Comments on: Colbert Nation, 2; Wikipedia, 0

By: All the Rage #3: Fools Rush In at Blog P.I.

All the Rage #3: Fools Rush In at Blog P.I. — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:56:03 +0000

[...] vandalism has long been a subject of interest here at Blog P.I. It’s more of a nuisance than a real problem, and it will never go away. No, [...]

By: The Colbert Nation vs. the Ron Paul Machine or: Jimbo Wales is Blog P.I.’s Alpha Dog of the Week at Blog P.I.

Mon, 28 May 2007 05:53:06 +0000

[...] Last week Stephen Colbert hosted not Ron Paul — who was on Bill Maher — but Wikipedia’s own BDFL Jimbo Wales (apologies for the ugly Comedy Central player; another prediction dashed): [...]

By: OXR

OXR — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:25:45 +0000

You have to be a loser with no life... to think vandalizing Wikipedia is a good idea.

C'mon, Bill, dudes already know about chickens.

By: Barack Obama and the User-Generated Movement at Blog P.I.

Barack Obama and the User-Generated Movement at Blog P.I. — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:58:51 +0000

[...] Related question: Is this ground-up/community-based/”wisdom of crowds” approach the best way to elect people or to govern? As Timothy points out in the comment section to Bill’s Colbert v. Wikipedia post, highly technical matters on Wikipedia are often flawed (one reason why Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is working on a rival that includes expert review). [...]

By: Timothy

Timothy — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:22:59 +0000

That should be “too” much. Gah.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:30:06 +0000

Bill: Even things that aren’t particularly controversial but are highly technical have a tendency to be badly stated. The section on Lorenz Curves, for instance, is useful but misstates what the Gini Coefficient is, you have to click through to get a decent explanation at the Gini link. The Gini link doesn’t contain reference to Peter J. Lambert’s book in the “references” section, but anybody in normative economics knows Lambert, he has literally the only book on the subject and is extensively published.

The section on general equilibrium doesn’t really talk to much about the informational assumptions needed, the statements of the first and second fundamental theorems of welfare economics are inconsistent in the entries where they’re mentioned, etc. I still that that Wikipedia’s primary usefulness is as a quick reference where detail isn’t needed, and as a list of sources (although even those can be incomplete/shoddy on some subjects). It’s an interesting experiment, and I don’t think it’s a failed one, but for anything technical you’re much better off googling up an expert or reading a book.

By: William Beutler

William Beutler — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:20:07 +0000

Tim: And I disagree with you. Wikipedia is very good on technical subjects where there is little controversy over the details. Where Wikipedia is much less consistent are sensitive political subjects resulting in edit wars, which generally adhere to Raul's Law of Wikipedia #5.

Jeanne: There is a very steep learning curve to being a Wikipedia power editor -- I've edited for several months now, and I'm still learning certain protocols as I go along. Which page is yours?

Jim: Wikiwomen?

By: Jeanne

Jeanne — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:38:11 +0000

Here's one: Once you screw up your own page, you can't correct it. Now, I'm not exactly a moron, I've been online since command lines and hyperterminal, but wikipedia makes you jump through bs hoops just ot get a correction on your own entry. they've 'disappeared' links with the "unverified" tag, yet neglect to tell you what you need to do. footnote? tag? bloodletting? who knows. Never mind attempting to contact anyone there. It's worse than cancelling your AOL account

I am about ready to say "shove it" to them and just let the page take up space on the server. Incomplete. A testimony to the nonsense that is wikipedia.

By: No Fact Zone.Net » Stephen Colbert in the Zeitgeist (January 31, 2007)

No Fact Zone.Net » Stephen Colbert in the Zeitgeist (January 31, 2007) — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:05:42 +0000

[...] Colbert Nation, 2; Wikipedia, 0 – Blog P.I. is not amused by Stephen’s Wikipedia attacks [Editor’s note: A “War on Wikipedia”?]: “If you consider yourself a fan of both Wikipedia and ‘The Colbert Report,’ a kind of cognitive dissonance is inescapable times [sic] — and Monday night was one of those times. [...]

By: Not Paul Begala

Not Paul Begala — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:15:29 +0000

Timothy,

I'm always interested in applying that analysis to campaigns -- the wisdom of crowds when it comes to mechanics of campaigns, message, etc. I think there are a lot more people who think they know how to get people elected then there actually are. Love the hydrogen peroxide link, I'll have to use that sometime. Thanks. NPB