Caroline is watching “Alvin and the Chipmunks” on cable at the moment, and I decided to check and see if the sequel I’d heard about was actually happening. I looked it up on Wikipedia and here’s the actual, honest-to-God entry:
A sequel to Alvin and the Chipmunks (introducing the Chipettes) was confirmed. It is set to be released on Christmas Day 2009 and is named Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakuel.[1] On July 28, it was confirmed that Matt Stow will return as Dave Seville and Michael Jackson, Alan Jackson, and John McCain will return as the voices of Alvin, Simon, and Theodore[5]. Details on who the Chipettes will be are unknown, but rumored to be Brad Dourif (Brittany), Anselmo Dejusus (Jeanette), and Barack Obama (Eleanor). In the sequel, Alvin, Simon, and Theodore go to school and feel like “Chipmunks Out of Water” because of all the human kids eating them.
You know what? If that was the sequel and who was in it, I’d be there on opening day.
PAD
• 
Anyone who treats Wikipedia as a source for serious research gets what is coming to them. But for casual information seekers, it’s very useful and informative. I use it all the time to learn more about random stuff that happens to pique my interest, and I’ve never come across anything that I knew to be false or inaccurate. Of course, I would have no way of knowing, since the stuff I look up is stuff I don’t know much (or anything) about. But on the other hand, I’ve never come across anything that APPEARED fraudulent, and certainly nothing along the lines of the Chipmunk example.
And to me, Brad Dourif will always be Billy Bibbit in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Alan Coil: The problem with Wicked-pedia is that too many people are willing to let that be their only source, thus I must agree with Jen J. that it is thus useless
That doesn’t make sense. Because some people misuse it, it’s useless?
Plenty of people don’t know much about home decor. That doesn’t mean housepaint is useless.
Lots of people try to use a hammer to fix things when they shouldn’t. That doesn’t mean hammers are useless.
This is a case of “don’t hate the game, hate the player.” Those people who try to use wikipedia as a primary source are messing up. That doesn’t mean Wikipedia isn’t useful for people like me who regularly look up bits of trivia and use it as a starting point for finding more information.
Rick Keating: Wikipedia has a lot of potential, but I think it has a ways to go before it could be used as a reliable primary source.
Luigi Novi: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself has said that it should not be used as a primary source, but as a starting point.
Alan Coil: The problem with Wicked-pedia is that too many people are willing to let that be their only source, thus I must agree with Jen J. that it is thus useless.
Luigi Novi: So a Featured Article that has been peer-reviewed is as useless as an unsourced stub? Why? Why no distinction between quality articles and poor ones? Why is it all-or-nothing? Why not check out the sources cited to support the material, and use those? If you do, how is it entirely useless?
I think Jerry Chandler nailed it. Promptly removing inaccurate information is like swiftly fixing the barn door after the animals get loose. Worse, in fact. You may have a chance of catching the animals in the scenario of the broken barn door. With Wikipedia, you’ve got no hope of tracking down everyone who was misinformed before someone could fix an article.
I realize that Wikipedia now has a “rating” system to give you a sense of how trustworthy an article may be, but it’s still a crapshoot. Someone can still add inaccurate information to a well-sourced and peer-reviewed article. There’s no way to sort it all out unless you go through the “talk pages” to see who added what. In the time it takes to do that, one could just as easily Google the subject and do the research oneself.
“Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself has said that it should not be used as a primary source, but as a starting point.”
Yeah, but Wikipedia should make that clear by putting a banner at the top of every article stating: “WARNING: ANYTHING YOU READ IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ HERE UNLESS YOU CAN CORROBORATE IT WITH A MORE TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE.”
(Or perhaps a big red label that says: “WARNING: LARK’S VOMIT.”)
Anyone who treats Wikipedia as a source for serious research gets what is coming to them. But for casual information seekers, it’s very useful and informative.
