597:
contributors provide useful material, while a small number of "trolls" repeatedly deface the encyclopedia. Knowledge is also plagued by endless "revert wars," where dueling groups keep reversing each other's changes to controversial articles. This undermines the credibility of
Knowledge, which now offers an unprecedented 857,000 articles in English, along with versions in more than 100 other languages. Knowledge is becoming a first reference stop for millions of people, from schoolchildren to journalists, including me. But many of these users don't realize a small percentage of articles are flawed. Even more troubling, there's no way to know when you've hit one of those defective entries. That's why I never put a fact from Knowledge into one of my columns without first double-checking it elsewhere. Knowledge is now big enough, with a core group of 13,000 active volunteers, to pre-screen all of its contents. New entries and edits could still be submitted—even anonymously—by any visitor to the Knowledge site but would be placed in a kind of holding pen until one of the trusted volunteers took a look and said OK.
207:
fide non-mainstream scientific efforts as
Pseudoscience, lumping them together with doctrines or ideas that would disgust any good scientist, all point in the direction of a gigantic disinformation act. Tyrannized by fanatical lefto-facho bureaucrats and by zealots of Official Science surrounded by an always-ready supply of zombified adolescents, Knowledge has become a supplement to the imaginary 'peer-review system' that supposedly rules the secretion called Official or Big Science. The unconscious entente of Knowledge proves the collective adherence of its participants to the brave new concept of Official Science: if it does not occur within those institutions which embody the powers of the State (Academia), the Military Mechanism and Capital, it is NOT science, nor worthy of the Media (including mainstream peer-reviewed publications), not worthy of being endorsed for the strategizing of mass-control.
136:"I think it's exactly the right price," said Michael Ross, senior vice president of corporate development at Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. in Chicago. Major articles in Britannica are signed by the author; all articles are vetted by an experienced team of editors and scholars. The libraries that pay $ 1,500 for a set of bound volumes or the family that pays $ 60 a year for an Internet subscription are buying confidence as well as information. Ross admits to reading and enjoying Knowledge, and has even gotten ideas there for future Britannica articles. But the absence of traditional editorial controls makes Knowledge unsuited to serious research. "How do they know it's accurate?" Ross asks. "People can put down anything."
402:
but you're still a fool if you don't lock and bolt your door at night. Knowledge has generally taken the position that their community of contributors should protect, patrol and correct themselves. The site backs up each different version of an article, so in theory nothing can be irreparably damaged or vandalized beyond rescue. While there has been talk of making
Knowledge contributors register with the site before they can perform edits on the encyclopedia's articles, I recently made an edit on an article myself and was asked for no information at all. Knowledge is a fantastic resource, but I urge a more aggressive guarding of the gates — for its own sake.
964:
had his work cut out. "A cursory search today suggested that these procedures - which require contributors to register basic details before posting articles - were being defeated by a relentless wave of vandals, apparently co-ordinating their assaults from a series of chatrooms dedicated to its demise. The loss of credibility has caused commentators to question whether
Knowledge is destined to follow the LA Times's doomed experiment in unrestricted internet comment, Wikitorial, which had to be closed down after just two days under a bombardment of pornographic postings." Is nothing sacred? So is Knowledge a source of reference, or just a great big game?
1109:
the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven. If the project was lucky enough to have a writer or two well-informed about some specialized subject, and if their work was not degraded in quality by the majority of people, whose knowledge of the subject is based on paragraphs in books and mere mentions in college classes, then there might be a good, credible article on that specialized subject. Otherwise, there will be no article at all, a very amateurish-sounding article, or an article that looks like it might once have been pretty good, but which has been hacked to bits by hoi polloi.
1031:"'He is an admitted homosexual, yet still endorses the anti-gay policies of social conservatives.' Somebody, I don't know who, went in and edited the sentence out a few days ago. For the record, I am not an admitted homosexual, nor am I a homosexual, though I do know the lyrics to every show tune ever written, which might perhaps account for the confusion. As for endorsing the 'anti-gay policies of social conservatives,' what I oppose, purely and simply, is affirmative action for homosexuals. But this is what you get for arguing with Knowledge."
