User:Ta bu shi da yu/Correspondence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I regularly check the news for references to Wikipedia. In the course of reading a great deal of news articles about this site, I have noticed a fair degree of uncertainty about the role of Wikipedia within the media. Consequently, when I have the chance, I have written letters to the editors and have made comments on forums. The following is a record of my correspondence.

July 11th, 2007[edit]

Synopsis[edit]

Comments from Dr. David Hill from World Innovation Foundation Charity in Bern, Switzerland. Seems to have been mass posted to:

The letter is as follows:

Up to 6 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is even documented by themselves.

We even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is totally at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.

For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, It is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball away and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.

Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland

Response[edit]

I notice that Dr. Hill has spammed over 20 blogs with this comment, but I figured that I should respond anyway. :)
For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case. While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity, Wikipedia's neutrality and impartiality is very important.
I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted was because we didn't believe that the organisation was notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This was done through articles for deletion - I will let the reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a deletion review process.
Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest. Though it isn't prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.
Personally, I don't believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with organisations and individuals.
Chris Sherlock
User:Ta bu shi da yu
English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)

February 15th, 2007[edit]

Ramblings about SEO (blog)[edit]

Eric Enge (February 12th, 2007). "Why Wikipedia links are still valuable", Ramblings about SEO (blog)

Synopsis[edit]

Mr Enge writes that even though nofollow attributes on links have been added to Wikipedia, links on articles are useful because others will link to the article, and in turn people will click on the link to your site. Sort of misses the point of external links on Wikipedia, don't you think?

Response[edit]

I would suggest caution when adding links to Wikipedia articles. If the link has relevance to the article and is a significant website (e.g. http://www.microsoft.com on the Microsoft article) then it will be removed. If it is persisently added, the site could fairly quickly find itself on Wikipedia’s black list.

Volante Online[edit]

Christopher Vondracek (February 14th, 2007). "Research leads to Meckling discovery". Volante Online

Synopsis[edit]

Mr Vondracek did some research online, then it occured to him that Wikipedia has a lot of articles. He evidently considers Meckling insignificant and the article to be "thorough" (?!?), but then uses it to make the point that Wikipedia deals with too many insignificant things. He made one good point about the article not being NPOV:

At the end of the entry on Meckling, which gives a nice little write up about the community being called "The Hay Capital Of The Universe," (a direct poke at its neighbor to the west Gayville, which is well-known throughout the Missouri Valley as being the much more provable "Hay Capital of The World")

He ends with a comment about Archimedes Plutonium:

Either Wikipedia is completely the sham that some professors say it is, or Archimedes is bored out of his self-proclaimed very powerful brain

Yes, I realise it's a humor piece, but at the same time I hear these arguments made seriously all the time, so perhaps the humour is a little lost on me.

Response[edit]

I find Chris's comments about Meckling interesting. I agree that it's not really NPOV, so I have added a tag to the article. However in relation to his comments on Archimedes Plutonium, I think the problem here is a little too much snobbery. Wikipedia has already put the article up for deletion, and found that in Usenet circles he's pretty notable.
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archimedes_Plutonium (sorry, I can't add links to this). (the posting system didn't allow for fuck wikipedia HTML)

February 7th, 2007[edit]

Tony Hughes (February 7th, 2007). "Is Wikipedia Valid?", Geek Zone.

Synopsis[edit]

A bit of a ramble, but worthy of responding to anyway. Points made: Kiwi Foo Camp being deleted, why should we care what is in Wikipedia (later comment "It was being touted as spam"). Who creates Wikipedia articles? "its the community as a whole really, with administrators that are capable of making some snap decisions." What content can be added? "Cant anyone just post anything? It could be wrong, and be left up. It could be correct, but offend an administrator, and be deleted." Wikipedia, however, with other sources is better than traditional media. Therefore don't put blind faith in info from only one source, look at multiple sources.

Response[edit]

Comment by Ta bu shi da yu, on 7-FEB-2007 19:16
Tony raises some interesting points, and yes, I was crazy enough to get to the end of the article. However I would like to correct the record on a number of statements made.
Firstly, Tony says that "It could be correct, but offend an administrator, and be deleted." That's not true, any admin who deletes an article because it offends them might find them desysopped (if it is a habit), or at least severly chastised. Adminship on Wikipedia shouldn't be a big deal.
As for the comment "and it was being touted as spam... yet i used wikipedia today getting some info on VMWare and MS Virtual Server, both of which have sizable articles dedicated to their products....", well, these are both incredibly notable products. And I would like to point out that ONE editor called it spam! One editor != the entire Wikipedia community.
The most interesting point made by Tony, which has been repeated by many on Wikipedia (including the founder, Jimbo Wales), is the fact that Wikipedia should not the sole source of information for anything serious, and should be checked against its references. We don't dispute this, and in fact we actively encourage such a stance!

February 5th, 2007[edit]

New York Blade[edit]

Kevin Knaff (February 2nd, 2007). "Editing Anderson Cooper's sexuality", New York Blade (blog).

Synopsis[edit]

Kevin Knaff argues that Wikipedia should have more information on Anderson Cooper's sexual identity. He argues that we should be publishing speculation. I'm not kidding! It seems we just can't win, either we publish or include speculation and rumour and get slammed, or we don't allow this sort of thing... and we are still damned by the press.