I agree completely with both of the above statements. As I’ve said before, I need to remind students on a regular basis not to use Wikipedia as a “real” source — but as a springboard to get quick info and find other sources, it’s terrific.
And I certainly use it myself if it’s for idle information-gathering (e.g. looking up something about a Doctor Who episode) or if it’s for something that is in my field and I’m confident that I’d spot inaccuracies.
I’ve seen the occasional bonehead goof or vandalism, but most of the major problems get fixed relatively quickly. The way to use Wiki “properly”, I think, is not to take a snapshot — look at it once and then look at the same article a few days later. Whatever’s there both times is relatively likely to be accurate.
And as for Brad Dourif … Piter de Vries, anyone?
Tim Lynch: “The way to use Wiki ‘properly,’ I think, is not to take a snapshot — look at it once and then look at the same article a few days later. Whatever’s there both times is relatively likely to be accurate.”
That’s certainly a good approach to using Wikipedia, but I suspect a lot of people don’t do it; for that matter, I suspect a lot of people don’t realize they should do it. I think Wikipedia should make it more clear that it is not a traditional encyclopedia by including a hard-to-miss disclaimer at every entry point that explains how best to use it.
Also, I’m a bit uneasy about using “relatively likely to be accurate” as a standard. Although I admit I don’t know how Wikipedia stands up against traditional encyclopedias in terms of accuracy. I believe there was an article awhile back that claimed Wikipedia held up well against one of its more traditional counterparts, but that that article was debunked due to flawed methodology. Does anyone know if there’s been a properly quantified comparison?
Jason M. Bryant: “They just don’t have the manpower to keep up with everything in real time.”
You may be right. On the other hand, I’ve seen Wikipedia “talk pages” related to controversial articles that just go around in circles, with people sniping at each other in childish ways. Wikipedia’s volunteer editors and moderators seem to spend an awful lot of time dealing with crap like that. Perhaps giving editors more authority would save time.
I realize Wikipedia wants to be more egalitarian. Unfortunately, I don’t think their model is working.
“WARNING: LARK’S VOMIT”
But what does that have to do with the crunchy frog?
Tim Lynch: “look at it once and then look at the same article a few days later. Whatever’s there both times is relatively likely to be accurate.”
Or it just hasn’t been flagged yet. Eric Bischoff used to joke about the fact that, despite having a very public bio, Wiki kept getting his date of birth wrong and that it was corrected several times only to have someone else come along and “correct” back to the erroneous DOB. The wrong listing often stayed for weeks at a time.
“They should have a whole separate site where all of the hilariously vandalized articles are saved for posterity.”
They do. It’s a section of Wikipedia called “Bad Jokes & Other Deleted Nonsense.” When last I browsed it, they had 40-something pages of such nonsense, and that was two years ago.
“It’s a dry biography full of insider words and tics looking like it’s been written by someone with Asperger’s.”
That’s because it probably has. Wikipedia’s user pages are practically an adjunct of the DSM-IV.
That’s certainly a good approach to using Wikipedia, but I suspect a lot of people don’t do it; for that matter, I suspect a lot of people don’t realize they should do it.
Oh, no argument there — but I think there are an awful lot of people out there who don’t know how to use ANY reference source. People, by and large, are not inclined to think much these days.
I think Wikipedia should make it more clear that it is not a traditional encyclopedia by including a hard-to-miss disclaimer at every entry point that explains how best to use it.
I don’t know about the disclaimer part, but a “how best to use this” addition would be a nice idea.
That said, though, is it Wikipedia’s fault if people don’t use it properly?
And Jerry — absolutely point taken about “or it just hasn’t been flagged yet.” That’s why I said “likely to be accurate” instead of something stronger.
Bill Myers: Someone can still add inaccurate information to a well-sourced and peer-reviewed article.
Luigi Novi: Most vandalism gets reverted within minutes. As for merely inaccurate information, you could just as easily find inaccurate info in Britannica. (See third quote-and-response below.) And this is aside from the other criticisms of Britannica, like its susceptibility to outdatedness, bias, lack of expertise, etc.
