Wikipedia's not so devastating riposte

David Boothroyd

I do not think you should pretend that this is a full response, nor gloss over the preceding and subsequent debate on the wikiEN-l list. Also please note that Jimbo Wales is not in as powerful position over Wikipedia as is often implied. There is a more complex debate to be had over this issue which is perhaps not helped by a rush to point fingers at a single rushed (and in effect internal) mailing list post. For instance, is Wikipedia, by not giving any special privilege to 'experts' (however defined) being anti-intellectual? Not really, because it is not decrying the concept of experts, merely asking them to demonstrate their expertise.

Cleanthes

But 2 split infinitives out of a possible 4 is pretty good going for a single sentence. ;-P

john moran

Both you and Oliver don't get it! Wiki is wonderful as a first port of call to the layman on a variety of subjects. Thats what it is. It does not claim to be a definitive research tool, or a replacement for research. Its 'failings' for you and Oliver are based in part on the entries for you both. Be honest, do these short comings pass the 'so what?' test, I think not. In summary the Wiki entries on the declaration of independance and the battle of hastings good. Entries for Pollard/Kamm = so what? Who is going to to look at them any way? For a dash of humility see how many hits the Pollard/Kamm entries get any way!

David Boothroyd

Split infinitives are not, according to the best authorities, bad English: even The Times in 1992 could write "The most diligent search can find no modern grammarian to pedantically, to dogmatically, to invariably condemn a split infinitive."

Oliver Kamm

I'm part of the way with David on split infinitives: there is no obvious reason for objecting to them on grammatical grounds. But they are almost always ugly and should be avoided. (Almost always, but not quite always: "to boldly go" is a famous exception and an effective piece of rhetoric.) I do not agree with David at all, however, on Wikipedia's treatment of experts. Wikipedia makes no demand on competent authorities, for the same reason it makes no demand on anyone else. The site doesn't discriminate between competence and its absence; that's why I call it an anti-intellectual venture. The suggestion that I base my view of Wikipedia on my own entry and the errors within it is plainly false. I have moreoever commended occasionally Wikipedia articles on subjects of vastly greater importance, e.g. Srebrenica. It is the ethos of the site that I object to, even where you can point to individual competent entries.

Oliver Kamm

Incidentally, the debate on the Wikipedia mailing list that David refers to includes some telling observations in support of my case.

Tim Worstall

There is a valid argument against Oliver's thoughts on Wikipedia (yes, I know, the very idea seems almost preposterous!). I'm one of these odd people who is actually an expert: OK, an expert on a pretty odd subject, but there it is. The Britannica article contains an error on my specialist subject. Columbia has been even worse, with several. Wikipedia also contains errors, but at least I have been able to correct some of them.

Catallaxy

I don't understand. If Kamm dislikes Wikipedia so much, why is he always banging on about it? He doesn't have to read it and - unlike the BBC (which really is 'a pernicious influence on our intellectual life') - no one is compelling him to pay for it. What is it about Wikipeia that so annoys him? Could it be he feels threatened?

Lee Jakeman

If you can't blind people with science, blind them with intellectualised garbage instead - they won't know the difference. Well, most of them anyway ...

Mark

I used to share Stephen and Oliver's views of Wikipedia until I read "The Long Tail". The point is that normal encyclopedias have about 80,000 entries whereas Wikipedia covers the long tail of more up to 2 million obscure entries that would never be covered by anyone if it wasn't for the wiki concept (including, let's be honest, the entries on Stephen and Oliver themselves). Therefore if you want authority on a well-known topic, there will be better places to go than Wikipedia (albeit independent tests have found that there are not significantly more errors on Wikipedia than Britannica) whereas if you want to learn about something more esoteric, you go to Wikipedia, in full knowledge that it is far from authoritative. How can anyone object to that?