This is some of what Mr Knaff writes:

The reality is that without speculation, we wouldn’t know about the sexual orientation of a great many notable people. But times have changed and laws have changed. No one is going to charge Anderson Cooper with sodomy if he comes out. And the point of my original editorial wasn’t so much to “out” anyone, it was to highlight how ridiculous and insulting it is for rich, famous, successful people to refuse to answer “the question.” No straight person denies being straight.
And if Cooper and other wealthy, wildly successful people who have nothing to lose by coming out, can’t be honest, then how can we expect the construction worker in Iowa or the school teacher in Alabama to come out? It’s cowardly and impedes the gay rights movement.
Getting back to Wikipedia and its overzealous “editors,” it’s important to point out that anyone can edit an entry on the site. “On Wikipedia, and its sister projects, you are welcome to be bold and edit articles yourself, contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way. So, go ahead!”

I swear, you just can't make this stuff up. Anyway, on the talk page I had to write the following:

A reminder about WP:BLP
Look, The New York Blade [1] may enjoy peddling rumour and speculation, but I need to remind all editors that we have a very specific, set-in-stone policy about this sort of thing. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material for more information. We are building an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. Unless you have hard evidence of a particular sexual position of an individual, it's best to either mention it very briefly, or not at all if it can't be done tastefully. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Response[edit]

To: knaff at washblade.com
From: ta.bu.shi.da.yu at gmail.com
Subject: Wikipedia and Anderson Cooper
You wrote the following in your blog:
"The reality is that without speculation, we wouldn’t know about the sexual orientation of a great many notable people. But times have changed and laws have changed. No one is going to charge Anderson Cooper with sodomy if he comes out. And the point of my original editorial wasn’t so much to “out” anyone, it was to highlight how ridiculous and insulting it is for rich, famous, successful people to refuse to answer “the question.” No straight person denies being straight."
That's fine for the New York Blade, but I'm afraid that on Wikipedia that just won't fly. Wikipedia is attempting to be an encyclopedia, and has a policy of only dealing with verifiable and reliable information (please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Ironically, we have gotten quite a bit of flack from the media for the exact opposite, so I find it interesting that a member of the media going against the pack and asking us to add speculation to the Anderson Cooper article!
If you would like more information about our policy on living people, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Kind regards,
Chris Sherlock
Wikipedia administrator (writing from a personal capacity)

Inside Higher Ed[edit]

Scott Jaschik (January 26th, 2007). "A Stand Against Wikipedia", Inside Higher Ed.

Synopsis[edit]

Despite the misleading title, the article is about Middlebury College, who have made it a policy in the history department to ban Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source for academic papers. Misleading because they aren't taking a stand against Wikipedia, but are warning that it's not to be used a secondary or primary source! Which is what we have said all along... sheesh. Anyway, the article was fairly balanced, so I guess it must be some sub-editor who want to make a sensational headline and get high up the Google News rank. However, the responses were very interesting, and overall quite balanced. A few just had to be responded to, however.

One editor, Elwood, wrote:

I’m glad that Prof. Von Grunt Truck shows students just how untrustworthy he is. Those of you who are claiming he is doing something wrong must not understand what a horrible source of disease his member is.
When I teach research methods courses I teach students that people being interviewed will often lie when asked certain questions. I demonstrate this in class and I encourage them to never rely on survey data for any information that can be gathered by other means.
And by the way, if you can’t find Prof. von Grunt Truck in wikipedia...just wait a few days or weeks and check wikipedia, I am sure you will fine a very scholarly and authoritative entry on his life, times and accomplishments.

Elwood, I suppose you realise that vandalising Wikipedia is on the same level as vandalising train stations? After all, it's important to register your disgust of the terrible state of the nation's transport system by getting out a spray-can and showing everyone just How Bad It Can Get. I wish you well in your endeavours, however, as Wikipedia has a better track record than most when it comes to reverting such stupidity.

The other, Prolific Encyclopedist, wrote:

Having written for, at current count, 8 print encyclopedias including the Britannica, I know precisely what editors are looking for and explicitly aiming for the anus and editing towards: with the exception of the Britannica a high school audience! Nothing more! With the exception of the Britannica, complex subjects are limited in length based on a naive editorial guesstimate of “popularity” (how many “might want” to read it – an unknowable, changing with tomorrow’s headlines!). Moreover, and again unlike the Britannica in my experience, the usual LIMIT is 1 book (rarely 2) per 500 words. Yes, wikipedia is not quite as limited, but in areas of my expertise it is the worst of the bunch, and don’t tell me I should then write for it. I am not about to craft something accurate and significant, and then leave it open for any yahoo (old meaning of a person, not the web company which pirated that name), to revise according to their ignorance or prejudices (let alone what we might call wikipedia’s “700 Club”). Money is not the issue, nor is having my name on it; intellectual integrity is. I rarely end up making a dollar an hour for my efforts, let alone, say, five cents a word.
Print encyclopedias are OK for grade school reports, except that they train children to rely upon them later. The Britannica is OK for high school with the same limitation. Encyclopedias are NOT appropriate for college except perhaps as a quick-start for researching real sources.