21:
1101:...regardless of whether Knowledge actually is more or less reliable than the average encyclopedia, it is not perceived as adequately reliable by many librarians, teachers, and academics. The reason for this is not far to seek: those librarians etc. note that anybody can contribute and that there are no traditional review processes. You might hasten to reply that it does work nonetheless, and I would agree with you to a large extent, but your assurances will not put this concern to rest.
476:
is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.
844:"They are huge fans of the most conspicuous success story in the history of Internet-based collaboration: the Linux kernel. Which is not produced by a radically-democratic value-neutral mob, but rather by a pyramidal hierarchy of maintainers - experts, so judged by their peers - who exercise strong control over what code is allowed in the kernel tree. It's worth reflecting on the reason Wiki-kernel would never fly: code actually has to work, not merely be written."
222:"Oh please???. What a shameless crock. Look at any Knowledge Talk page on any controversial subject, and, instead of "people working together in harmony", you will typically and unsurprisingly see a bunch of mediocre nerds with too much time on their hands and with rather uninformed opinions on too many subjects, bickering among themselves in an attempt to forge an entry that will represent a "consensus" of their uninformed opinions."
886:
that a failure to pay attention represents negligence on the part of the complainer. Seigenthaler, the argument goes, was clearly being an idiot when he failed to notice that day's piece of web grafitti. Instead of taking his dog for a walk, or composing an email to his grandchildren, he should have been paying ceaseless attention to ... his
Knowledge biography. To which the only honest answer is, "we don't owe you anything".
1171:
have to become content defenders. Woe be that your take on things is off from the majority. Even if you can prove something, you're now in the situation that anybody can change it. And while that's all great in a happy-go-lucky flower shower sort of way, it's when you realize that the people who are going to change it could have absolutely no experience with the subject whatsoever, then you see where we are.
435:"Another page says that 'Knowledge is a collaborative project to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already have over 16,000 articles. We want to make over 100,000.' That's ambition. There is no way to verify the number, but for perspective, the 6th edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia has 51,682 articles, so this is quite a tall order."
294:"This means that the wiki will go the way of the rest of the Net: downhill. Fictitious posts, spam, grudge pages, lies, politically motivated opinions, online vandalism, and all the rest will inevitably ruin the wiki concept, since the whole idea is utopian. And utopianism never works except in the lab or with religious zealots, and that's only for moments at a time. "
636:
articles thus generated are substandard. They have therefore launched "Project
Galatea," whose aim is to have still more self-selected volunteers impose "large-scale, sweeping stylistic improvements." Note that the improvements hoped for are stylistic, not a matter of accuracy or adequacy. In the "Philosophy" of the project, prospective stylists are told this:
1390:
topics that are my main interest have found them to be horribly inaccurate. And attempts to improve those entries by experts and amateurs who have done solid research are wrecked by constant updates by obviously ignorant people. Dr. MC Bishop, an archeologist and world-renowned authority on Roman armor, wrote an article on the Roman
333:, an online encyclopedia, for more information on computer history. The doctor and I had figured Knowledge was a good independent source. Not so, wrote a school librarian who read that article. Susan Stagnitta, of the Liverpool High School library, explained that Knowledge is not what many casual Web surfers think it is
679:
objectivity or fairness in the treatment of topics. Thus, when a writer called Joseph McCabe alleged in a widely distributed pamphlet that certain articles in the
Encyclopedia Britannica had been unduly influenced by the Catholic church, he was charging bias. (That was in 1947, and he was quite wrong, by the way.)
