20 Reasons Not To Edit Wikipedia
Submitted by Taran on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 10:44
Just too good not to pass up - a comment on Slashdot's Is Wikipedia Failing by an anonymous coward:
20 Reasons not to edit Wikipedia
This is what I've come up with after a very short period of editing Wikipedia.
1. Endless arguments on Talk pages. Apparently more work on Talk pages than actual pages.
2. I'm most able to write about what I'm an expert in. That's also a conflict of interest.
3. Reverts may undo useful changes. There are no merge-based undos, no simple application of a diff between two revisions.
4. Improving free and open source software is both more visible and important.
5. Publishing articles in peer-reviewed venues is more important, although less visible.
6. Lack of a good, canonical, reference and citation system like BibTeX.
7. Popular topics end up better written than unpopular topics. Many entries on fictional worlds.
8. My work might get deleted altogether.
9. Wikipedia is generally not citable itself. Not reviewed, and contents are not constant.
10. There is no correspondance between the different language versions of a page.
11. GFDL is possibly not the best license. I doubt most people have read it.
12. Software screenshots must be low resolution unless the software is open source.
13. Certain topics are taboo, e.g. Encyclopaedia Dramatica
14. If I'm an IP address, nobody cares. If I use my real name, I have to be careful what I write. If I use a pseudonym and hide my identity, it carries less weight.
15. Decentralization. It is doubtful that even a fraction of people take the time to read the relevant guides on editing.
16. Same problems that USENET, mailing lists, and forums have.
17. Neutral point of view confounded by fact that most people here are fairly left wing.
18. Most people editing don't have any formal training in writing beyond high school. Most articles and topics need work.
19. Vandalism, and pseudo-vandalism.
20. Almost every other leisure activity I can think of is more rewarding; Wikipedia is just addictive.2 reasons to use Wikipedia
1. It's generally better than a Google search.
2. If you're a cultural anthropologist, here's a minefield.2 reasons to edit Wikipedia
1. It's a great place to practice your translation skills.
2. Most anything you write here appears near the top of a Google search.
I think that about sums it up. I haven't logged in for a while, and it gets easier and easier...
20 Reasons
Taran, I appreciate your list. And your comments about peer-reviewed materials are good, notwithstanding the self-referential nature of peer review.
I've pretty much gone off using Wikipedia for many of the reasons you cite. And also that a Wikipedia citation has no guarantee of remaining accessible.
Do you think that we're seeing a more reflective view of Google rankings and online popularity? I'm just asking.
Well, its not my list
I just snagged it from a comment on Slashdot - but I certainly agree with it. Number 8 is the main reason I don't contribute anymore - I don't want to work on something just so some people who have no understanding of the material delete it - as has happened before...
Google rankings? I have no idea. I think Google takes Wikipedia seriously because its supposed to be an online encyclopedia with the removal of the traditional limitations... that was the spirit in which I contributed formally and, prior to that, anonymously. However, this does not bode well for things which exist outside the experience of the Wikipedia administration people. Its also culturally skewed, and different entries have pretty different definitions of the same things.
It isn't a very clear cut thing. In spirit, I liked what the Wikipedia was trying to do... but I think traditional bureaucracy has been reinvented in it, and that bureaucracy taints the material just as traditional bureaucracy does. So - what is the point?
Only one
I confess that Wikipedia is usually the first source I choose, but I would be remiss if it was the only place I get my information. Wikipedia is usually one of the first sites using nearly any search engine. For me, Wikipedia is only one reference of many. Other websites may dispute the Wikepedia information - but anyone doing thorough searching will not rely solely on ANY one source on the internet.
As a matter of fact - I think Wikepedia is quite valuable in that way.
check
check out
http://wikipediaocd.wordpress.com
Post new comment