Response[edit]

Elwood, I suppose you realise that vandalising Wikipedia is on the same level as vandalising train stations? After all, it's important to register your disgust on the terrible state of the nation's transport system by getting out a spray-can and showing everyone just How Bad It Can Get. I wish you well in your endeavours, however, as Wikipedia has a better track record than most when it comes to reverting such stupidity.
To Prolific Encyclopedist: you wrote, "the usual LIMIT is 1 book (rarely 2) per 500 words. Yes, wikipedia is not quite as limited, but in areas of my expertise it is the worst of the bunch, and don’t tell me I should then write for it." I'm sort of interested what articles you were reading... many of the better articles have more citations to more than 3 references, and on top of that Wikipedia has a very useful CITATION system! I don't remember seeing footnotes in Encyclopedia Britannica...
However, you are spot on when you say: "Print encyclopedias are OK for grade school reports, except that they train children to rely upon them later. The Britannica is OK for high school with the same limitation. Encyclopedias are NOT appropriate for college except perhaps as a quick-start for researching real sources." Noone is arguing this, and in fact most Wikipedia administrators and editors would agree with you. Wikipedia should NOT be a primary or even secondary source, but a "first port of call". All information should be chased down to one or more sources. As a general overview of a topic, it really can't be beat!

Geek Zone[edit]

Mauricio Freitas (February 5th, 2007). "Wikipedia: when know nothing people have power (Foo Camp)", Geek Zone.

Synopsis[edit]

The article Kiwi Foo Camp was created. It seems to be a spin off of Foo Camp. It appears that the organisers urged the attendees to create the article, however someone put it up for speedy deletion. On the talk page it got a bit heated, with some editors accusing the author of spamming, and the author getting a might upset about this. I have since put it on AFD and suggested that everyone calm down. My suggestion, incidently, is to merge it with Foo Camp.

Response[edit]

While I understand that this is not spam, I also don't feel that the event was notable enough for it's own entry on Wikipedia. It would most appropriate, in my opinion, if it was merged in with Foo Camp. I have stopped the speedy deletion and submitted it to Articles for Deletion (AFD), with the suggestion that it be merged.
For anyone who wishes to add their comments to the debate, please be aware that if you don't give a good justification or argument why it should be kept/deleted, then your comment will be discounted by admins. AFD is not a vote, you must justify why it should be kept. Please also to bear in mind that you it's best to keep your language civil and don't get too heated, else you won't get too far.
I should also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not necessarily wish to have an article on everything. Your article may be found notable, but one of the arguments on the talk page should not be used - the argument that the Foo Camp article was how people found out about Kiwi Foo Camp. Wikipedia doesn't promote (or in fact denigrate) any event or organisation. It is against our neutral point of view policy to do either of these things.
I should also point out that though we are a wiki, that is our mechanism, not our core goal. It's a common misconception that Wikipedia articles are articles that everyone can write in any way they want. We are not a democracy, rather we are an encyclopedia that just so happens to work by consensus. However, consensus doesn't trump neutrality, factuality, verifiability or civility.
Regards,
Ta bu shi da yu
Wikipedia administrator

February 2nd, 2007[edit]

The Chronicle of Higher Education. A History Department Limits Use of Wikipedia (February 1st, 2007).

Synopsis[edit]

The Chronicle reports that Don J. Wyatt, the chairman of Middlebury College’s history department, has made every professor in his department "put disclaimers on their syllabi warning students that, while Wikipedia is fine for some background research, it is not to be used as a primary source". He's not anti-Wikipedia, just doesn't think that the quality can be maintained.

Response[edit]

I am an administrator on the Wikipedia project, though I'm writing this in a personal capacity.
I'm writing in to say that I encourage this move. Wikipedia itself recommends that it should be the first point of call for information, not the last!
All those students who use it for papers, please be aware that it has NEVER been a good idea to cite an encyclopedia for most academic papers.
Ta bu shi da yu Feb 2, 03:02 AM

February 1st, 2007[edit]

Rick Jelliffe (January 22, 2007 10:13AM). "An interesting offer: get paid to contribute to Wikipedia", Oreillynet. Accessed February 1st, 2007.

Synopsis[edit]

Rick was offered to correct Wikipedia articles to do with standards by Microsoft. This caused quite a stir and the media took not a little interest. I put a response to the article to show my take on the furor.

Response[edit]

I for one have no problem with Rick editing articles for Microsoft, so long as they are neutral and factual. If they are not, then the edits will get changed anyway. But I doubt Rick will do this.
Incidently, I'm no fan of Microsoft, yet I wrote most of the Windows 2000 and MDAC articles. Both are featured. What does this say about me?
Ta bu shi da yu | January 31, 2007 11:42 PM

January 16th, 2007[edit]

Stay in Touch (January 16, 2007), "Scandals, but it's true, surely". Sydney Morning Herald.

Synopsis[edit]

The Stay In Touch team, part of the Sydney Morning Herald, decided that it would be a good idea to vandalise the article Newspaper by adding the following:

"Decades have passed, so much so that now a page called Stay In Touch in The Sydney Morning Herald has firmly established itself as the world's best column..."

Response[edit]

I'm afraid I wrote my response in Venice, Italy in an Internet Cafe, so I didn't capture it, but it went something like this:

I think it's disgusting that the SMH vandalised Wikipedia. Would the same journalists (using the term loosely) vandalise a train station then write about it to test how quickly the government cleans it up?