1198:
My "biography" was posted May 26. On May 29, one of Wales' volunteers "edited" it only by correcting the misspelling of the word "early." For four months, Knowledge depicted me as a suspected assassin before Wales erased it from his website's history Oct. 5. The falsehoods remained on
Answers.com and
475:
The problem is in the way the
Knowledge has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it
143:
This realization forced the
Wikimedia Foundation to start work on a formal editorial process for Knowledge. Wales isn't sure how it will work yet; contributors might still be anonymous. But there will probably be an editorial board staffed with experts in various fields. They'll be identified by name
1389:
Thank you for your compliments, and my apologies for taking so long to reply. I'm afraid that I have to refuse your request to use Legio XX images on Knowledge, and not just because of the commercialism. While I have never consulted Knowledge myself, others who have looked up the sorts of technical
1297:
You can't do a Web search on any major topic without this wiki popping up near the top of the results page. Heavily linked, authoritative, and constantly updated, the world's largest interactive encyclopedia came into its own this year Popular, yes. Accurate? Not necessarily. Because its entries can
942:
Who could possibly hail this as good news? Two camps, we think. People with a real chip on their shoulder about authority, as we saw earlier this week. People with a contempt for learning, many of you say. But more broadly, only someone more obsessed by process than by the end result can regard this
885:
Knowledge's defenders point to the open model, where anyone can make changes, as another example of shrugging off responsibility. So Knowledge's second defense rests heavily on the assumption that everyone in the whole world is participating, watching, and writing at every moment of the day, and so
873:
The first, and the most immediately absurd of these two defenses, is that since nothing at all can be trusted, er, "definitively", then Knowledge can't be trusted either. This is curious, to say the least, as it points everyone's expectations firmly downwards. Only a paranoiac, or a mad person, can
865:
Knowledge's proliferation owes much to the fact that we're currently in a temporary, but very familiar blip in history—one we've been in many times before. Knowledge has sprung up to fill a temporary void. So I'm very privileged right now, as a member of the San Francisco public library, to be able
687:
Is imbalance in Knowledge "systemic"? I should rather say that it results inevitably from a lack of system. Given the method by which Knowledge articles are created, for there to be any semblance of balance in the overall coverage of subject-matter would be miraculous. Balance results from planning.
570:
So Knowledge gets it wrong. Britannica gets it wrong, too. The important thing about systems isn't how they work, it's how they fail. Fixing a Knowledge article is simple. Participating in the brawl takes more effort, but then, that's the price you pay for truth, and it's still cheaper than starting
401:
It's just my opinion, but I that the people who run Knowledge are being lax in regulating the process their contributors have to go through in order to add their edits to the site. It's a bit like living in a community in which you assume that everyone is trying to coexist in a spirit of good will —
375:
However, Knowledge allows anonymous editing. Thus those who honestly correct incorrect information are penalised, whereas those willing to edit anonymously, or create sinister false online personas, are given free rein. Johann Hari used Knowledge as a weapon to attack other journalists, and puff his
366:
This happens because Knowledge has become a magnet for political nerds who want to fight proxy battles. With a general election two and a half years away, some think the best way to damage the other side is to use Knowledge as a vehicle for smears. Equally, many see it as nothing more than an online
206:
This brings us squarely to the question of the uses of Knowledge, and in particular, those that concern protection of the interests of Big Science. For Knowledge is at the intersection of this Knowledge Warfare. Its cult of the sanctity of mainstream peer-review, and its determination to brand bona
102:
They also use the most charming of debating techniques, which is to allow you to make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up your argument, and then ignore them completely. Then they respond with something along the lines of "Are you being paid to
1315:
published an unsigned article about Knowledge entitled "Written by whoever wants to", casting doubts on the encyclopedia's reliability. According to the article, the freedom entailed by Knowledge is a cause for its success, but "it is also Knowledge's greatest flaw, because its articles are subject
1108:
Knowledge has another sort of credibility problem, mentioned in passing above, and I fear that time is not a solution to this problem, the way it might be to the foregoing one. Namely, one can make a good case that, when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of
260:
inserted the error that abolitionist Frederick Douglass once lived in Syracuse and was the first African-American elected to the city council. That lasted about an hour and a half before it was removed. Another contributor added Al Fasoldt, journalist, to the entry's list of famous Syracusans. That
181:
In theory, Knowledge is a beautiful thing—it has to be a beautiful thing if the Web is leading us to a higher consciousness. In reality, though, Knowledge isn't very good at all. Certainly, it's useful—I regularly consult it to get a quick gloss on a subject. But at a factual level it's unreliable,
98:
What I realised - perhaps it was the mention of Scientology - is that Knowledge, and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult. There is a quasi-religious fervour surrounding the "rightness" of Knowledge, or Apple's products. To outsiders, it makes little or no