Bill Myers: Yeah, but Wikipedia should make that clear by putting a banner at the top of every article stating: “WARNING: ANYTHING YOU READ IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ HERE UNLESS YOU CAN CORROBORATE IT WITH A MORE TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE.”
Luigi Novi: Wales indicates the aforementioned view in the Reliability of Wikipedia article. But stating that it needs such a banner on “every article”, including Featured Articles, is overkill and irrational. It no more needs it on “every” article than Britannica does, or any other website.
Bill Myers: Also, I’m a bit uneasy about using “relatively likely to be accurate” as a standard. Although I admit I don’t know how Wikipedia stands up against traditional encyclopedias in terms of accuracy. I believe there was an article awhile back that claimed Wikipedia held up well against one of its more traditional counterparts, but that that article was debunked due to flawed methodology. Does anyone know if there’s been a properly quantified comparison?
Luigi Novi: Look in the Wikipedia’s article on Britannica under “Internet Encyclopedias”. It outlines the Nature study, Britannica’s reaction to it, and Nature‘s response, in which it rebutted Britannica‘s criticisms, and explained why it stood by the study. All three portions of the exchange are sourced to pages on Nature and Britannica‘s websites.
Does every hammer in the world need a warning label telling people not to use it as a screwdriver?
Wikipedia. You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Wikipedia. You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Wikipedia. You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Tim Lynch: “That said, though, is it Wikipedia’s fault if people don’t use it properly?”
That’s a fair question.
When I was the Research Director for a weekly business newspaper, I used to compile “Top 25” lists ranking local businesses by a particular statistic. Every year the weekly lists were reprinted in book form. The introduction to the book clearly explained that all of the information was accurate as of the date the list was originally published. Nevertheless, people would hastily skip over that introduction (which was less than one hundred words!) and then call me to complain that their company’s listing in the Book of Lists was out-of-date.
When I’d point out that the book was quite clear about the “vintage” of each list, often people would tell me, “Nobody reads those dinky little footnotes.” (Never mind the fact that the footnotes were the same font and point size as the rest of the text, and never mind the fact that the introduction to the book wasn’t a footnote.) My response? “If someone willfully blows off a stop sign, does that mean the stop sign failed?”
I believe Wikipedia, however, is different because it calls itself an encyclopedia which naturally creates certain expectations. Wikipedia doesn’t meet those expectations, though, because by design it is created using a non-traditional model. I think Wikipedia therefore has a greater burden to make clear what it is, how reliable it is, and how best to use it.
Luigi Novi: “But stating that it needs such a banner on “every article”, including Featured Articles, is overkill and irrational.”
Well, first of all, I was being a bit tongue-and-cheek. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s irrational to suggest that some sort of explanatory note should be on each and every page. After all, you can do a Google search and land on an article without having to pass by Wikipedia’s home page, unlike a hardcopy book where the front page is part of the physical package you’re holding. If the article can be edited by anyone in real time, that should be made clear to the reader at the “point of entry.”
Jason M. Bryant: “Does every hammer in the world need a warning label telling people not to use it as a screwdriver?”
If it acts differently than a traditional hammer, yes. Would you not be upset if you bought somthing that was labeled “hammer,” that looked exactly like a hammer, only to come home and realize you can’t use it quite the same way you use a traditional hammer? Wouldn’t you think, “Why wasn’t that made clear on the packaging?”
Seriously, I’m not advocating they put “WARNING: LARK’S VOMIT” on every page. But a note on every page about how Wikipedia works, its limitations, and how best to use it seems like a reasonable thing to me.
“You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”
Oh, sure you will. It’s called Washington, D.C.
With that, I must prepare for Christmas Eve with the family. I hope everyone has a happy holiday season!
Bill Myers–
Did you mean ‘tongue-in-cheek’?