Interestingly enough, there is a clear bias against this feedback, as they filter all comments. Though my comment was not abusive, they decided not to publish it, however they were more than happy to publish a link to Wikitruth, a site that is quite happy republishing libelous content. All I can say is: so much for journalistic integrity and courage! Evidently they don't have the courage of their convictions and can't stand criticism. Way to go, Sydney Morning Herald! I was not aware that they had gotten worse than the dreaded Telegraph... I take it back, they did publish my comment and more than a few that also said the same thing. However, they took their time about. The response that they don't like being vandalised as they have a response code mechanism on their blog comments system, so why do they vandalise Wikipedia, is spot on the money.

Follow-up: An anonymous poster posted the following:

LOL at Wikipedians outraged that other people are beginning to catch on to the fundamental flaws of their masturbatory playpen. How's that fundraiser going, by the way? You raise $1.5M yet? Wait, wasn't it only going to last three weeks? Well, hang in there. There's a sucker born every minute willing to donate to Jimbo's vacation slushfund.
Posted by: Non-Latin Username at January 17, 2007 1:50 PM

My response (hopefully to be published):

I think that Non-Latin rather misses the point. Wikipedians aren't in particular upset about vandalism from random sources, they are more upset that respectable institutions (like the SMH) are willing to be vandals! Surely the press is held to a higher standard because they record events in an objective manner. While Stay-in-Touch is more editorial than factual reporting, surely journalistic ethics would prevent a news organisation from causing deliberate damage or frustration to a particular individual organisation or entity? However, like I say, Wikipedians don't care about vandalism, as they are more than capable of dealing with it. We DO care who does the vandalism, if they hold themselves to the highest standards.

September 23, 2006[edit]

James C. Harrington (September 8th, 2006). "The Growing De-Constitutionalized Zone". The Texas Observer.

Synopsis[edit]

This is not strictly correspondence about Wikipedia, per se. However, I have done so much research into the Patriot Act that I just couldn't let this one slide. Jim Harrington, the director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, stated the following:

Some matters, like military tribunals and the detention centers at Guantánamo Bay, are of immense constitutional dimension. Many issues–warrantless searches, wiretapping, and discrimination against Arabs and Muslims, for example–involve people in their day-to-day lives, including many Texans.

and

It’s virtually impossible to know whether someone has been subject to a warrantless “sneak and peak” search, because under the Patriot Act the government has no obligation to reveal its activity until it deems it appropriate.

Why is this a problem? Because nowhere in any part of any U.S. legislation does it allow for warrantless searches. "Sneak and peek" searches refer to the delayed notification of search warrants, which is defined in section 213 of the Patriot Act. The government agency that undertakes the searches must still get a search warrant from a court of law.

Response[edit]

From: Chris Sherlock
Date: Sep 23, 2006 1:51 AM
Subject: Small but significant error in your article "The Growing De-Constitutionalized Zone"
To: editors@texasobserver.org

An otherwise excellent article by James C. Harrington ("The Growing De-Constitutionalized Zone", September 08, 2006) was marred by the following sentence:

"It's virtually impossible to know whether someone has been subject to a warrantless "sneak and peak" search."

If James was referring to the USA PATRIOT Act, then he is regrettably sadly mistaken. "Sneak and peak" provisions are part of title II of the Act, but are by no means warrantless. Under section 213, the U.S. government may legally search and seize property that constitutes evidence of a United States criminal offense without immediately telling the owner. However, they must still gain a search warrant, even though they are delaying search warrant notification.

Interestingly, this has almost always been the case in criminal investigations. These provisions were laid out in 1968 under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act - information on delayed notifications can be found in 18 U.S.C. § 2705. In fact, the problem with section 213 of the Patriot Act was not that delayed notifications were allowed, the problem was that the legislation did not provide any limits as to when the target would eventually be notified they were under surveillance. This was acknowledged by Congress as an issue, and section 114 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 amended the Patriot Act (or more correctly, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3103a) to provide for such limits. It specifies that "the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days after the date of its execution, or on a later date certain if the facts of the case justify a longer period of delay."

It is unfortunate that such a statement was made in your fine publication. It is a common misconception that the Patriot Act allows for warrantless searches, however as I'm sure you must be aware, this would not be possible as it violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Any such legislation that passed Congress would have been struck down by the courts by now!

Sincerely,
Chris Sherlock
Sydney, Australia

August 6, 2006[edit]

Frank Ahrens, "It's on Wikipedia, So It Must Be True", Washington Post (Web Watch), page F07.

Synopsis[edit]

Wrote about the Colbert Report incident, where Stephen Colbert encouraged people to vandalise Wikipedia. Frank Ahrens writes in an authoritative manner, but at the same time reveals that he doesn't know how Wikipedia functions or what really happened when the incident occured. He states that "Naturally, enough people obeyed Colbert to crash Wikipedia's servers." (not correct: the Wikipedia servers were having issues at the time, but this was not because of the Colbert Report), that "Then Wikipedia took the smart step of posting the pre-Colbert entries alongside the many, many post-Colbert ones to show exactly what was changed and when it was changed by subsequent editors." (amazing! Frank Ahrens has discovered the article history feature...) and that "if Wikipedia is going to exist as an open-source resource and is going to resist single-peer review for its entries, then it needs to be transparent, as it has been in l'affaire Colbert."

That last comment is particularly revealing because he writes that "If Wikipedia's DNA prevents it from hosting a single standard for truth" but then quickly gives the disclaimer "Not, of course, that anyone would or should use Wikipedia -- or really, anything else besides this column -- as a single and authoritative source on any topic." Remember the Seinfeld episode where Seinfeld exclaims that "I'm not gay - not that there's anything wrong with that!"? That said, there seem to be a light hearted side to this comment ("Not, of course, that anyone would or should use Wikipedia -- or really, anything else besides this column -- as a single and authoritative source on any topic.").