1170:
This is what the inherent failure of wikipedia is. It's that there's a small set of content generators, a massive amount of wonks and twiddlers, and then a heaping amount of procedural whackjobs. And the mass of twiddlers and procedural whackjobs means that the content generators stop being so and
963:
The news of the "shooting" even made the venerable London Times, yesterday. The Times noted that after the first Seigenthaler scandal broke, the now "deceased" Jimmy Wales had, as he has so often, promised to tighten up a few nuts and bolts in the "encyclopedia's" editorial processes. He certainly
702:
One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined. And another is that talent, whether for soccer or for exposition, is not equally distributed across the population,
678:
project to "improve the coverage of the encyclopedia... needs to begin with a clear distinction between "bias" and "imbalance"... The Wikiproject seems to concern itself with topics that are treated in insufficient detail or not at all; to me, this is addressing imbalance. "Bias" denotes a lack of
363:
A quick browse through the profiles of MPs reveal that a huge number have entries which tortuously detail trivial events in their political lives. For example, Damian Green's Knowledge entry devotes well over 1,000 words to his 2008 arrest alone; for comparison that's more than three times as much
931:
chose 42 science articles from both Encyclopedia Britanica and gave peer reviewers a blind test to find mistakes. That gave the free-for-all web site a fighting chance — as it excluded the rambling garbage and self-indulgence that constitute much of the wannabe "encyclopedia" social science and
794:
But something is changing since we last wrote about Knowledge a year ago. Even project founder Jimmy Wales has been obliged to admit its entries are "a horrific embarrassment". Readability, which wasn't great to begin with, has plummeted. Formerly coherent and reasonably accurate articles in the
773:
Criticism of the project from within the inner sanctum has been very rare so far, although fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer associated with the project, pleaded with the management to improve its content by befriending, and not alienating, established sources of expertise. (i.e.,
635:
Same day. The Knowledge, an online project to create an encyclopedia by means of contributions and editing by volunteers, irrespective of their knowledge of their subjects or ability to write coherently, has just lately begun to come to grips with the fact that some substantial proportion of the
1116:
Second problem: the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers. I stopped participating in Knowledge when funding for my position ran out. That does not mean that I am merely mercenary; I might have continued to participate, were it not for a certain poisonous social or political
893:
Involvement in Knowledge has taken its toll on a significant number of decent, fair minded people who with the most honorable intentions, have tried to alert the project to its social responsibilities and failed. Such voices could be heard on the Knowledge mailing list, speaking up for quality.
1124:
This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second problem, because again if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, there would necessarily be very little patience for those who deliberately disrupt the project. This is perhaps not obvious, so let me
1076:
In a medium defined by timeliness—news, as compared to an encyclopedia article, which can be authored over months or years—collaborative editing is not likely to result in objective reports, but rather a battle of perspectives very much like the starkly partisan George W. Bush articles authors
555:
Knowledge entries are nothing but the emergent effect of all the angry thrashing going on below the surface...if you want to really navigate the truth via Knowledge, you have to dig into those "history" and "discuss" pages hanging off of every entry. That's where the real action is, the tidily
369:
You may question if it matters whether Shapps is reported as having four or five O-levels. The trouble is that ease of access to articles on Knowledge means they're often used as sources for the media. Knowledge has mutated from an encyclopedia into the central source for information on public
596:
Knowledge keeps getting in trouble because its open model—where anyone can write and edit entries—is an invitation for character assassination, ideological crusades and outright vandalism, as well as legitimate scholarship. The result of Knowledge's open editing system is predictable: Most
1438:
Knowledge uses a collaborative software known as wiki that facilitates the creation and development of articles. Although some highly publicized problems have called attention to Knowledge's editorial process, they have done little to dampen public use of the resource, which is one of the
1401:
You may certainly add links to any page of the Legio XX site, or to my other websites. That's what the Internet is for, after all, and the contents are safe from tampering. I hope that will help lead people to more reliable information. Unfortunately, that's probably all I can do for
656:
Here is what I wonder: Whence this notion that citizens, especially those who aspire to careers of informing the rest of us, need not bother with what once would have been considered the common body of knowledge? And where on earth did the idea arise that knowledge might actually be a
688:
As an example, the planning of the coverage of the fifteenth edition of Britannica took an in-house staff and dozens of advisers several years to complete. That was forty years ago; it would be harder now... imbalance is a judgment, not a fact, and... it cannot be reduced to numbers.
