An introduction to Wikipedia

From WikiSynergy

Wikipedia is possessed of many problems, but in general they are overshadowed by its positive aspects.  Wikipedia has done the impossible, which is to create a largely reliable encyclopedia from the work mainly of amateurs volunteering their time.  Its core articles, while they may contain errors, give good general introductions to the subjects, and they are excellent places to start to research any topic, because they assemble lists of sources.

It breaks down when editors with extremist views are not balanced by non-extremist editors (or by editors who hold the opposite view). In such a case, Wikipedia becomes a soap box where Truth is advocated and Wrong Views are disparaged (with varying degrees of subtlety: in such cases the semblance of NPOV can become a mechanism for making things sound more authoritative and real than they are).

Compare these quotes from longtime skeptical editors of controversial articles to Wikipedia's formulation of the Neutral Point of View:

It would be hard to find a problem with Wikipedia's concept of the Neutral Point of View, under which the prominence of a view in reliable sources is simply reflected in the articles. Even if it's not completely possible in practice, if you manage to get close you will have produced a fairly good summary of human understanding in the present time. It is only when Wikipedia disobeys its own rules that problems arise. Here is a partial list of relevant rules:

1. Use only reliable sources (relative to the subject), with preference to sources like books by experts and peer-reviewed journals.
2. Maintain neutrality of tone.
3. Maintain neutrality of content: views are given article prominence in direct proportion to the prominence they get in reliable sources.
4. Be civil and seek consensus.

However Wikipedia does (and perhaps must) disobey its own rules, because these rules conflict with human nature. If there are only a few Wikipedia editors who disagree very strongly about whether the subject is (for example) real or unreal, they will get in a fight and the article will become biased depending on which side wins. Under Wikipedia's interpretation of NPOV as practiced different viewpoints are combined into statements which synthesize the editor's opinion of the subject, or at least the sources which the editors prefer. However, the statements are biased, because the editors cannot agree 1) what the facts actually are and 2) what is neutral in the overall context of the subject matter. The solution to this impasse is to forsake facts in favor of "facts about viewpoints" without an overlay of editorial "truth." If this is done, the reader receives a global perspective of the subject without bias. Again, Wikipedia rules actually promote this way of editing, but they are not followed. This is the reason for WikiSynergy's Global Point of View.

There are also other problems at Wikipedia, such as censorship, but the main problem is that editors cannot stick to their neutrality policy, but instead synthesize the information in their sources into biased statements of fact. The subtlety of these manipulations would boggle any outsider, and would require a book to explain. Wiki wars have been fought over the use of the word "claim" versus the word "said." This was because the word "claim" will throw doubt on a subject, whereas the word "said" will not throw such doubt.

See also Wikipedia and science

[edit] References

1. ↑ [1] Paul Lee (Fyslee on Wikipedia)
2. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal#Another_crazy_idea
3. ↑ Wikipedia:Five pillars