Response[edit]

While Frank Ahrens' article "It's on Wikipedia, So It Must Be True" is written in an authoritative tone and may seem to outsiders to be insightful, there are a few observations and corrections I would like to make.

Firstly, the Wikimedia servers did have some issues that night, but they did not "crash" because of The Colbert Report incident. Wikipedia has been taking, and indeed has taken, far greater traffic than that generated by the viewership of Stephen Colbert's show. Secondly, Frank writes of several actions taken by administrators as if they were unusual — that they locked down several pages and blocked an account — whereas these actions are a routine and ordinary part of an administrator's role. He also writes that Wikipedia "[posted] the pre-Colbert entries alongside the many, many post-Colbert ones to show exactly what was changed and when it was changed by subsequent editors". However, Mr Ahrens has merely described an essential feature of the project that has existed from it's earliest days; an article's edit history, where a copy of every article revision is stored. This makes his call for greater transparency somewhat puzzling, given that every edit is tracked, no matter how minor that edit may be. It should also be noted that the project has several clear policies requiring all facts and opinions to be cited from reliable sources. Any information added to articles that is not verifiable is removed as a matter of course.

Chris Sherlock
Sydney, Australia
User:Ta bu shi da yu, Wikipedia administrator, writing from a personal capacity

July 5, 2006[edit]

Eric Zorn, "There oughta be a law against stale retorts", Chicago Tribune

Synopsis[edit]

Another fine example of what apparently passes for journalism these days. Eric Zorn tried to start the article Zorn's law (sort of like a Godwin's law), but it got deleted.

He wrote that:

"I admit that until others begin invoking Zorn's Law, it has no place in any general reference work.
"One of those who voted for deletion worried in the forum that I would tell this story to illustrate "how pathetic Wikipedians are."
"Not at all. Their hobby is maintaining the integrity of a vast, ambitious and generally very useful resource. Anyone who thinks that's pathetic needs to get a ... clue."

My concern with this is that he knew exactly what constitutes an article on Wikipedia, but decided to create an article anyway. Eric seems to know about our site policies. I'm also getting somewhat sick and tired of journalists (those bastions of the press who should be recording news, not making it!) vandalising Wikipedia.

Response[edit]

To: dbernstein@chicagomag.com, gjohnson@chicagomag.com, gkappe@chicagomag.com, cnewman@chicagomag.com, jruby@chicagomag.com, brysmith@chicago.com, jtanaka@chicagomag.com, cwalker@chicagomag.com
Subject: "There oughta be a law against stale retorts"

Hello,

I am writing to the senior editors of the Chicago Tribune in regards to Eric Zorn's article "There oughta be a law against stale retorts", published July 4, 2006.

I'm wondering why Eric added an article that he knew violates Wikipedia's rules, which, as he states in his article, "forbid[s] vanity postings and require validation from independent, credible sources". I'm particularly incredulous that he "[knows] that an encyclopedia without standards is just a dumping ground for words."

On Wikipedia, we call such intentional editing practices vandalism. Is it normal for the journalists at such a respectable institution as the Chicago Times to not only report the news, but create it?

Regards,
Chris Sherlock
Wikipedia administrator (writing from personal capacity)

July 2, 2006[edit]

Seattle Times[edit]

Linda Knapp, "Wikipedia a lesson on verifying research", The Seattle Times.

Synopsis[edit]

On the 3rd June, Linda Knapp wrote the article "Wikipedia can be useful tool", which was (by and large) a glowing one about Wikipedia that explained our site mechanisms reasonably well, and why she really likes us. She did give some criticism of the site, stating that

"Wikipedia does have a number of enthusiastic contributors who may not get all the facts right, or simply don't write very well. The site's official editors reportedly believe that a poorly written article is usually better than no article, probably because major misinformation is usually corrected in the preliminary review."

Linda then asked for feedback from readers. It appears that she got quite a bit, with a lot of it critical of us. Linda seems to have back-peddled somewhat to distance herself from her original article. She still seems supportive of Wikipedia, however she also appears to be somewhat influenced by the following responses:

  • Encyclopedia Britannica's response to the Nature article about Wikipedia vs EB
  • A high school senior's article for the U.S. newspaper the Sun Herald, in which she vandalised the site to see how fast the vandalism would be removed. On a side note, though we had varying levels of success in removing the false information — this has been done before! If you are a journalist will you please stop for goodness sake?! We seem to get more vandalism from journalists than we do from just the general public!
  • A parent wrote in that their son found it quite useful for information for a school assignment.
  • A Wikipedia editor wrote in espousing the many eyes model for creating articles and catching errors, and that it is somewhat understandable that traditional media may want to discredit Wikipedia.
  • Walt Crowley, co-founder and executive director of HistoryLink.org, who believed that the only information worth anything is knowledge written by credentialled experts, as "[without] the expertise of [the information's] authors and the quality of their evidence, which can be independently examined and evaluated... all is mere rumor and opinion". He also stated that Wikipedia "should not be represented as a formal reference when it meets none of the minimal standards for such" and that it is "a big blog, not a real encyclopedia. If it represented itself as such, I'd have far less trouble with it."

