, but believe that it is still possible to build a useful encyclopedia with a smaller pool of contributors. "We need sufficient people to do the work that needs to be done," says the foundation's executive director Sue Gardner. "But the purpose of the project is not participation." Wikipedia is still extremely popular among Web users, with visitors increasing by 20 percent over 12 months ending in September, according to comScore Media Metrix. A major reason behind the decline in editors may be that many topics have already been written about, and another may be the stringent rules that Wikipedia has been adopting to reduce infighting among contributors about articles on controversial subjects or individuals. Wikipedia's struggles call into question the validity of crowdsourcing principles. "People generally have this idea that the wisdom of crowds is a pixie dust that you sprinkle on a system and magical things happen," says Carnegie Mellon University professor Aniket Kittur. "Yet the more people you throw at a problem, the more difficulty you are going to have with coordinating those people. It's too many cooks in the kitchen."

Implications in Information Age Education

This multiple author, multiple editor form of writing as a genre that is of growing importance. Thus, it adds one more challenge to designing and implementing a good educational system for the Information Age.

Project-based learning is a teaching/learning methodology used by many teachers. A variety of software now exists to facilitate members of a team to interact electronically as they jointly write and edit a report that is part of their project work. In many situations, it may be appropriate for the team to produce a Wiki page that goes on a Website where it will be available to the rest of the class and to other people who are interested in the project topic. This type of collaborative writing for Web publication adds authenticity to the assignment.

Lie Detectors

Anything that a person tells you, writes for you to read, videos for you to view, and so on is suspect. We have always had the difficulty that self interests are reflected in every form of communication. Even the best of modern lie detector systems is not very good.

In the distant past, people received some protection from lies and from misleading information because they lived in small hunter-gatherer groups where everybody knew everybody and all had long term involvement in the group.

Reading and writing changed that. The challenge to dealing with misrepresentations and outright lies in writing grew as printing presses were developed and then as mass education began to occur.

The world of research and academia developed a peer reviewing system that has proven very useful. This, along with the cost of publishing journals, has helped to keep published research articles reasonably "honest." Even there, however, from time to time we encounter situations in which researchers fake their data. More often, one can detect bias in interpretation of data.

Now we have a variety of communication and publications vehicles facilitated by progress in the field of Information and Communication Technology. Literally anyone can communicate or attempt to communicate with large groups of people. (I am writing this material directly onto a page that has already been posted to the Web. When I click on Save, this new material will be posed to the Web.) Perhaps the worst example of this is the spam that we receive. Note, however, that ads on radio and television are a somewhat similar, but a more regulated form of spam. We accept that form of spam because it allows us to receive free radio and television broadcasts.

Thus, we are bombarded with false and misleading information even if we do not make use of the Web. A very important component of an Information Age Education is to learn to deal with life in a world where we continually are exposed to false and/or purposely misleading information.

We each need to become skilled in being a lie detector. This is a difficult learning challenge. A young child has little ability for self protection. That is why, for example, that we make an effort to protect young children from television programming and advertising. As a child gains in maturity and in informal and formal education, the child can get much better at the world of spam. Help in doing so is a responsibility of home, school, and the community.

The Wikipedia represents an interesting compromise between Web publication with no review process, and publication with a carefully done peer reviewing process. Most of the articles in Wikipedia undergo the scrutiny of good hearted, honest volunteers who do a type of peer reviewing and editing. The overall result is a relatively good. I personally make very frequent use of the Wikipedia.

However, when I use the Wikipedia I do so in a context of having a great deal of knowledge and experience gained over the years. I also tend to do so in the context of seeking and using multiple sources of information, and I have a suspicious mind. The multiple sources of information—including what is in my head, access to many different Web materials, access to my personal library of books and journals, and access to other people are all important aspects screening what I read on the Web. In journalism, they call it "fact checking." I call it using common sense. We need to help all students develop this type of common sense.

Here is a more positive spin on the information given in this section. Often one receives information from sources that are quite trustworthy. For example, you go to a doctor, tests are run, a diagnosis is made, and a treatment is recommended. Of course, you can seek a second opinion from another doctor. In addition, you can do research through talking to people you know, making use of hardcopy library materials, and using the Web. A great many people now make use of the Web in this situation.

