The Slumbering Lungfish Dybbuk Hostel and All-Night Boulangerie

As a grad student, I often have to deal with kids (that is, undergrads, but I like to be as condescending a prick as I can be) that turn in, after being repeatedly warned against it in syllabi and the introduction, assignments citing chemical information for lab reports. While most things on there as constants are relatively reliable (as in, they check out against more "reliable" sources, such as the CRC Handbook and actual chemical companies), the increased chance for error (or chance that I'd go and change the values) does make the point. Wikipedia's a fine place to figure out, for example, who preceded Charles Taylor as the leader of Liberia (Ruth Perry, evidently), but that doesn't mean I'm going to cite Wikipedia for something that I'm submitting for publication.

One more thing: The whole "mistakes are fixed in about five minutes, most of the time" is only applicable for those articles which are either thrust to the forefront of the editing body (as with the Family Guy series of articles) or current events. The Seigenthaler thing pointed this out, surely, but it's not by any means as quickly as most claim.

Lore,
Thanks for the opportunity to read the "serious" side of your Wikipedia thoughts, they make for an interesting contrast to your Wired article.
That being said, I think that sadly, some folks are just too sensitive to appreciate good humour.
The stuff you're putting up on Wired these days is killing me - keep it up.

Yeah, I enjoyed the Wired article, especially since it contained references to Battlestar: Galactica.

Wikipedia is ruined by people without humour and people bent on destruction, but it's still the first place I drop into when I have a question.

I think what it comes down to is that Wiki is like a condensate of the Intertron in general. First, anyone can expound their opinions and knowledge, but, unfortunately, anyone can expound their opinions and knowledge. Second, it can be incredibly useful as a resource for casual or non-academic information, but you'd have to be some kind of maroon to cite either www.unclebobsblackhelicopters.com OR Wiki for anything where verifiability is in order.

I agree completely with what you've written here -- I find Wikipedia to be entertaining and education at the same time; though as with anything, you can never be sure that it's 100% true. However, my searches of subjects about which I know quite a bit, such as Russian History, has given me the general impression that more things are right than wrong (or that they're headed in the right direction) on Wikipedia.

Essentially, I'm a dork -- I can spend an entire night on that site. I click on the Random Article link, and then go from there. Last night, I covered everything from cockatiels to Harlan Ellison (no, I don't remember how I got from one to the other). If I find a topic that interests me beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article, I look for more information in other sources.

In short, a resounding yes to what you've written.

I totally agree with your perspective on Wikipedia. It's a great resource for satisfying casual curosity.

By the way, I've always enjoyed your work, since I was introduced to it back in 1999.

I think that you ARE at fault for not fixing something, *if you come across it*. If your immediate reaction to finding a mistake is to leave it there and publicize it, that's akin to somebody whose first approach to a dispute is to send a lawyer instead of a polite letter. You're clearly not *as much* at fault as the person who contributed the original information, and this doesn't prevent you from both fixing it and publicizing the mistake.

But this only applies if you're sitting at the page and see something you know is wrong, and it'll only take you a minute to fix it. If you just hear somewhere that a wiki page might be wrong, obviously you're under no obligation to go and track it down.

I agree with nearly everything you say about Wikipedia, and I also got the humor.

I absolutely do not trust Wikipedia to give "unbiased" information on any subject or person that is remotely political. I do, however, trust it to give me a massive amount of information on any subject of which I am ignorant, while providing a bunch of web links that can send me to at least look at the varying perspectives.

As an example of what I learned from Wikipedia, I was recently looking at my teenage stepdaughter's blog and found that she considers herself "emo." I know the term well enough to understand that it had nothing to do with Emo Philips (although she is also a fan of his), but I had no idea how to define it for my wife. So I went to Wikipedia. I got a concise definition and several links dedicated to explaining what "emo" means.

The wikipedia article also mentioned that being fashionably emo sometimes involves "labret piercings." I said "What the hell is a labret?" Fortunately or unfortunately, all I had to do was click the link to find that out too.

I liked both articles, though the humour article was funnier. So, well done there.

I, too, agree with most all of your points. Wikipedia is a fabulous place for general trivia, but on the message board I moderate I regularly mock those who back up their opinions by posting links to Wikipedia articles.

Lore,

Good humor article, but I think its a shame that you feel the need to defend yourself.

I will grant that Wikipedia is not the best source for scholarly work; however, I believe that the university crowd take it too far sometimes, turning their snoot up at it as whole. Wikipedia ruins their monopoly on knowledge, and they don't like that.

I was embroiled in a wikipedia fight over a nationally syndicated radio show, and have had some intense arguments over it. It's pretty much settled, but I do monoitor the pages, to make sure.

Love your work. I wish you'd put out more comendy. I miss Bruching.

Huh, I didn't really think of this as defending myself. I mean, I assume that most people who read this blog realize that it's a joke and know not to take my humor essays too seriously. If I really felt I had to defend myself I'd do it over at Wired.

No, I think of this more as an illustration that I thought people who read my stuff might find interesting, kind of a behind the scenes look. "Here's the funny version, and here's the serious version." The phone book analogy was actually something I've been meaning to post for some time, long before I wrote the Wikipedia FAQK.

Anyhow, thanks. I wish I'd put out more comedy, too. Working on it.

I've used wikipedia for a long time, and edited it in minor ways (e.g. grammar) for most of that time, although I've only had a named account for about a year.

Recently, I've started making slightly more substantial contributions (significantly rewriting small sections), and I've almost immediately burned out, because I discovered a pattern very quickly: it's very easy to add quality information to an article, and it's incredibly hard to remove dumb shit from an article. Your 'expert' example hits exactly this case, but I wanted to point out there may be no difference between expert editing and moron editing, but there is an asymmetry: removing info is hard, adding info is easy. This is obviously explainable in hindsight, but it wasn't something I'd ever realized in using it until I actually tried to remove things myself. (Page deletion is actually easier, since it comes up for vote and people pay attention.)

So, is the other ten percent notable things on the Internet? I know webcomics have had a hard time with Wikipedia.

Loved both articles. A friend of mine tried to post an article about my webcomic to Wikipedia only to be struck down with a "non-notable," which perhaps it is (wasn't my idea, but I still think it was sweet of him). We both bought into the idea that Wikipedia truly was an encyclopedia that could be edited by anyone, but obviously we were wrong. It felt like getting shot down by the guy who'll do it with anyone (but not you). Still, Wikipedia does have an entry for Ass-to-Mouth, which should sum it all up.
Thanks for writing.

Next article: Myspace -- not the level playing field the media bills it as? ("Oh, look! A giant ad for Taking Back Sunday!!!")

That could be trite.

Last I checked, there's nothing on the site saying "Wikipedia: The Online Encyclopedia You're Obliged to Edit."

I don't know if this is a joke any longer. It seems increasingly common for politicians or their staff to actively "edit" their entries. In that line of work, at least, it may be seen as a necessity.

Example

Sorry for your time.... Why i can't see images on this resource?
My Browser is: Opera.
Thank you.