I randomly came upon this Twitter post by @tylerdmace (Tyler Mace).

There is a tylerdmace active on Wikipedia. The user has made 349 total edits to a total of 151 distinct Wikipedia pages. (Source)

Just sayin’ here, I’d be a bit wary of any of those 151 pages that tylerdmace has edited, based upon the Twitter post above.

Now, why is this important? If an editor is willing to admit to these errors of judgement, how many other editors are doing the same thing … and not letting us know. Yes, the answer could be that no other editors on Wikipedia are doing this. All those that believe that, please comment below.

Also, given this public protestation of flawed rational thought on the part of Taylordmace, why has that user account not been disabled? Does Wikipedia even track these types of transgressions by their users? I don’t think so, at least not to the extent that assures a legitmate online dictionary is producing consistently correct information.

Now, let’s take the low hanging fruit here. If someone changes something on any Wikipedia entry, how long is the lag time between an editor checking the change for validity and what is the traffic on that entry between the time the edit is made and corrected (if a correction is required)?

Do we now see why the very essence of Wikipedia’s operation makes it ripe for providing flawed information?

My post to Twitter, upon finding this little gem from TyleDMace, launched a few replies from friends.

mat1583: @rdfrench Reputable wiki editors are known in the same way as reputable PR blog editors. My cousin is a great example: http://is.gd/eTpq

erob1: @rdfrench lol that was hilarious! I always go to wikipedia for something, then go to the sources at the bottom for credibility lol

Tex3911: @mat1583 @rdfrench I’ve been considering returning to the blogsphere. I’ll wite a post on this.

Tex3911: @rdfrench such approval is absent in the US. This absence is fundamental to freedom of speech.

Tex3911: @rdfrench “credentialled” implies that one must be officially approved to contribute to the writing process.

mat1583: @rdfrench I’m not saying that wiki has no faults. It definitely does. But I think that articles with complete citations are very useful.

mat1583: @rdfrench I can’t argue it here on Twitter, but I’ve seen the behind the scenes work. There’s a lot more that goes on behind the scenes.

mat1583: @rdfrench Have you extensivley participated in the process of creating/editing a wiki article? It’s much more intensive than you think.

Tex3911: @mat1583 @rdfrench some of the rebuttal from Britannica is kind of sad, especially the one where they confirm an error but won’t admit to it

mat1583: @rdfrench That doesn’t mean everyone lets them go free. @Tex3911 is right. It’s proven to be just as accurate or moreso than Britannica.

Tex3911: @rdfrench like that doesn’t happen at “reputable” publications. That’s one editor. Besides, Britainica isn’t much better: http://is.gd/eRXr

barbaranixon: @rdfrench Just curious: do you think it’s okay for people to link to Wikipedia in blog posts for general info? (Def not in academic work)

I’m not going to rehash my criticisms linked to above regarding my previous posts. I will state the following as it relates to this conversation and Tylerdmace’s confession.

I do not doubt for a moment that there are honest and faithful editors involved in the Wikipedia.org project. I do not doubt that, for some, this is a truly earnest effort to (a) provide information to the world and (b) a worthwhile ideal. But, ideals are not always reached.

To their credit, Wikipedia does provide a warning.    How many read this warning, however, is open to debate.

Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which, in principle, anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation that has been recently added and not yet removed (see Researching with Wikipedia for more details). However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes, or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias. (Source)

I do have very serious doubts about the veracity and trustworthiness of the site’s overall trust factor. Which entries can you believe and which entries require further vetting? To me, they all require further vetting. There is no way to be assured that any one Wikipedia entry you may come upon is true, factual, and/or trustworthy. Having mob rule editing just makes it impossible. That is especially true given the fact that many editors are anonymous and there is no way to vet them.

My doubts arise with the site’s operation and their failure to act quickly and judiciously in several high profile incidents (Source). My doubts arise when one of the site’s founders, Jimmy Wales, has tried to manage his own profile (manage his own public persona) in Wikipedia.

Again, all that is low hanging fruit.  I could go on for a long time documenting Wikipedia flaws and errors.  Of course, others could go on documenting my flaws and errors, too.  ;o)

My point in all this Wikipedia discussion?

Reference sources are not supposed to be based upon majority opinion or conventional wisdom. They are supposed to be based upon scholarly work that allows for the vetting of the content and the editors themselves. Wikipedia does not accomplish this feat nor meet these standards. That is why, in my opinion, Wikipedia is not a trustworthy reference source.

I know this won’t, in any way, settle this difference of opinion, but I do appreciate the reality that we may all agree to disagree on Wikipedia’s veracity and trustworthiness.

Seriously, I want Wikipedia to succeed.  Jimmy Wales is an Auburn graduate.  I want Auburn grads to achieve great things.  I just don’t think Wikipedia, as it is currently being administered, is a successful effort providing trustworthy information on a broad range of topics on a consistent basis.

Britannica was one of the encyclopedias. Big black books that took up two rows on the main family bookcase. Right next to Britannica sat the Oxford English Dictionary. Again, huge black books filled with information. Then, there was also the World Book, among others.

We would take them down when reading the paper or watching television and look up anything that we didn’t know about. We would read and enjoy it. I wonder, are kids still doing this today? Or, do they just pickup their nearby Wifi laptop and look things up, instead? Oh, please don’t tell me they are going to Wikipedia … and believing they are getting solid information. (Yes, I know they’re being fooled and doing it every day.)

