More Wikipedia
I've written before on how I share Oliver Kamm's disregard for Wikipedia. There is not a single entry I would trust. Some might be accurate, but unless one is an expert in the particular field, one has no way of knowing. And at any given time the entry can be changed to be entirely innacurate.
A friend has just alerted me to my own entry, which concludes thus:
Today, Pollard is one of three bloggers for The Spectator, with the majority of his posts pouring praise on the far right Israeli Likud, in common with fellow blogger, Melanie Phillips. These bloggers have cultivated a band of hard right Israeli symphathisers whose comments contain a level of vitriol against Muslims that can be offensive.
Not just wrong but libellous in the (sly) accusation that I cultivate commenters who are vitriolic against Muslims. So far from that being true, I was recently engaged in a frankly dull war of words with the odious Brussels Journal, which really is vitriolic against Muslims. My arguments are directed against jihadist Islamists, which is a very different thing.
If whoever wrote that entry had ever read my posts on Israel (which are frequent but not remotely 'the majority of his posts') they would see that I am critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, whom I regard - and say so - as something close to a political fraud.
Yes, I write frequently in support of Israel's defence of its citizens against terror. How does that make me a supporter of the Israeli 'far right'? As it happens - I've not mentioned this before because it is irrelevant - if I were an Israeli voter I'd have voted for Kadima and would vote for Tzipi Livni in the primary. Until the revelation that the PLO was not interested in peace, I had been a strong supporter of Ehud Barak and before that I was a member of Peace Now!
I write this not because I give a damn what my Wikipedia enrtry says - I regard the site as being unreliable and pernicious to the very notion of truth - but in the hope that I might be able to demonstrate to more of you that no entry on Wikipedia should ever be regraded as reliable.
Previous
Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (9)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Stephen Pollard's Blog Roll
Oliver Kamm
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Marginal Revolution
Tyler Cowen's riveting economic blog.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Thought Experiments
The peerless Bryan Appleyard's blog.
Opera Chic
An American in Milan, on opera.
Intermezzo
A London-based classical music enthusiast.
Jessica Duchen's classical music blog
Does what it says on the tin.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Latest blog posts
sponsored links
Nissan Family Cars - Book a Test Drive Online
Take advantage of unbeatable Nissan value. Book a test drive today.
Nissan Family Cars - Book a Test Drive Online
Take advantage of unbeatable Nissan value. Book a test drive today.
ROME CENTRE
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
City Breaks. ROME and PARIS
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Jewellery. RUFFS (Estd. 1904).
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
BJP
September 15th, 2008 10:41am"There is not a single entry I would trust." - The mark of a supercilious and narrow mind. There is much knowledge in the world apart from political gossip, music and gambling. Ever wanted to know, for example, the composition of sarsen stone or the dates of the Venerable Bede? Wikipedia is an invaluable resource for non-contentious information. Only a fool would use it for a definitive account of the Middle-East conflicts.
szeni
September 15th, 2008 11:29amI could never understand why even the most sensible UK commentators react as if suspected of racism when accused of sympathy for Likud. You would think that Netanyahu, one of the most popular Israeli politicians today backed by roughly half of the electorate, is no better than Mugabe. Perhaps group think in the UK dictates that anything Likud or right of it is beyond the pale
Recusant
September 15th, 2008 3:50pmAnd if you check your entry again you will see that the content you had a problem with has already been deleted. I really can't see what your's and Oliver Kamm's problem is with Wikipedia. It is no more nor less reliable than any other general reference resource, but it at least allows corrections to be made rapidly. No one but a fool would rely on any one reference source for a definitive statement on any contentious issue, but I would rely on Wikipedia, for example, for a description of how a diesel engine works; what the Declaration of Independence says; or the main topographical features of New Caledonia, etc., etc.
Frankly the two of you are moving beyond the realms of elitism and into the territory of snobbishness.
Herbert Thornton
September 15th, 2008 6:40pm".....no entry on Wikipedia should ever be regraded as reliable."
It seems that the Spectator's proof-reading system isn't reliable either. Perhaps it should be re-graded?
paul p
September 15th, 2008 6:58pmI use it primarily for computing, maths and physics and its very useful. They're errors to be sure but I guess these subjects are not so contentious.
Spencer de Vere
September 15th, 2008 11:33pmNo mention in your Wikipedia entry about your Golliwog phobia...
David Bouvier
September 16th, 2008 12:06pmIt always amazes me though how much turns out to be controversial. And how much is wrong.
I note Stephen didn't say it wasn't useful - just that it was not trustworthy - e.g. lacks authority.
An example: the relatively uncontroversial area of finance theory runs at around the A-level to undergraduate level of sophistication, and the debates tend to be around the issues that confuse students at that level.
Joe Camel
September 16th, 2008 2:10pmYou just have to bear in mind that there are gangs out there constantly trying to rewrite Wikipedia entries to smuggle in their own particular interests/prejudices/truths/lies.
I find it very useful indeed for quick fact checks, while keeping an eye out for anything that might be a deliberate distortion.
Ben
September 17th, 2008 2:12amWikipedia is no worse than supposedly reputable printed encyclopaedias. Collins, Britannica, Larousse and others are notorious for their political bias. It is difficult for truly contentious subjects are covered in a manner that is civilized and objectively fair to everyone, but it can be done - isn't that the mark of true scholarship?