128:
For it lacks one vital feature of the traditional encyclopedia: accountability. Old-school reference books hire expert scholars to write their articles, and employ skilled editors to check and double-check their work. Knowledge's articles are written by anyone who fancies himself an
1077:
produced at Knowledge that resulted in the editing interface being locked down. In a situation where the reader needs information quickly in order to make a judgment about events or their role in them, the collaborative approach to authoring information may be too slow.
834:"It was always a doomed idea. It was bad from the start. But it's got the public playing the encyclopedia game. To extend the analogy, it's also like playing a game in the sense that playing it has no consequences. If something goes wrong, you just restart. No problem!"
874:
sustain this level of defensiveness for any length of time however, and to hear a putative "encyclopedia" making such a statement is odd, to say the least. This defense firmly puts the blame on the reader, for being so stupid as to take the words at face value. Silly
641:"While there is no need to be an expert on the article you're working on (in fact, there are some advantages to being completely ignorant of the subject to start with), by the time you're done, you will have at least a working knowledge of the topic."
749:
I remain convinced that Knowledge's confidence in its self-correction mechanism is an illusion, that the editing it does is inadequate, and that the outright errors and constant manipulation of entries by interested parties make it an unreliable
372:
Self-editing is forbidden is to stop self-promotion; however, it can lead to frustrating situations when false information appears. For example, Philip Roth complained recently that Knowledge would not accept him as a reliable source on his own
425:"Now we have the latest endeavor that is a joke at best, Knowledge. I am afraid it is meant to be a communal encyclopedia of the people, by the people, and for the people, which shall not perish from the earth, even if it looks like a prank."
48:
This page is intended to list quotations from critics of Knowledge, especially in publications, whose criticisms may be contested. Please cite sources of the quotations. (Contradicting evidence may also be appropriate to list under a given
242:
After the free, online Knowledge got a favorable mention in a Dr. Gizmo column, then a letter from Liverpool High School librarian Susan Stagnitta, technology writer Al Fasoldt questioned whether the do-it-yourself encyclopedia is
866:
to tap into expensive databases I couldn't otherwise afford. In ten years time, these "member's societies" will be the norm, and most of us won't even realize we're members. The good stuff will just come out of a computer network.
1394:, only to see it mangled beyond recognition. As long as well-researched and well-documented scientific information can be replaced by teen-age wargamers, my group and I would rather have no official connection to Knowledge.
1298:
be edited by anyone, the Knowledge can be the source of dubious or biased information. ith more than 800,000 articles in English and well over 1 million in 15 other languages, foolproof policing is well nigh impossible.
746:
In addition to the numerous errors introduced by ignorant or careless contributors, it is widely known that some public figures employ interns or staff members to monitor their Knowledge entries to edit out unfavorable
662:
I do not blame computers or the Internet. Well...except for one thought that gives me pause. How is it that these tools that were to make achieving our lofty goals easier have instead been commandeered to move the goal
548:
Knowledge isn't great because it's like the Britannica. The Britannica is great at being authoritative, edited, expensive, and monolithic. Knowledge is great at being free, brawling, universal, and instantaneous.
275:
At Knowledge, in spite of the game of Truth or Dare and the flurry of attention paid to Syracuse, there are still at least three mistakes on that page, one of which has been there since the reign of Louis XIV in
289:"The absolute deterioration of the wiki concept is just a matter of time. Once spam mechanisms are developed to eat into these systems, the caretakers will be too busy to stop the public-driven deterioration."
