I have been whining about Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia where you can write any old rubbish.
The major problem I have with the project is its assumed authority. It is treated as a reliable source by, I guess, most of the population. The problem is that if you’re looking something up in an encyclopedia then the chances are you don’t actually know much about the subject, and therefore can not tell if your source is correct.
Those of us who have some knowledge about some things are shocked to find that Wikipedia is often wrong about our speciality. And then we become very worried because we have no idea if this failing extends to things we know little, or nothing, about. But it is safe to assume that it does so extend. This is not just restricted to Wikipedia of course: I have read a few stories in newspapers (national and local) where I have had insider knowledge about the reported event. And approximately half of the statements of fact in those stories are just plain wrong.
This does not seem to concern the editors of Wikipedia. They are more worried about due process than truth. So if you are looking up something on Wikipedia, your assumption that the author of the article and the editors know anything about what they are talking about is false. All you know is that the article has been written and edited in accordance with some rather arbitrary principles. These arbitrary principles, rather than verifiable truths, are the authority upon which Wikipedia is based.
Now, this would not be a problem, except that increasingly, students and professional scientists are turning to Wikipedia for answers. And people are writing their own websites based on Wikipedia articles. It is a house built upon sand, and we, as publicly-funded scientists, are failing the public if we do nothing about it. Ian points out that it is not worthwhile to write or correct articles, because in some frenzied pomo notion of fairness and equality facts and evidence count for nothing, and the ‘wikizombies’ (thanks Ian!), with their ‘citation needed’s and ‘balance’ and due process ‘liberate’ (which my thesaurus has as an alternative for ‘pillage’) scholarship from antiquated notions of ‘truth’ and ‘verifiability’.
Evil triumphs if good people do nothing. So what do we do?
The problem with, say , a ‘professional’ wiki-type encyclopedia is that the people who we would want to contribute are those who are probably the busiest in their field, doing experiments and writing papers and raising grants and teaching students (who contributes most to Wikipedia? Those with most time on their hands. Hmm). So what we need is some kind of payback to entice scholars to write scholarly articles. Scientists are attracted by the prospect of cold, hard cash, or publications they can put on their CV. The former would mean that any such project would have to cost money to use (let’s not even think about advertising revenue), which defeats the purpose of a free resource. We do have something close to this, in HowStuffWorks.com , but again, where is the authority?
So what about a peer-reviewed WikiScipedia? Jenny suggested that contributors should have “a PhD from an accredited university and a current and credible scientific affiliation”. That would be a nightmare to organize, and does not get around the quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[0] problem. Peer review works (mostly) for scientific journals, and is where textbooks (eventually) get their authority. Any scientist could contribute; all would be invited to write articles aimed at a reasonably educated (but pre-Bachelor’s) adult, but all articles are reviewed by experts in the field. Articles could fall under ‘Cutting edge’ or ‘Established dogma’ categories. Maybe there should be two sections; a ‘pending review’ area where anyone could write/edit and an ‘authoritative’, peer-reviewed section. And while we’re at it, let’s at least have pseudonymous if not completely nonymous peer review, so that there is accountability and partisan conflicts can be avoided. And did I say it would be free access?
It would be invaluable to school children, and could also go a long way to increasing the level of scientific literacy in the general population (hey, if you’re going to dream, aim high).
It would be hard work to get going, but no more so than any other learned journal. Contributors would be able to cite articles on their CVs, and funding agencies, who are increasingly waking up to the whole communicating with the public idea, should also be happy. We’d need a sponsor to get going, ideally a publishing house already committed to the principle of Open Access, with a competent editorial team that has marketing oomph and a sufficiently large and diverse scientific address book.
Oh, hullo Nature. Doing anything tonight?
Footnote:
[0] which does not, much to my dismay, mean ‘who stirs the custard?’
It’s sounds eminently sensible, Richard. An open access publisher is going to ask what the business model is, though. Resources will probably be required. For example, BioMed Central, which has something similar in spirit (Faculty of 1000) has to hire lots of editors to hassle the Faculty to submit even one paltry paragraph every few months (I know, I used to sit next to them in the editorial office). The Faculty are busy, and they don’t get paid.
I would wager that there isn’t a single author list on papers that get published in peer-reviewed journals that don’t include at least one author with a PhD from an accredited university. So that system already controls for this, with no hassle whatsoever. Maybe just a simple registration system to become an author, where you have to state your affiliation?
p.s. Nice hat.
Hey, I’m a scientist, not an MBA.
But you’re right, there will be costs. So either grants, or advertising I guess.
PS Thanks. I like it 😉
Richard, you may want to have a look at the Citizendium group.
Mmm. But what’s in it for me?