Authors of this Document

The original version of this document was written by David Moursund in August 2007. People who make significant additions or changes to the document are invited to include their names in this section.

References

Giles, Jim (9/20/07). Wikipedia 2.0 - now with added trust. NewScientistTech. Retrieved 10/2/07: http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19526226.200-wikipedia-20--now-with-added-trust.html Quoting from the article:

It is a problem that dogs every Wikipedia entry. Because anyone can edit any entry at any time, users do not generally know if they are looking at a carefully researched article, one that has had errors mischievously inserted, or a piece written by someone pushing their own agenda. As a result, although Wikipedia has grown in size and reputation since its launch in 2001 - around 7 per cent of all internet users now visit the site on any given day - its information continues to be treated cautiously.

That could be about to change. Over the past few years, a series of measures aimed at reducing the threat of vandalism and boosting public confidence in Wikipedia have been developed. Last month a project designed independently of Wikipedia, called WikiScanner, allowed people to work out what the motivations behind certain entries might be by revealing which people or organisations the contributions were made by (see "Who's behind the entries?"). Meanwhile the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity that oversees the online encyclopedia, now says it is poised to trial a host of new trust-based capabilities.

Heleft. Miguel (12/15/07). Wikipedia Competitor Being Tested by Google. Retrieved 12/17/07: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/technology/15web.html.

Quoting from the article:

SAN FRANCISCO — Google is testing a new Web service intended to become a repository of knowledge from experts on various topics, one that could turn into a competitor to Wikipedia and other sites.

…

The service, called Knol, which is short for knowledge, would allow people to create Web pages on any topic. It is designed to include features that permit readers to submit comments, rate pages and suggest changes. However, unlike Wikipedia, which allows anyone to edit an entry, only the author of a “knol,” as the pages in the service would be called, would be allowed to edit. Different authors could have competing pages on the same topic.

Knapp, Sue (10/17/07). Dartmouth researchers confirm the power of altruism in Wikipedia. Dartmouth News. Retrieved 10/20/07: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/10/17.html. Quoting from the article:

The beauty of open-source applications is that they are continually improved and updated by those who use them and care about them. Dartmouth researchers looked at the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to determine if the anonymous, infrequent contributors, the Good Samaritans, are as reliable as the people who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain.

The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users.

Martin, Nicole (9/21/07). Wikipedia clamps down on 'unreliable' editors. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 9/21/07: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki120.xml. Quoting from the article:

Ordinary users will no longer be able to edit information and to see those changes appear instantly on the screen.

Under plans being considered they will have to submit changes to a team of “trusted editors” who would then decide whether to update the entries.

The move follows complaints that the site is open to abuse from individuals and organisations wanting to slander their rivals or competitors.

…

Under the proposed changes, a group of editors will moderate the entries and decide what should be posted.

These trusted editors will have to have proved their commitment to Wikipedia by posting 30 reliable changes within 30 days.

The German-language version of the site has been chosen to test the changes first because of its high regard for accuracy, but if the feedback is positive they might also be applied to the English-language one.

Read, Brock (10/3/07). A war of words on Wikipedia. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 10/3/07: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2426?=atwc. Quoting from the article:

When Wikipedia was just a wee Web site with lofty goals, contributors worked feverishly to create articles on just about everything under the sun. But now that the encyclopedia’s English-language version boasts over two million entries, its administrators can stop wondering if the site is comprehensive enough. Quality, not quantity, has become priority number one.

Editors are now fanning out across Wikipedia, deleting uncited claims, re-writing knotty passages, and identifying articles that seem trivial or otherwise unworthy. Their efforts may well enhance Wikipedia’s status in academe. But the encyclopedia’s shift in priorities has also led it into an “awkward adolescence,” writes K.G. Schneider in CIO. According to Ms. Schneider, Wikipedia’s “inclusionists” (who argue that the site should continue to encourage new entries) and its “deletionists” (who advocate cutting articles deemed fatuous or picayune) are now engaged in a pitched battle.

