It really gets a bad rap on this forum. Is there reason for that, or is it just intellectual snobbery?
I really have never understood some of the criticism of Wikipedia. It has enormous advantages over traditional book encyclopedias in that all of the information contained on the site is open to questioning and dispute. Reading the talk pages is at times more informative than reading the article itself, and one can take in all sides of the debate. This is not possible with traditional encyclopedias, where whatever is printed becomes gospel and readers are at the mercy of the author's particular point of view.
There certainly are drawbacks, I suppose. Wikipedia's invitation to editors to debate controversial topics leads to some chaotic articles and constant reshuffling of content, but I'll take that over the rigid orthodoxy provided by standard encyclopedias.
For gathering factual information on history or science, it's a good place to start, but certainly not to finish.
As a former Wikipedia editor (and one planning to return temporarily), I see the main problem the fact that anybody can edit and dispute facts. While this may work great for less controversial topics, because there is less controversy to dispute, it makes improvement of more complicated topics almost impossible. Indeed, it takes a lot of dedication for an editor to lead a controversial topic through the system to improve its quality, and then if the editor decides to abandon the project after finishing what he intended to do (let's say make the article a featured article), there is the opportunity for others to slowly change the content over a period of time (there is no longer that person with a vested interest in the article to patrol what changes are beind made).
In other words, while instability can have its advantages when it comes to disputing facts that may be wrong, if has its disadvantages if its over a dispute of facts that are right.
You can see this in the economics-oriented articles, where different editors with vastly different opinions on economic theory battle over what the article should say.
I like the fact though that Wikipedia is ever-evolving. The fluid nature of it allows for a lot of discourse and almost every artilce uses sources of some type. People harp on Wiki for not using enough sources to verify their claims, but on the major articles I see them all the time. Regardless, even on the unsourced, esoteric articles you can tell the author cares enough about the topic and knows plenty of information. Usually these types of articles are not over controversial stuff.
One question though, although I favor wikipedia over regular encyclopedias, I have to ask if the process of revision is so difficult for some topics, then why don't people create their own articles on a topic from a different POV or maybe create their own wikis on the subject?
An interesting note is that Jimmy Wales (the founder of Wikipedia) is somewhat of a libertarian. He attended Auburn University (LvMI offices were once located there), and he was influenced by some of Hayek's work.
...why don't people create their own articles on a topic from a different POV
There is an entire section of Wikipedians who patrol the encyclopedia looking for content they can delete. Now, if you were to write the article on business cycle theory, there are so many theories in existance that you couldn't possibly explain them in one article. So, you would in that case have different articles on different perspectives (thus, there is a stand-alone article for Austrian business cycle theory). It all has to do with how much content that topic has potential for, and whether or not it deserves its own stand-alone article.
...maybe create their own wikis on the subject?
I think people have. The only thing is that Wikipedia has paid staff that takes care of all the coding. You can download Wiki software and install it on a server, but unless you have a large, paid team of coders to tweak it for you, you will not reach the useability of Wikipedia.
it's the perfect combination of democracy and education - at least that's why I approach it with a huge grain of salt.
the more esoteric the subject, the more safe wikipedia is. the more people's emotions get in the way of interpreting facts, causal agents, etc. the less safe wikipedia is.
most of the time people link wikipedia, they are referencing a very unsafe topic ('look, wikipedia says only oil stooges and non-real climeate scientists say global warming isn't real').
By the way, are there any active Wikipedians on this forum? I wonder if it would be worthwhile to organize some type of Austrian School wikiproject in order to mobilize active editors and alert them to Austrian School-relevant articles. For example, I am currently trying to take Richard Cantillon's wikipedia article all the way to featured article status, and without interested editors getting feedback through peer review is rather slow (the MILHIST project is probably the best on Wikipedia; I was able to get 3-4 articles per month to featured article status in my hayday, back in 2008).
I would like to emphasize the fact that everything has to be taken with a grain of salt -it doesn't matter if it is written by volutneers or not. I also would like to emphasize that contra Alexander Pope a little learning is a very great thing and that one should not be barred from information just because it is biased or misleading -in this life, it frequently happens that the only path to truth is through half-truths.
