Home > Stephen Pollard

Friday 9 January 2009

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Peter Hoskin

Pete suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

Still more on Wikipedia

Monday, 15th September 2008

Re my wikipedia post below...

Daniel Finkelstein writes:

But here's the thing about Wikipedia - you can remove errors when you spot them. And people do - unlike with other publications.

So, having read Stephen's post I thought I would have a go. I created an account on Wikipedia and went in to change the offending paragraph.

Only I couldn't. Because someone else was in the entry removing the paragraph altogether.

Stephen's post was intended to demonstrate the weakness of Wikipedia. I think he demonstrated the opposite.

I hesitate to pick a fight with Daniel (who is also great, of course). But just because anyone can add to, or remove, posts doesn't mean that wikipedia is somehow more reliable.

At the moment, the entry is correct (up to a point - there are other errors which I will not correct, on principle) in no longer making offensively false statements about me. But at any point anyone can add anything they want to the post about me. So there is no way for anyone to tell if, at any given moment, the entry is correct or wrong until I point it out.

I am using my entry as an example, of course. The point applies to every entry. I have no idea if the entries on CERN, halibut or Enid Blyton are reliable because I have no idea at any given moment who has added what to them. Of course an expert could come along and make sure they are perfect; but so too could an idiot come along and add his or her own idiocies to them.

Others can feel free to use Wikipedia, of course. I wouldn't trust it for anything.

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Bonobonobo

September 15th, 2008 4:29pm

Pollard look.

Wikipedia isn't intended or useful as a definitive source.

Anyone that uses wikipedia as a source looks a fool.

Wikipedia is however a generally excellent starting point for research or for simple queries.

As long as you read it with a pinch of salt and you are not too dim, 95% of the errors are obvious nonsense.

The main thing is the sourcing.

The fundamental principle is valid, there are more people going around adding good stuff than bad stuff, so the system tilts towards excellence.

Snorri Godhi

September 15th, 2008 5:17pm

I hesitate to pick a fight with Stephen (who is also great, of course), but what's the point of this and the previous post? that wikipedia is unreliable? why don't you tell us something we don't know?

As an aside, do you think that anybody would bother to falsify the birth and death dates of J.S. Bach on wikipedia? and if so, why?

Mark

September 16th, 2008 10:31am

And now see David Aaronovitch in the Times today - on the same point.

Bill Corr

September 18th, 2008 7:16pm

** J.S.Bach, the celebrated rapper who shared the same dates of birth and death with the erotic novelist Enid Blyton, also consumed halibut on a daily basis. Contemporary biographers are agreed that both Bach and Blyton were secret and fervent Scientologists, devoted to the nocturnal worship of the Lord Xenu.
The pair collaborated on drawing the blueprints of the CERN, initially a top-secret project funded by the Illuminati, the Medellin Cartel and the town council of Wasilla, Alaska. **

All of this is TRUE, teacher! I just read it on Wikipedia!