Because I tried to look up tongue-and-cheek at Wicked-pedia, but couldn’t find it.
😉
And a happy holidays from this neck of the woods as well!
Alan, yes, I did mean tongue-in-cheek. Thank you.
Alan Coil: “Because I tried to look up tongue-and-cheek at Wicked-pedia, but couldn’t find it.”
Look in the cooking section. See the Southern Foods listings.
Yum.
“Look in the cooking section. See the Southern Foods listings.
Yum.”
Jerry, if you look carefully, it’s actually the “Truck Stop Cuisine” section, between deep fried salads and beef(?)jerky flambe.
Mery Christmas, Happy Chanakuh, Happy Kwanzaa, whatever your reason for the season.
Tim Lynch: That said, though, is it Wikipedia’s fault if people don’t use it properly?
Luigi Novi: To a degree, yes. It can certainly institute policies and maybe even protocols in its editing software to reduce vandalism and policy violations. The former can be greatly reduced by simply having editors use a credit card to pay 1 cent when signing up for an account. They could still use a username, and the signup form could have a check box for parents to indicate that their minor child is using it to sign up with their permission. Sock puppetry and vandalism would be a lot harder under those circumstances. This may have inhibited WP’s growth in its initial years, but now that WP is such a popular site, they can demand it. As for the latter, well, I’m no computer expert, but couldn’t bots be employed to see when new information was added without a citation? (They already use loads of bots on that site for automated tasks.) Or better yet, in addition to citing the source in the text, why not a separate field under the Edit Summary Field where you have to list the sources used? The bottom line is, there are things they could do to improve on these problems.
Jen J. Wikipedia. You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Luigi Novi: Well, gee, thanks. And Happy Holidays to you too. And thanks for rebutting my counterarguments so directly.
Bill Myers: I don’t think it’s irrational to suggest that some sort of explanatory note should be on each and every page. After all, you can do a Google search and land on an article without having to pass by Wikipedia’s home page, unlike a hardcopy book where the front page is part of the physical package you’re holding.
Luigi Novi: Do you feel Google should have such an explanatory note on every one of it’s pages? Something like, “Warning: If any of the search results below link to Wikipedia pages, be advised that some newbies and vandals do not follow Wikipedia’s policies on Verifiability, Reliable Sources, Neutrality and Civility, unlike the rest of the Internet which is a lot more reliable.”?
For that matter, should all pages on the Net have such pages?
And since you mentioned hardcopy books, what’s your view on Dan Brown’s insistence in the beginning of The Da Vinci Code that all of the artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals are accurate? Something like, “Warning: That note on the preceding page that Dan Brown put about all that stuff being accurate? Well, Dan Brown is full of crap.” For that matter, what about every book with a political point of view? Something like, “Warning: The views presented in this book just might be the result of bias on the part of the author.” And what about newspapers and magazines? “Warning: We can’t absolutely guarantee that the author of this article is not another Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass.”
And, echoing Jason, how about a warning label on every knife saying, “Hey, don’t take this and STICK IT IN YOUR EYE, cuz that’ll really hurt!” 🙂
Bill Myers: Seriously, I’m not advocating they put “WARNING: LARK’S VOMIT” on every page. But a note on every page about how Wikipedia works, its limitations, and how best to use it seems like a reasonable thing to me.
Luigi Novi: A note explaining how the site works on every single page??? How long would such a note be? And for that matter, what would be the point? Who goes to Wikipedia not knowing that it’s an open content, easily editable encyclopedia? Many sites have a link to an “About” page on them, and so too, does Wikipedia, along with a bunch of other links in the lefthand column (in the English version, that is). Why is this not sufficient?
Happy Holidays. 🙂
Luigi,
I think plenty of people are unfamiliar with Wikipedia’s “open content” model. Most of us were taught in school how to use a traditional encyclopedia, but to the best of my knowledge schools aren’t teaching how to use “open content” to the same extent (if at all). Therefore I think it would be logical to include a blurb at the top of every Wikipedia entry that reads: “Wikipedia is an open content encylopedia that can be edited by its readers. This article may contain content that has not yet been vetted for accuracy, and readers are encouraged to supplement this article with additional research.”