People treat wikipedia as a primary source document which is certainly isn't. I wouldn't even consider it a secondary source. The internet is already full of teenage 'know-it-alls' who don't take the time to research their claims or cross reference their sources. Admittedly, the natural science portion of wikipedia isn't so disheveled as the social science portion. However, anyone can edit the information source making it entirely useless if even an iota of objectivity is concerned. This isn't some singular Thucydides conceiving grand stories of the current events but thousands if not millions of them compared to individuals who actual know and practice disciplines within the social sciences. Now we can have a discussion on whether academic social scientists are the snobs and amateurs the espirt de corps of social discovery but I think it preposterous to think that wikipedia is of any value above the high school level of information concerning ground breaking events or information.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
It's the most comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia which has ever existed. If an article is dodgy, the talk page will tell you why at the very least, and the primary sources are all there for one to verify.
It's still an encyclopedia and nothing more. You don't cite such things as sources, except perhaps to establish a common definition.
Are there any criticisms of Wikipedia which won't apply to encyclopedia's in general? Why is it bad that it can be edited by anyone? Of course it can be wrong, but so can the encyclopedia which is controlled by a small knot of intellectuals sucking off the teat of state academic patronage.
I don't have your chops as an editor, but do a little bit now and then; the edit wars can be really frustrating in some places. Maybe I can help out a little?
And I have to agree with 'fakename', there are no unbiased sources of information. As long as one keeps that in mind, Wikipedia is extremely useful.
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
'Why is it bad that it can be edited by anyone?'
Because a great deal of individuals do not have the know-how to properly inscribe facts and information in relation to the social sciences.
I won't disagree with you there, but I also don't see how this problem does not apply to traditional encyclopedia's too.
It's not like an appeal to market forces is going to be sufficient to make them reliable in that regard. Wikipedia presents what most people believe to be true more than a traditional encyclopedia ever could, and if we presume the appeal of an encyclopedia on the market to lie chiefly with its perceived truthfulness in the public eye, then all of them will tend towards what Wikipedia is already saying under those conditions.
Of course traditional encyclopedia's never really operated on purely free market priciples. (No one ever bought those things...) They had to have rich and powerful patrons, which Wikipedia does not, and which surely distorted the truth to these patrons' advantage. The public may be dumb, but they're still the public.
'I won't disagree with you there, but I also don't see how this problem does not apply to traditional encyclopedia's too.'
Because traditional encyclopedias are written by individuals who have had schooling in the correct procedures of classifying and disseminating information. We can debate about the philosophy behind these individuals but the fact remains that they are knowledgeable concerning the discipline and many who post on wikipedia are not.
'It's not like an appeal to market forces is going to be sufficient to make them reliable in that regard. Wikipedia presents what most people believe to be true more than a traditional encyclopedia ever could, and if we presume the appeal of an encyclopedia on the market to lie chiefly with its perceived truthfulness in the public eye, then all of them will tend towards what Wikipedia is already saying under those conditions.'
And if that public is repeatedly lied to in the first place? Why assume that just because more people believe it to be true, that the intellectual value of wikipedia is increased?
'Of course traditional encyclopedia's never really operated on purely free market priciples. (No one ever bought those things...) They had to have rich and powerful patrons, which Wikipedia does not, and which surely distorted the truth to these patrons' advantage. The public may be dumb, but they're still the public'
Everyone has an agenda, I'd rather take individuals who know the discipline and lie rather then imbeciles who know nothing of it and lie. The public is not a sacred cow. In fact the whole point of revisionist historians like Rothbard, Riggenbach, Barnes and others is to disprove what the public THINKS it knows and replace it with what actually transpired and the reasons behind such events.
"We can debate about the philosophy behind these individuals but the fact remains that they are knowledgeable concerning the discipline and many who post on wikipedia are not."
And yet, they somehow managed to create one of the most reliable, and certainly the largest encyclopedia in human existence, with high quality being the rule rather than exception. The discipline of classifying and disseminating information may not be that unreachable for 'amateurs'.