Linda then debated the merits of allowing Wikipedia be used in schools and whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Her conclusions were that we are not, in fact, an encyclopedia, and that therefore it is misleading to call us Wikipedia. She also believes that Wikipedia should only be used in schools to show how information is misleading on the Internet.

Linda also conducted her own experiment by adding the article Photoshop Elements 4.0. This has now been redirected to Adobe Photoshop Elements, but see here for the history. Linda says that someone left a message for her that the information would be merged into the main Photoshop Elements article, but she was disappointed when she later reviewed the article because it did not appear to have been done. If you review the original article revision, however, you can see that it's more a software review/mini-HOWTO than an encyclopedia article. It's very informal and it makes the article state a position, which is against NPOV policy ("You’ll probably be amused and want to create more composite photos", "Okay, onward to try out this software and see if it actually works well, and whether it’s easy enough for non-experts to use."). Linda states in the article that "its disappearance does make me wonder about the initial decision process."

Response[edit]

(For clarity, I have made a few modifications to spelling mistakes and grammar I saw after I had sent the email. None of the original ideas have changed, or even the way I expressed those ideas.)

Hello Linda,

I read your article "Wikipedia can be useful tool" with a great deal of interest. It is not entirely surprising to me that you received a great deal of negative feedback about the project, especially from readers who have recognised credentials such as Walt Crowley.

I would like to respond to two conclusions that were made in your article. The first is that Wikipedia should be used in schools to teach students that not everything can be trusted on the Internet. I believe that this would indeed be a worthy lesson, but I do perhaps wonder if it might not also be worthwhile to teach students about inherent bias in other sources, such as the print media and other encyclopedias like the World Book Encyclopedia (which at last reading was still somewhat biased towards U.S. audiences).

The second is that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and that we should not label ourselves as such. I disagree completely: Wikipedia is most certainly an encyclopedia. In fact, it falls into the category of an encyclopedia by several other encyclopedias, who define an encyclopedia as:

  • Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth edition — "compendium of knowledge, either general (attempting to cover all fields) or specialized (aiming to be comprehensive in a particular field)."
  • Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1911 edition — "means a system or classification of the various branches of knowledge, a subject on which many books have been published"
  • Microsoft Encarta — "reference work that provides information on a range of subjects. Encyclopedias can encompass many areas of interest, or they can focus on a particular field of study, such as a geographic area, an ethnic group, a time period, or an academic discipline. Most encyclopedias have hundreds or thousands of articles, each addressing a distinct topic"

I feel we satisfy all these criteria. Where we differ is on our mechanism for writing such information, which does not rely on the credentials of the author (or lack of them) to determine whether that contributor's information should be included in the article. Instead, Wikipedia relies on the quality of the information itself — if the information is of good quality it stays, if it needs work then it is modified, and if it is bad information then it is removed. An excellent example of the response by traditional credential-reliant reference sources was provided by Historylink.org's Walt Crowley, who stated that "[without] the expertise of [the information's] authors and the quality of their evidence, which can be independently examined and evaluated... all is mere rumor and opinion".

I would very much like to challenge the basic underlying assumptions made here, which are that a) Wikipedia is somehow competing with these traditional encyclopedias, and b) that the only information that is worth anything must somehow be solely provided by the credentialled expert.

Wikipedia has never officially tried to "beat" such sources as the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the press release that the Wikimedia Foundation released after the EB sent out their own press release disputing the conclusions of the Nature article, the Foundation stated that:

"The Encyclopædia Britannica has existed for 231 years, like my mother and has a long history of constantly improving its content. Its editors have justifiable pride in their scientific articles, and have been involved in many research efforts.
"The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. welcomes future studies and hopes to learn from the accumulated excellence of Britannica and other reference works, so that our project can be the best imaginable free resource on the web. The Britannica is one of the most significant non-fiction works in the English language, and that level of quality is something we strive for.
"Wikipedia, and all Wikimedia Foundation projects, are not in competition to EBI or other companies in the business of reference works. Our goals differ significantly from other reference publishers, and only overlap in that we are all striving to create accurate and useful knowledge tools."

(the link to the press release is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_subcommittees/Press/2006/03/22_Britannica_PR)

As you can see, Wikipedia's position is quite the contrary. Wikipedia encourages and recognises the value of such information. After all, two of the project's site policies are that only verifiable sources should be cited, and that all information in an article must have a source (Wikipedia is not a primary source, and strictly forbids original research).

On the other hand, those who believe that information must be created and presented through a gateway of credentialled contributors have not been so kind. Either through a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, or through feeling threatened by a new, disruptive technology (I prefer to think it is the first option) they have presented the argument that only they can provide useful knowledge to the masses. I dispute the validity of such a position. Certainly they are most likely to be accurate, but even experts in a given subject area can be wrong, or have inbuilt biases that they may not be aware of. Though a review panel can assist with nullifying this issue, the panel itself may also have the same issue and may not represent a viewpoint that is different to their own in a fair or neutral manner. The assumption, which I find somewhat arrogant, is that only those with credentials are expert enough to provide the public with information, and with this assumption it is implied that the information provided by such experts should be trusted without question. Surely this is far more dangerous than Wikipedia's policy of being totally upfront that the information that it supplies should be questioned, that the article's original sources be checked for their own biases, and that for anyone who has more than a passing interested in the subject matter the information provided should be checked against more than one source? How many traditional reference sources are able to boast of such honesty and cautiousness? I personally cannot think of a single one!