800:
What they don't like to talk about is that on Knowledge, the truth is determined in the end by a physical contest: whoever has the endurance to stay awake at a keyboard and maintain his version of the edits
215:"Thousands of people, all over the world, from all cultures, working together in harmony to freely share clear, factual, unbiased information… a simple and pure desire to make the world a better place."
440:"Many of the entries of Knowledge consist of a single sentence, typically a third or fourth the size of a comparable entry in the totally free Columbia Encyclopedia, a time-honored scholarly resource."
1337:
The magazine stated that Knowledge's correction mechanism "works better in subjects in which many people are interested , such as technology. It becomes disastrous in obscure or political themes".
824:"Some people need scrupulously accurate information, and some people are happy with myths and misinformation. Sometimes you just need some information, and sometimes you need accurate information."
445:"Wiki is part of the Hawaiian word wikiwiki, meaning quick or fast—as in fast buck. Jimbo expects advertisers by mid-2002, and then you know who is going to be laughing all the way to the bank."
154:
A few years ago, Microsoft Corp. scoffed at free software; today the company is running scared. Britannica's Ross seems a lot more relaxed about his company's future. It's difficult to see why.
350:
1370:
I emailed a reenactment group with some images of pretty well-made replicas of Roman equipment, asking if I could add their images to Knowledge. The full text of their reply is below.
1349:". This is incorrect because Lula (as he is better known in Brazil) was born in a small village, and Pernambuco cannot be considered an industrial state by Brazilian standards.
261:
lasted about 45 minutes. Seeking a more difficult test, Halavais announced in his blog that he had made 13 errors in 13 subjects. All were caught and fixed within hours.
268:
One side said the experiment showed that Knowledge is self-healing, even from a fraudulent attack. The other side said that for those hours, the encyclopedia was wrong.
1488:
460:
703:
while a robust confidence is one's own views apparently is. If there is a systemic bias in Knowledge, it is to have ignored so far these inescapable facts.
1206:
Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am interested in letting many people know that Knowledge is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.
943:
as any kind of victory — something all the popular press missed in their anxiety to gives us an upbeat, good news story from Planet Knowledge yesterday.
182:
and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper.
250:
From Techdirt.com came this challenge: Add a mistake to the encyclopedia's entry on Syracuse, N.Y., and see how long it takes for someone to fix it.
493:
103:
say that by Microsoft, or just doing a mate a favour?" (to quote one email received this week on the topic of open source software development).
675:
236:
1008:, who was subsequently banned. Each of these vandalized versions was visible for one minute or less, according to the article history log.
1260:
733:
30:. Please help update this Knowledge page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on
695:...something that Knowledge and Wikipedians steadfastly decline to do today, and that is to consider seriously the user, the reader.
116:
1472:
583:
72:
58:
1280:
795:
technical section have gotten worse as they've gotten longer. And most interesting of all, the public is beginning to notice.
935:
Britannica turned up 123 "errors", and Knowledge 162. In other words, the quality of information coming from Knowledge was
1135:
563:
The Britannica tells you what dead white men agreed upon, Knowledge tells you what live Internet users are fighting over.
388:
315:
329:
In a column published a few weeks ago by my companion Dr. Gizmo, readers were urged to go to the Knowledge Web site at
85:
68:
Notice that much of the criticism is based on how they perceive the process of Knowledge and not the actual quality.
914:
1185:
1227:
852:
950:
1450:
62:
1374:
1345:, the magazine allegedly inserted the information that he was born in "a big city in the industrial state of
1478:
1527:
1342:
808:
1475:
references this page, describes Bray, Fasolt and Jasco criticisms and a Knowledge fact checking project.
668:
430:"You can even forgive the error- and typo-ridden articles; grammar is just an old-fashioned convention."
725:
320:
1430:
1424:
1318:
1022:
764:
370:
figures. An untrue fact can cascade through a person's life, causing all manner of problems for them.