"Why assume that just because more people believe it to be true, that the intellectual value of wikipedia is increased?"
If many people think it is true, then the increased value lies in documenting what the people believe is true (and hopefully may be true).
"Everyone has an agenda, I'd rather take individuals who know the discipline and lie rather then imbeciles who know nothing of it and lie. The public is not a sacred cow. In fact the whole point of revisionist historians like Rothbard, Riggenbach, Barnes and others is to disprove what the public THINKS it knows and replace it with what actually transpired and the reasons behind such events."
In that case, the very same problem will be encountered in "serious" encyclopedias and literature. People don't have to lie, when representing mainstream thought - and yes, mainstream science may be wrong. And if something wrong is in mainstream thought (or worse, people do lie to spread wrong ideas), absent Wikipedia all you get is more authoritative resources and highly qualified experts arguing for the wrong science.
So I would argue that without such a resource would be the spreading of "truth" even harder.
Finally, if somebody is misled by Wikipedia, they are as likely to be misled by other sources. There is no way to help that besides education.
'And yet, they somehow managed to create one of the most reliable, and certainly the largest encyclopedia in human existence, with high quality being the rule rather than exception. The discipline of classifying and disseminating information may not be that unreachable for 'amateurs'.'
People seem to want to proclaim that wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources and I'm left wondering why. Please explain how it is the most reliable, especially when mere children can add or retract anything and everything in an article.
'If many people think it is true, then the increased value lies in documenting what the people believe is true (and hopefully may be true).'
Ah so the world is truly flat because many people believe it to be flat.
'In that case, the very same problem will be encountered in "serious" encyclopedias and literature. People don't have to lie, when representing mainstream thought - and yes, mainstream science may be wrong. And if something wrong is in mainstream thought (or worse, people do lie to spread wrong ideas), absent Wikipedia all you get is more authoritative resources and highly qualified experts arguing for the wrong science.'
I would like to introduce to you, the Mises store http://mises.org/store/
And what is this poppycock that wikipedia does not have authoritative resources and 'experts'? Isn't that Paul Krugman debacle still raging concern whether or not he wanted to bring a bubble into the US economy. Perhaps you haven't been here long enough to hear about it but I do recall some veterans of this forum getting involved with the affair.
'So I would argue that without such a resource would be the spreading of "truth" even harder'
And what are you contending as 'truth'? It is a rather vague comment and what is even more vague to me is why you think that a website which allows for the unlimited altering of documents can somehow better portray the truth then any other resource.
"People seem to want to proclaim that wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources and I'm left wondering why. Please explain how it is the most reliable, especially when mere children can add or retract anything and everything in an article."
Careful with jumping from 'one of the most reliable' to 'most reliable'. It might be useful to read this quoting multiple studies on WP's reliability and how it is achieved - sorry for the source. :)
"Ah so the world is truly flat because many people believe it to be flat."
If that is the general opinion, but you happen to represent the novel idea that it is in fact kinda roundish, you will be able to familiarize yourself with the argument of the opposition and learn about its proponents. Quite likely, your own strange theory may find its place in there along with its arguments (though it will tend to be marked as "fringe" and treated as such). It may never find a place in a "serious" encyclopedia, since everybody knows it is nonsense, for otherwise would people fall down into the emptiness. Spreading the idea, that the world is not flat, may take longer without an open encyclopedia.
Again, nobody says that Wikipedia can "better portray the truth then any other resource" - for any given topic, there is usually a MUCH better resource. But how do you find it without a lot of research? How do you even know where to start? If the "truth", whatever it is in a given area, is part of the general consensus, you'll probably find it there. If it's not, then the mainstream resources may not help you either. If you want a quick intro into a topic, it's an extremely useful resource. If you want to really do your homework, go for it, but it can be still useful as an entry point. It's perfectly fine to distrust it or avoid using it, but one should at least know why so many people like it and even trust it. (That their trust may turn out to be wrong if they use it in ways it's not intended to is a different matter.) To each his own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She_hulk#Relationships
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Punisher#Mass_murderer.3F_or_primal_warrior