I believe that Wikipedia should be used in schools both for its information and to show that students should check all information they read to gain an understanding of a subject, whether that information is supplied from the Internet or not. I also believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a blog, and we are not misleading anyone by labelling ourselves as such. A blog is a website where regular entries are made and presented in reverse chronological order and Wikipedia is a project that is ambitiously attempting to document all the world's knowledge, and is doing this by allowing everyone to contribute in compliance with certain site policies — such as the disallowing of original research, that the articles are written from a neutral point of view and that verifiable and reliable sources be used for information that is contributed to articles. Finally, I feel that traditional reference sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, should not feel threatened by Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not competing with them and we welcome and encourage the important work they are doing.

Yours sincerely,
Chris Sherlock (Username Ta bu shi da yu)
Sydney, Australia
Wikipedia administrator (writing from a personal capacity)

Mercury News[edit]

"On Wikipedia, someone's adding mayor's troubles to his profile", The Mercury News

Synopsis[edit]

Reports that embattled San Jose district councillor Ron Gonzales has had his legal woes added to the article. It notes that "our embattled leader can take some pride that he even merited a mention. Seven of the 10 other council members had no entry under "Current Leaders of San Jose, California," including top mayoral critics Dave Cortese and Linda LeZotte".

I have since added the councillors as stubs so that others can create and update the content of these biographies, and I added an {{npov}} tag to Ron Gonzales as it is slanted towards his shortcomings (he was an executive at HP, yet not much mention of that in the article!)

Response[edit]

Email sent to letters@mercurynews.com, unforgiveably with a lack of spell checking...

The Ron Gonzalez article was indeed slanted and, as of the time of writing this letter, does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy or the project's ideal that articles should be comprehensive. As such I have tagged it appropriately to warn readers that it is not written from a NPOV, and have put a message on the talk page asking for it to be expanded to include Mr Gonzalez other activities and successes.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, so long as they follow site policies (which are mostly just good sense). May I encourage any reader of the Mercury News to update the article in ways they see fit, and to also expand the articles on each of the district Coucilpersons.

Chris Sherlock
Wikipedia administrator, writing from a personal capacity (Username Ta bu shi da yu)

June 26, 2006[edit]

Sam Vaknin, "The Six Sins of the Wikipedia". Global Politician

Synopsis[edit]

Decries our site with the now all too familiar catch-cry that Wikipedia must be about to implode and die because it is Just Too Unworkable. I do seem to remember people saying this about a year ago...

The article states that there are six "sins" of Wikipedia:

  1. The Wikipedia is opaque and encourages recklessness
  2. The Wikipedia is anarchic, not democratic
  3. The Might is Right Editorial Principle
  4. Wikipedia is against real knowledge
  5. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia
  6. The Wikipedia is rife with libel and violations of copyrights

Response to Vaknin[edit]

There is no way of directly commenting on the site, but I responded on Wikipedia at User:Ta bu shi da yu/Global Politician and then used their feedback form to let them know what I wrote.

The response from Sam Vaknin is interesting. Here it is in all its ad hominem glory:

From: "Sam Vaknin" <vaknin@gorgelink.org>

To: <globalpolitician@yahoo.com>
Cc: <ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: GP - Chris Sherlock from ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com

Thank you, David.

Boringly predictable responses. Utter lack of grasp of any of the arguments I made. Juvenile presentation.

I expected nothing more of an anonymous Wikipedian (statistically, an obese and schizod teenager with no life and grandiose compensatory fantasies).

I can't wait til the Wikipedia is hit with the twin class action lawsuits now being put together in Canada and the USA. To my mind, the Wikipedia is a pernicious enterprise, best dissolved.

I will continue to do my best to expose it for what it is.

Sam

----- Original Message -----

From: Global Politician
To: Sam Vaknin
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: GP - Chris Sherlock from ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com

Subject: GP - Chris Sherlock from ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:22:28 -0400

I have responded to Sam Vaknin's article "The Six Sins of Wikipedia" on Wikipedia.

The link can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/Global_Politician

My response was as follows:

From: Ta bu shi da yu
To: Sam Vaknin

Subject: Re: GP - Chris Sherlock from ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com

By all means, go ahead. I wish you all the best in your efforts, I'll be watching with interest!

Chris

Addedenum

Three years later, and it appears that Vaknin now believes that Britannica must reposition to survive. That's quite a turn around I think!

I've dug out my old email to Vaknin and sent the following reply:

From: TBSDY
To:: Sam Vanknin

Subject: Re: GP - Chris Sherlock from ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com

Well, well, well Sam. I see that your predictions have not only been dashed, but you are now proposing that the EB team up with Wikipedia.

http://globalpolitician.com/26182-britannica-wikipedia-reference-encyclopedia

Chris

June 25, 2006[edit]

Robin Arnfield, "New Directions at Wikipedia". News Factor, BlogBytes.

Synopsis[edit]

Appears to have gotten the wrong end of the stick and believes that Wikipedia "in stark contrast to its original stated mission" (Robin, could you actually tell us what you believe that might be?!) has been "forced to alter some of its editorial policies to stop Internet vandals from changing certain entries." It then cites the incredibly not new ability of administrators to protect pages and delete articles as evidence of such a policy change. It appears the author is ill-informed about Wikipedia and unable to even do basic research.

