User:Olin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Olin joined Wikipedia in early 2006. Olin is not my real name, but a nickname.
Contents |
[edit] Is Wikipedia a true form of scholarship?
The free-flowing editing of Wikipedia allows not only for poor quality of writing, but poor scholarship. In many articles, there is no concern for a decent article as a whole. There is no well crafted thesis statement. The referencing is haphazard. There's not even a concern for the quality of the references. There's no indication as to whether references are peer-reviewed. There's spotlights on random components of articles, and other, more important components get diminshed. Data is random. Inconsistencies occur in the same article. A editor can push a POV by selecting information to include or disclude or references to include or disclude. Furthermore, an unsuspecting reader surfing onto the page has no idea what may be going on behind the scenes, including issues of bias and blurred accuracy--perhaps the most dangerous part of Wikipedia.
Can an open community such as this really ever lead to a quality product? Imagine the results if a building design were allowed to be open to a public contribution: the result would be an engineering and architectural disaster, because while experts abound, the semi-expert and the amateur also abound. And, as stated elsewhere in Wikipedia, the crank. The person who has no concern for the truth and validity of a text, and who doesn't critically evaluate quality of the information. Wikipedia is more a multi-user blog, a stream of broken consciousness, with a blog commentary on the talk pages -- not true scholarship. Furthermore, the edit made in good faith and with rational reason 561 edits ago becomes a blown out candle by the idiot. You can learn something in Wikipedia, but you still have to scrutinize the sources, and critically at that. It is increasingly apparent to me that to assume that any Wikipedia article is a good source of information is dangerous. And it concerns me that we direct our developing scholars, students, to believe that Wikipedia is a good source of information.
I came to Wikipedia to contribute to chemistry pages, maybe some music pages, and contribute to other places that interested me. As a social system and a system of rules, the concept fascinates me. But I do not believe it is truly scholarship.
Olin 01:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC) ed. Olin 19:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Best quote ever
"[Wikipedia is a] quantum encyclopedia where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information." [1]
[edit] Passive aggressiveness in Wikipedia
Perhaps the most interesting facet of Wikipedia is how much you can do to the encyclopedia by doing nothing at all. You look at an article, cringe, and move on. You argue with an editor who wants something in an article, and then you do nothing. Fascinating. Case in point: Do not feed the trolls is recommended.
[edit] Attribution
The poll on attribution may be the end of my participation here. A lot of eds. doing things in bad faith. Removing votes, etc. Bad. Olin 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