If you see something wrong on Wikipedia, learn the system, then edit the page. If the veracity of information is a concern, then by all means do something about it, be bold as we say.
There are already plenty of academics posting on Wikipedia and contrary to what your experience have been, I find Wikipedia to be accurate enough for my purposes the vast majority of the time. Yes, the first time I looked at “emotional lability” it didn’t specify that it could occur in motor neurone disease. However most people reading the article probably just want a definition, they don’t need a 100% accurate article with incredible depth and richness. If they want that they can go somewhere else.
Also I don’t quite understand the logic behind complaining that information is untruthful but at the same time criticising editors for requesting statements to have citations behind them… Editors don’t just ask to be awkward, some people (with a thankless role) do actually go and dig up the references and usually improve the article.
As for alternative projects I would argue against them because they lack the critical mass that Wikipedia has. If you spot any glaring errors in some of the articles I’ve worked on then by all means let me know and I’ll update them!
Paul,
I’m glad you have enough time to get involved. I’m also glad you think Wikipedia is accurate enough for you (but remember, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’).
But the point remains: Why should I work on the project when some high school kid in his parent’s basement has far more time (and ‘authority’) to undo my good work?
The comment about ‘citation needed’ was a nod to this .
I wouldn’t say I have enough time, it’s just I only concentrate on the narrow range of pages I know and care about. I don’t really see how the anecdote/data thing is relevant here but it’s always a good gag to deploy.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why you need to work on the project; but it’s like voting. If you don’t like something, you can do something about it. If writing an encyclopedia is a little burdensome that’s because it’s a hard thing to do!
The only “citation needed” tag I can see in the pages I regularly work on is one on the ALS page which says something a bit contentious about the ALS Association. It’s the kind of thing that probably should be removed if it can’t be verified, which is what the tags are for.
Savaging Wikipedia is finally becoming fashionable! And why not? Bits of it are wrong, bits of it are economical with the actualité, bits of it have had so many vested interests gnawing at it that they no longer bear any resemblance to consensus reality at all. This isn’t just a temporary glitch, either, but a systematic flaw with the process of essentially voting as to what you want the truth to be – an idea which seems more than a little kooky even before one realises that quite often the people who are most vocal and passionate on a subject are also the most wrong in terms of cold hard facts. These bugbears, combined with what can only be described as an unprecedented amount of grass-roots vainglorious hype, manages to put a lot of people’s backs right up – mine included.
However, upon wiping away the indignant, cappucino-like froth from around my mouth, I’m forced to admit that Wikipedia is just damned useful. Yes, a lot of it is nonsense. There’s a lot of bizarre edit wars. There’s a lot of ugly egotism, and a lot of times the truth is sacrificed to political ends under the slightly disingenuous cover of being “unbiased”. Some wikipedians are just plain old-fashioned crazy – and, as an aside, it is worth noting that a PhD inoculates against precisely none of these very human foibles. Still, for all these faults, I can use it to get the gloss on a speciality or a technique to the extent that I can meaningfully discuss it with a colleague; it can give me an overview of a topic which serves to direct my proper research; it can while away many hours I would otherwise have had to fill with actual work. I won’t keep coming back if it didn’t have at least some utility. Personally, I use Wikipedia all the time, as do my colleagues, with nary a single twinge of shame nor red-faced alt-F4 whenever someone comes into the room.
Fundamentally, the problem with Wikipedia isn’t that parts of it are total rubbish – although they are, and always will be – it’s that it is held to an impossibly high standard given the way it is produced: this isn’t the sum total of human knowledge (even if Jimmy Wales tells you it is), it’s black squiggles on a screen made by some bored stranger of indeterminate competence, and some form of critical thinking will always be required when reading them. That’s not to say that one shouldn’t strive for excellence and accuracy – and I shall refrain from saying “chance would be a fine thing” – just that one will always need to employ that skill that has been around since the very dawn of literacy itself: not believing everything you read.
So what about a peer-reviewed WikiScipedia?
There already is one, as Cesar Sanchez, alluded to. Citizendium.
There is even a Nature Network group: Citizendium
Mmm, but John, writing in an accessible manner is hard, takes time, and most scientists are concerned more with furthering their career. For Citizendium to work there has to be some incentive for scientists to actually do it, something that funding agencies and future (and current!) employers are going to like.
The point is good writing takes serious effort — John Dennehy.
I guess I’m actually proposing an open-access ‘Children’s Britannica’ of science. The project is bigger than I first thought, and would require a reasonable amount of funding. I’ll try and write something else on that in a while.
Ritchie: Nice. But it’s like Windows, isn’t it? People accept mediocrity because they don’t know there’s something better.