Response[edit]

"Recently, and in stark contrast to its original stated mission, the site was forced to alter some of its editorial policies to stop Internet vandals from changing certain entries. Now, volunteer administrators can exercise more editorial control, deleting unsuitable articles and locking down others to protect them from being changed on a whim."

How interesting that you got things so wrong. Wikipedia's original stated mission was to be an encyclopedia, and administrators have always been able to protect articles, block editors and rollback changes. The site never changed editorial policies to any great degree, the only one you may be referring to was the semi-protection facility. This facility actually makes Wikipedia more open because it allows more editors the ability to edit articles than the older straight protection facility allows.

Those who run the site have already been quite successful at remaining true to the spirit of open collaboration while at the same time build a useful website.

It appears that some people in the media still aren't doing their research.

June 24, 2006[edit]

Ivor Tossell, "Here come the Wikipedia police". Globe and Mail, Globe and Mail update.

Synopsis[edit]

Ivor Tossell, a journalist with the Globe and Mail, wrote how he vandalised the human article, and then how a contributor provided a polite response asking him to stop. He wrote that the article "launch[es] into a 7,000-word list of things that most bipedal primates are already aware of" and roundly critised it for making obvious statements. He wrote that

"I snapped. I clicked the "Edit" button, and anonymously revised that first line, so now it began, "Humans -- hey! That's us!" And off I surfed, content that I'd given the self-righteous encyclopedians a poke in the ear."

When he was asked to stop, he comments that

"It was the kind of note you'd find stuck to the kitchen cabinet by the quivering passive-aggressive you roomed with in school. The note had a name attached; I clicked it, and was taken to its author's homepage -- apparently Wikipedia, like MySpace, has homepages for its denizens."

Evidently not a regular - user pages are hardly a new or novel idea. Neither are signatures.

Ivor then makes several unsavoury observations about the person who left him the note, and has a small hissy fit, stating (among other things) that "The Wikipedia isn't the anonymous free-for-all it was cracked up to be. It's taking down names and numbers, and if you do something it doesn't like, it won't just fix the problem, an 11-year-old with a bowl cut and spectacles will track you down and berate you for it."

Response[edit]

I find this Globe and Mail article rather infuriating. An encyclopedia must be comprehensive, and if Ivor finds that it is stating obvious facts, then it makes me wonder why he was reading the article in the first place! Would Ivor have preferred that we did not include the information about human sexual desire, philosophy and trade?
As for receiving a warning from an 11 year old: well, as Ivor pointed out, the 11 year old was in the right and Ivor was in the wrong. Unfortunately, that reflects worse on the journalist who undertook the vandalism than the 11 year old who gave a very polite and non-threatening warning! I find it extraordinary that his quite reasonable message makes him a "quivering passive-aggressive". What did Ivor want, an instant block and a rude message from an administrator?
I see a number of glaring contradictions in Ivor's article. He seems to want a general purpose encyclopedia without general information, to attempt to stop contributors from being self-righteous by being self-righteous ("And off I surfed, content that I'd given the self-righteous encyclopedians a poke in the ear."), and for there to be accurate information by vandalising articles.
More disturbing are the series of ad hominem attacks made against a young contributor by a Globe and Mail journalist ("I didn't think they made kids like that any more.", "It was the kind of note you'd find stuck to the kitchen cabinet by the quivering passive-aggressive you roomed with in school."). I was under the impression that Globe & Mail journalists had more maturity and better things to do with their time than attack 11 year olds and vandalise useful websites.
Finally, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia was never "an idea opposed to systems where you would get rejection e-mail from administrators and editors" and was never intended to be "anonymous free-for-all". Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, after all.

June 16, 2006[edit]

Cnet, Blog media. "Wikipedia: Stop citing our site", published June 16, 2006 9:39 AM PDT

Synopsis[edit]

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Jimbo Wales expressed "little sympathy for any college student who would still rely on an encyclopedia for academic info." Cnet duly reported this on their Blog media report, however I noticed they wrote the following:

"Aside from the obvious accuracy debate, the mere nature of Wikipedia as a constantly changing open source encyclopedia goes against the purpose of academic attribution."

Response[edit]

Subject: Impossible to cite for the purposes of academic attribution?

I must dispute the following statement:

"Aside from the obvious accuracy debate, the mere nature of Wikipedia as a constantly changing open source encyclopedia goes against the purpose of academic attribution."

While I also have little sympathy for those who are so lazy that they only cite information from an encyclopedia, it is not accurate to say that because Wikipedia is constantly changing it is not possible to cite information with certainty. Nothing could be simpler! In the toolbox to the left of all articles there is a link to "Cite this article". This provides a description of the revision being viewed, a URL to that revision (which will never change) and a number of citation styles with the information already filled in for the reader to use.

For example, try going to the CNet article, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNet. I can now use a fact from the revision I am reading (carefully checked for accuracy, of course!) and then click on "Cite this article". This takes me to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Cite&page=CNET&id=58898628 This displays links to the revision of the article, date stamps of the revision and relevant information about the article I just read, and provides it in APA, MLA, MHRA, Chicago, CBE/CSE, Bluebook, Bluebook Harvard Jolt and AMA styles. It even shows the markup for BibTeX!

Considering the oft-heard claims that Wikipedia's articles are impossible to cite because they are constantly changing, I find it somewhat ironic that Wikipedia is actually more reliable than almost every other website around when it comes to citing content.

Other[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/Correspondence&oldid=472905204"