For me, nothing beats a book. I love the fun of flipping through pages and finding something new.

Even better, a book (even online) that has real editors. So, my new found great Britannica Online reference brings me to an issue that bothers me greatly. Wikipedia and editors. Editors are important. Crucial.

Editors with credentials. Editors that may be vetted. Not editors with names like StaticGull at Wikipedia. Static Gull’s credentials? “This user can make The Spinning Dancer turn both ways.” Oh, now there’s a selling point. No real name for Static Gull. No way to vet their knowledge and trustworthiness, yet h/she has edited (and reverted edits) entries such as the Battle of Blenheim. There are so many examples like this in Wikipedia that the site becomes laughable when offered up as a trustworthy reference. You’ll see links to many instances of chicanery within Wikipedia below.

Shel Holtz kindly shared a free account to access Britannica online, recently. I was happy to have it. Thanks, Shel. I imagine that Britannica hopes to have a word-of-mouth campaign spring from this regarding the views of educators on the validity of Wikipedia as opposed to Britannica. Why?

See screen shots of Wikipedia vandalism on Wikipedia Watch. Check out this refutation of a Nature journal article that attempted to claim Britannica and Wikipedia are not too much different from one another. The Study and the Data (PDF). That article has since been roundly refuted and discredited. See links below.

You know, there has been a lot of talk about online reference sources these past few years. For instance, as of this writing, Alexa lists Yahoo! #1, Google #2, Windows Live #3 and Wikipedia #7 in their Global Top 500 sites ranking. All four are used as reference sites, in their own way.

If I were to rank them as valid and useful reference resources, I’d likely put the search engines up high as sources I could then verify with further study. Wikipedia, however, I wouldn’t even rank. For instance, if a student turns in a paper with a Wikipedia reference, I require that they provide two or three independent resources to verify the Wikipedia reference. I would accept the Britannica reference – alone.

Why? Britannica has editors. They have names, real names. Britannica has a long history of academic discovery. They are open. They accept input and you can actually speak with real people and vet them based upon their academic credentials.

Funny. See how Wikipedia cites those behind Britannica here: Encyclopædia Britannica. Now, where is the list of characters behind the names like: WillowW. That’s one of the editors for the Britannica article.

Britannica, unlike Wikipedia. does not have an inbred system that causes errors to remain – even be defended. They don’t have a relatively invisible process which allows great falsehoods to linger on their site and requires a struggle to remedy. See any of the instances cited in the related links below.

I don’t know for certain, but it may be possible that Wikipedia is one of the greatest deceptions (if not outright frauds) perpetrated on the world’s population. The koolaid drinkers among the ardent supporters will say it is an excellent resource to educate the 3rd world. Please. Well, if we want to mis-educate them, maybe.

Wikipedia’s refusal to institute (a) some form of captcha technology and (b) a stern policy of verifying e-mail addresses for all members/editors suggests to me that they are more interested in traffic. They seemingly invite spam. Reminds me, in a way, of a paraphrase of the “Gold Hat” (Alfonso Bedoya) line in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. “Credentials? We ain’t got no credentials. We don’t need no credentials. I don’t have to show you any stinking credentials.” (IMDb)

Now, let’s be clear on that idea of fraud. Fraud is defined as “…a deception made for personal gain” or “a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.” (Source) The unfair part refers to Wikipedias emphasis on participation and visitors, not on verification of content. Traffic spurred by their lax system is the gain. Yet, vandalism is rife throughout the site. How many people see those vandalized pages, accept them as fact, and leave feeling they have learned – when they have actually been deceived. I believe that it is possible the site desires to keep their bad practices in place because it appeals to their volunteer base. Further, the site’s traffic does wonders for propping up the faux fame of its particpants – even the founders.

Want Wikipedia to earn credibility? Institute real processes to assure some validity in the site. Nope, they don’t do it. Those volunteers might balk. The site’s traffic flounders. The founders fame flounders, too.

Consider the remarkable relationship between Google and Wikipedia. Why Google makes Wikipedia links often register as the first result for many terms, I cannot fathom. Wikia certainly benefits from all this. Ah, the founders are now making money.

Wikipedia’s koolaid drinking supporters certainly try to defend the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But, it is that “anyone can edit” aspect that frightens me. It should frighten you, too. Why? Because people are beginning to give the site undue respect using the fallacy that “It has been there so long, it must be true.” That argument is actually used by Wikipedia editors, sometimes, to defend efforts to correct an inaccurate article. The site is bizarre.

When considering Wikipedia as a reference source, I think of one saying that even the supporters of Wikipedia will understand is – “Danger, Will Robinson!”

You want a wiki as reference source that you can trust?  Visit Citizendium.

Related Links

Society of Professional Journalists: Press Notes

Public Information Research – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia-watch.org – Wikipedia Watch

Fraud – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fraud – Definitions from Dictionary.com

Wikipedia Watch

Screen shots of Wikipedia vandalism

Alexa Top 500 Sites

RC patrollers – Wikitruth

Vandalism exposed – Wikitruth

known vandals on wikipedia – Google Search

Revision history of Social media – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main Page – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia