User:CryptoDerk/Fasoldt

I read Al Fasoldt's article about Wikipedia, which is available at http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/mac082504.html

We conversed via email. In my first email to him, I focused on one theme of his article, about the "correctness" of any large body of work. My first email to him is as follows:

I read your article about Wikipedia. You identify one of the issues that people may have about Wikipedia. The fact is that very rarely is a large body of work certain. Everything from newspapers to dictionaries to encyclopedias have errors in them. I'm a doctoral student in engineering and I have found errors in published papers that undergo peer review by panels of experts (not that this is special, but a signifcant percentage of published papers are based on correction of previously published works).

I'm not saying that Wikipedia is more or less accurate than anything else out there. Whether or not it is is unanswerable. I can tell you, however, as a user of Wikipedia, that Wikipedia allows corrections to be made and content to be added far easier than any other method. Hundreds of editors watch real time streams of edits to articles to correct any vandalism to articles, as well as do research to verify the validity of articles.

What people use as a source depends on the situation. For the average high school student (or below), I would consider Wikipedia as fine a source as there is, if online sources are accepted at their school/in their class. It has generally been frowned upon for college students to use online sources, however that trend is even beginning to change.

In general, anyone reading a source should scrutinize it. If you read something in a printed encyclopedia that you strongly believe is wrong, does that mean you blindly accept it? Of course not. This should hold true for all people and all works of knowledge.

Yes, Wikipedia doesn't guarantee validity, but it's not a collection of incorrect articles. Aside from quotes from Wikipedia that are standard disclaimer notices, you don't point out any instances where current articles on Wikipedia are incorrect -- if you looked, I would be surprised if you found even a handful.

Perhaps the reason why you got flames is because of one of your closing lines: "I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia". I say that in writing your article you just showed that you still know little about Wikipedia. That's not meant as an insult, but as an invitation.

He emailed me back this:

Thanks for the note. I hope you actually read what I wrote instead of reading what a moron posted about what I wrote, Derk.

I don't know much about Rwandan rape, Derk. Must be I can't oppose it, right? I don't know much about counterfeiting. Must be it's OK, right?

C'mon. Honesty seems to be the last thing you care about. I was honest. I knew little about this. I know a lot about it now, and I'm even more appalled.

Accountability is the most important thing here, and it's the least valued in the way Wikipedia is run. Accountability means knowing who contributed, why they contributed, and what their qualifications are, at every step of the writing and editing process. Anything else is just vaporous reportage.

I replied to him, as such:

I haven't read anything about what you wrote, only what you wrote.

Wikipedia doesn't try to hide the fact that anyone can edit it or that it doesn't guarantee validity. Your article seems to boil down to 1) people don't read the disclaimer and 2) people should always read the disclaimer. Fair enough.

I'm not saying there's a positive side to rape or counterfeiting, but there is a positive side to Wikipedia, even if you decide not to use it as a source.

I would hope that an acknowledgment of the benefits of Wikipedia from an end user perspective, even if just as an informal source to learn about something, as well as the technological benefits (advances in Human-computer Interaction, development of software, etc.) would have silenced your critics. It would have silenced me.

And he replied back:

But that's assuming that somehow, because I happen to be a writer with a wide audience, I should make you happy and say something nice about your hobby horse. My job isn't designed to make you happy. Or to make you sad. It's to be straight about things. And I'm doing that well enough without needing hints from people who think accountable systems are those that allow someone with no credentials to create encyclopedia entries. Sorry, I don't buy it, and I don't agree that a system that works like that. Knowledge is not something we are born with, and therefore it's not something everyone owns or shares equally. Expert systems are accountable only if every person involved is accountable. Disagree all you want, but don't expect me to give up what to many is a sacred belief in the accountability of systems of learning.

So, the facts are as follows:

• Al Fasoldt thought Wikipedia was something it wasn't. He did not read the disclaimer that is linked to on every page.
• Al Fasoldt strongly implies that Wikipedia claims to be an authoritative source -- it doesn't.
• Al Fasoldt compares the idea behind Wikipedia to that of rape and counterfeiting.
• Al Fasoldt insults me by claiming I do not care about honesty.
• Al Fasoldt writes an article about Wikipedia with a wholly negative slant, gets enough angry replies that he is compelled to make an addition to his story, then gets irate when someone explains to him why people are angry.

My feelings are evident in the emails that I wrote to him. His summary that people should check their sources is fine. The disclaimer quotes from Wikipedia are fine. His bashing of Wikipedia because of his own idiocy (in not having read the disclaimer previously and claiming that Wikipedia said it was an authority) is not fine.

How Wikipedia compares to encyclopedias and other large works of knowledge is constantly changing. Those involved with Wikipedia know just how active the editorial process works. The system of checks and balances has worked so far, but yes, it's true that a small bit of vandalism and incorrect information goes unnoticed at times. As stated in my emails to him, however, this happens with any such collection.

If you actually read all this, feel free to let me know what you think of it all, whether or not you agree or disagree with me.