Should all pages on the ‘Net have a similar label? Should hammers have a label warning against their misuse? Of course not. All pages on the ‘Net are not Wikipedia. Hammers are not Wikipedia. Think of it this way: cigarette manufacturers are required to include a Surgeon General’s warning on their packages. Yet we don’t see similar labels on bottles of water, even though water can be toxic if you drink enough of it. Why is that? It’s because people can, and often do, make logical distinctions. The answer, then, to the question of why shouldn’t we put labels on hammers if we’re going to put a label on Wikipedia is: hammers are not the same as Wikipedia. The comparison is invalid.
Finally, I understand that more traditional publications are also prone to errors and bias. Nevertheless, there is a difference between content that has been reviewed for accuracy versus that which has not. I know who wrote The DaVinci code, and I have read enough of the New York Times to have a sense of their editorial focus. I can judge their content accordingly. I can’t do that with Wikipedia, because anyone anywhere can contribute.
I tend to doubt we’re going to agree on this. I’ll simply conclude by saying these are my best thoughts on the subject, expressed to the best of my ability. I think I’ll leave it at that.
I think Wikipedia is completely fair and accurate. For instance, your entry is completely dead-on and informative. Without it, I’d have never known that you wrote for Penthouse Comix.
“Look in the cooking section. See the Southern Foods listings.
Yum.”
Jerry Chandler, please don’t ever invite me over to eat. Yuck!
Assuming you’re referring to Peter David’s article, Deuce, I will only say that much of its content (including the photo) was added by myself, that all the content I added is supported by verifiable sources, that as part of my continuing editing of it, it’s on my Watchlist, on which it appears any time an edit is made to it. It’s a solid article.
Alan, how’s next Friday work for you?
Jerry, are you related to that guy that lived across the hall from Jerry Seinfeld?
Jen J. Wikipedia. You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Luigi Novi: Well, gee, thanks. And Happy Holidays to you too. And thanks for rebutting my counterarguments so directly.
Relax, Luigi. 🙂
Wikipedia certainly has it’s problems. And when it comes to ‘scum and villainy’, it can certainly be found. Just a couple of weeks ago, a sports talk radio show I listened to mentioned a Wikipedia article, and how it had been ‘vandalized’ in a small way with something funny.
What happened after they mentioned it? Several dozen listeners thought it would be fun to ‘vandalize’ the page further with more funny stuff, hoping to have their changes mentioned on the radio.
It’s amusing, but it’s a problem. And having reviewed the list of changes, one of the people who had to go back and fix the page several dozen times was pretty pìššëd øff, not only at those changing the page, but at the radio show as well. It didn’t matter that the radio show never encouraged people to screw with the page.
Can’t help it, Alan, I’m from the South. I grew up around people who were from less well to do families and they used every part of an animal that they could. I learned lots of actually very good beef tongue recipes. Braised beef cheeks are also pretty good.
Throw in the fact that my parents spent a lot of time over in Asia and I grew up with a lot of recipes like those that most folks find strange.
I may be the only person in this forum who actually has eaten a meal at the Chandlers’ home. To the best of my knowledge, we ate steak. In any event, the meal and the company were enjoyable.
Well duh! It’s not like I make the stuff all the time. What’s the point of feeding someone something they’ll just get sick looking at it.
Besides, we did take you to the nice place that uses cow’s stomach as part of some of the soups.
Actually, I had heard that tongue was a good eat. The tongue is actually very similar to the liver. I love liver.
One of the other crazies said:If they were handing out “most cynical poster at PAD’s blog,” I’m not sure he’d even make the list of nominees.
As long as Peter replies to quips from the peanut gallery anyway. :0)