Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 363. Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London Hosted by King's Digital Lab www.dhhumanist.org Submit to: email@example.com  From: David Hoover
Subject: My Wikipedia Question (98)  From: Jim Rovira Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.362: the question on Wikipedia (32)  From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.362: the question on Wikipedia (25)  From: Willard McCarty Subject: the question on Wikipedia (32) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-01-20 18:49:07+00:00 From: David Hoover Subject: My Wikipedia Question In response to Ken Friedman: > Date: 2019-01-19 09:24:34+00:00 > From: Ken Friedman > Subject: My Wikipedia Question >Dear Friends, >While I've seen a lot of good ideas and interesting information in the >responses to my question, I observe that no one has addressed the question > of >reliability and the massive load of problematic articles. Like almost all of the commentators on this topic, I use Wikipedia fairly often, especially if nothing important rests on the information being precisely correct. But Ken Friedman's post about accuracy prompts a related point of my own: I am frequently bothered by how and how much of Wikipedia is taken over from other sources and vice versa. Consider the article on the novelist Lucas Malet (picked almost at random). Beginning with the "Early Years" section, Wikipedia cites http://exhibits.lib.byu.edu/literaryworlds/malet.html for some basic information. The Literary Worlds page has this: . . . was born in Hampshire, England, third of four children of social reformer Reverend Charles Kingsley and his wife Frances Eliza Grenfell. . . . Early in life Mary was educated at home, and she studied art under Sir Edward Poynter. Wikipedia this: . . . was born in Eversley, Hampshire, the daughter of Reverend Charles Kingsley (author of The Water Babies) and his wife Frances Eliza Grenfell. She was the third of the couple's four children. She was educated at home and studied art with Sir Edward Poynter. One could be concerned with the amount of unacknowledged direct quotation here, but at least the source is cited accurately. The following passage is more problematic. Literary Worlds: In 1876 she married Reverend William Harrison, her father's curate, and left behind her artistic career. Unfortunately the marriage was unhappy and childless; the couple soon amicably separated. Wikipedia: In 1876, she married William Harrison, a colleague of her father's, Minor Canon of Westminster, and Priest-in-Ordinary to the Queen. Malet gave up artistic aspirations after the marriage. The marriage was childless and unhappy, and the couple soon separated. Here the details about Harrison do not come either from source  (the Who's Who entry under Malet's real name, not Harrison's entry, which also does not contain it) or source , but the details about the marriage and separation do come from , which is not cited. Further: Literary Worlds: Mary wished to stand on her own laurels as a writer and not on that of her published relatives, so she combined two little-known family names into Lucas Malet as her pseudonym. Critical success came with her second novel, Colonel Enderby's Wife (1885), which dealt with a failed marriage. . . . Wikipedia: After the separation, Malet embarked on an independent writing career, forming her pen name by combining two little-known family names. Her first novel, Mrs. Lorimer, a Sketch in Black and White, was published in 1882. Critical attention and praise came with Malet's second novel, Colonel Enderby's Wife, published in 1885, which fictionalized her brief failed marriage. Malet lived for most of her life on the Continent with the singer Gabrielle Vallings. Note that the formation of Malet's pseudonym and the information about her second novel seems taken from  without citation, but the pseudonym information might easily seem to come from , which does not contain it. Wikipedia goes on to state that Vallings was Malet's "romantic companion," apparently citing  again, though  does not make this claim. I would not claim that all or even most Wikipedia articles suffer from problems like this, but I chose this article without knowing the problems were there. This might not matter so much if so many other web sites about Malet didn't simply copy over large sections of the Wikipedia article, more often than not without citation. I have no independent knowledge of how reputable the Literary Worlds site is or whether similar problems could be found in it, but it's easy to see how large amounts of doubtful or information or untraceable sourcing could arise. -- David Hoover, Professor of English NYU Eng. Dept. 212-998-8832 email@example.com https://files.nyu.edu/dh3/public/ Adolph slid back into the thicket and lay down behind a fallen log to see what would happen. Not much ever happened to him but weather. --Willa Cather -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-01-20 15:15:39+00:00 From: Jim Rovira Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.362: the question on Wikipedia Ken: Great question - yes, of course there’s a way to ensure uniform reliability across all Wikipedia articles: have the site run by people committed to that goal who will initiate a vetted peer-review process for every article. This could happen with substantial donations being made to the site for that express purpose. But I think we might want to drop the notion of “cherry picking.” On a site with millions of entries, I think it’s a mistake to think they are all equal in importance. I suspect well over half of those could be dropped and no one would miss them. I’m curious how many of these entries are ever viewed. I think it’s very likely that if we were to compare every Encyclopaedia Britannica entry with every equivalent Wikipedia entry we would get similar results on reliability. If I were running the process, I would focus first on entries that receive the highest number of hits, and then follow up on Encyclopedia Britannica equivalence entries and hit the rest of those, and then start working down the list of the rest of entries that get occasional hits but at least consistent ones. As I kept working further down, I would begin to think about the value or need of the entry against the resources needed to confirm some information in it, and I suspect I would find quite a few entries that have information that could never be confirmed. Do I delete the entry? Do I just leave it and flag it? As you know, many of them are. So my question is, if I was put in charge of this process and followed through with it, would the results really be that much different than what we have now? Jim R -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-01-20 13:32:00+00:00 From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.362: the question on Wikipedia Ken asks: Is there a way to ensure that *every* Wikipedia article is as reliable as *every* article in Encyclopedia Britannica? I answer, with confidence: no. As is so often the case, Wikipedia's strength is also, inherently its weakness, and there is no way of escaping this fundamental conundrum. In theory, it might be possible to take what has been created and refine it to something approaching the reliability of a book (which I would suggest is far from the degree of reliability that has been suggested). But such an effort would require professional and paid participants, and no source of such funding is likely to be obtained (nor would such funding come without strings). As it stands, Wikipedia now has to plead just to maintain its current operations. It would also mean a serious winnowing of what Wikipedia covers, and how much attention minor or ephemeral material gets (and newer material might not get added to keep up with the constant changes of life). So, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the Wikipedia that we have have now is probably pretty close to as good as we are going to get. Jeffrey A. Savoye The Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore https://www.eapoe.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2019-01-20 07:11:51+00:00 From: Willard McCarty Subject: the question on Wikipedia This is about the reliability of publications, Wikipedia included. As a graduate student at Toronto, I was fortunate enough to be employed by the Records of Early English Drama (REED) project, initially as the computer-person, then as an indexer and editorial assistant. I had already been taught how to get things right during my MA. But REED was an eye-opener. The care we took over smallest details was a lesson that stuck. Subsequently getting publications of my own into print has reinforced the value of finality for all that proceeds it: once typeset and proofing corrections submitted, there's no changing the result. The fluidity of digital publication washes back on us all too often as sloppiness. The value-judgment implicit in that word 'sloppiness' might provoke an argument to the effect that I should accept the fact that standards have changed, but I cannot agree. Rather let me ask: historically what have been the constraints that have ensured reliability? Or, perhaps better, how historically contingent is our concept of reliability? Or, to ask another, what is built into the idea of "all the world's knowledge"? Comments? Yours, WM -- Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor emeritus, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London; Adjunct Professor, Western Sydney University; Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (www.tandfonline.com/loi/yisr20) and Humanist (www.dhhumanist.org) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted List posts to: email@example.com List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/ Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)
This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.