Read, Brock (2/20/2009): What Does Wikipedia Mean for the Future of Expertise? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2/22/09: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3628&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en. Quoting from the article:

The rise of Wikipedia seems to have afflicted some scholars with a mild case of existential panic. And understandably so: When the world’s most popular reference tool is such an egalitarian outfit, that can be interpreted as a fairly stiff challenge to the value of expertise, right?

It most certainly can, writes Larry Sanger in a new article on “The Fate of Expertise After Wikipedia.” But fear not, scholars: Expertise, he says, will win out in the end.

Sanger, Lawrence (February 2009). The Fate of Expertise after WIKIPEDIA. Episteme. Retrieved 2/27/09:

http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E1742360008000543. Here is an abstract of the article:

Wikipedia has challenged traditional notions about the roles of experts in the Internet Age. Section 1 sets up a paradox. Wikipedia is a striking popular success, and yet its success can be attributed to the fact that it is wide open and bottom-up. How can such a successful knowledge project disdain expertise? Section 2 discusses the thesis that if Wikipedia could be shown by an excellent survey of experts to be fantastically reliable, then experts would not need to be granted positions of special authority. But, among other problems, this thesis is self-stultifying. Section 3 explores a couple ways in which egalitarian online communities might challenge the occupational roles or the epistemic leadership roles of experts. There is little support for the notion that the distinctive occupations that require expertise are being undermined. It is also implausible that Wikipedia and its like might take over the epistemic leadership roles of experts. Section 4 argues that a main reason that Wikipedia’s articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily. But some Wikipedia articles suffer because so many aggressive people drive off people more knowledgeable than they are; so there is no reason to think that Wikipedia’s articles will continually improve. Moreover, Wikipedia’s commitment to anonymity further drives off good contributors. Generally, some decisionmaking role for experts is not just consistent with online knowledge communities being open and bottom-up, it is recommended as well.

The Wired Campus (4/14/09). Microsoft's Encarta, Rendered Obsolete by Wikipedia, Will Shut Down. The Chronicle of Higher education. Retrieved 4/14/09: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3715&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en.

Wikipedia Review.(n.d.). The Wikipedia review. Retrieved 12/9/07: http://wikipediareview.com/.

Wired Campus (8/14/07). Tracking Wikipedia's Not-So-Neutral Editors. The Wired Campus. Retrieved 8/14/07: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2302. Quoting from the article:

When word spread last year that Congressional staff members were feverishly editing their bosses’ Wikipedia entries, Virgil Griffith asked himself a sensible question: How many company spokesmen and campus officials were doing the same thing?

The answer, as it turns out, is quite a lot. And the proof is in Mr. Griffith’s Wikipedia Scanner, a searchable database that links anonymous Wikipedia edits with the businesses and organizations from which those markups came.

Medical Wiki: A New Wiki Project

The Medical Wiki project described here is not related to the Wikipedia. It is a new project that might eventually prove to be quite popular. Quoting from the Website:

The Medpedia Project is a long-term, worldwide project to evolve a new model for sharing and advancing knowledge about health, medicine and the body among medical professionals and the general public. This model is founded on providing a free online technology platform that is collaborative, interdisciplinary and transparent. Read more about the model.

Users of the platform include physicians, consumers, medical and scientific journals, medical schools, research institutes, medical associations, hospitals, for-profit and non-profit organizations, expert patients, policy makers, students, non-professionals taking care of loved ones, individual medical professionals, scientists, etc.

As Medpedia grows over the next few years, it will become a repository of up-to-date unbiased medical information, contributed and maintained by health experts around the world, and freely available to everyone. The information in this clearinghouse will be easy to discover and navigate, and the technology platform will expand as the community invents more uses for it.

In association with Harvard Medical School, Stanford School of Medicine, Berkeley School of Public Health, University of Michigan Medical School and other leading global health organizations, Medpedia will be a commons for the gathering of the information and people critical to health care. Many organizations have united to support The Medpedia Project.

Wikipedia

From IAE-Pedia

Contents

Introduction

Editing by Special Interest Groups

Boom, and Then Possibly a Bust?

Other Articles About Wikipedia

Implications in Information Age Education

Lie Detectors

Authors of this Document

References

Medical Wiki: A New Wiki Project

Views

Personal tools

What's New or Improved

Math Education

Science Education

Navigation

Search

Toolbox