31:
1061:
1522:
168:
1460:
1455:
1216:
1177:
54:
1238:
781:
481:
Lanier's essay triggered easily the most, and most informed, responses of any single article
976:
1149:
903:
505:
351:
Tory MPs fiddling with their Knowledge entries: Grant Shapps is just the tip of the iceberg
1303:
1047:
began a story arc on August 13, 2006 which comments on the editing of Knowledge articles:
8:
1249:
894:
Knowledge is losing good editors at an alarming rate, but who can blame them for leaving?
488:
who is familiar with its process firsthand. Other responses to Lanier's essay came from
330:
41:
1423:
1048:
997:
993:
819:
This article is mainly quotations from others in response to the earlier article, e.g.:
1176:
300:
1391:
1094:
1005:
521:
456:
413:
482:
1364:
537:
489:
160:
1353:
claimed the fake info stayed online for 2 days, until they removed it themselves.
713:
556:
organized palimpsest of the flamewar that lurks beneath any definition of "truth."
1494:
1371:
1304:
756:
622:
517:
338:
If you know of other supposedly authoritative Web sites that are untrustworthy...
1482:
1341:
made a test to try to prove their point. In the article on Brazilian President
1323:
1015:
603:
497:
282:
468:
The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
1516:
1331:
485:
194:
109:
1083:
529:
513:
509:
450:
376:
own achievements. Since then, plenty of others have adopted Hari's tactics.
1157:
159:
1503:
1498:
1040:
1001:
906:
in the attempt to invalidate the claim in the title (in a literal sense).
533:
525:
501:
1054:
755:
99:
sense. To those inside, it is the most important topic they can imagine.
1346:
308:
1466:
1316:
to ignorants and ill-disposed ". It goes on to draw a comparison with
1014:
602:
381:
343:
281:
226:
78:
1272:
1044:
1211:
This article spurred several related stories in other news sources:
724:
576:
231:
Brian Cubbison, "How Syracuse became a test of online credibility,"
108:
902:
Note: This article actually induced some Wikipedians to create the
1082:
449:
187:
144:
with the Knowledge, and stand behind the accuracy of its contents.
1148:
407:
1140:
1125:
explain. To attract and retain the participation of experts...
307:
1271:
1035:
1507:
1444:
708:
See also his comments in the Orlowski article, below, and
65:
for reviews of Knowledge's accuracy by external sources.
1489:
Articles about Knowledge on other online encyclopedias
1261:
Knowledge: Raising perhaps more questions than answers
1090:
853:
There's no Knowledge entry for 'moral responsibility'
200:
Paulo Correa, Alexandra Correa, and Malgosia Askanas,
1239:
A Little Sleuthing Unmasks Writer of Knowledge Prank
1021:
John Podhoretz, "From My Knowledge Bio Last Month,"
765:
Knowledge founder admits to serious quality problems
915:
Knowledge science 31% more cronky than Britannica's
61:page for responses to common criticisms. See also
951:Knowledge founder 'shot by friend of Siegenthaler'
1514:
1089:"Why Knowledge Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism",
609:Robert McHenry is Former Editor in Chief of the
1130:Articles spurred by Sanger's comments include:
1062:Socratic Media: Wikinews & Wikiconsequences
651:How worried ought I to be? How worried are you?
1473:Knowledge Reputation and the Wemedia Project
1311:In January 23, 2005, the Brazilian magazine
1095:Why Knowledge Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism
774:people who know what they're talking about.)
412:By PĂ©ter JacsĂł, "Peter's Picks & Pans,"
193:With Alexandra Correa and Malgosia Askanas (
389:Knowledge needs to take greater precautions
846:(Carlo Graziani, in a letter to Orlowski).
364:wiki-ink as any of Disraeli's governments.
782:Knowledge: magic, monkeys and typewriters
57:page for the positive reactions, and the
977:Knowledge hit by surge in spoof articles
316:Librarian: Don't use Knowledge as source
904:Knowledge entry on moral responsibility
1515:
117:One great source — if you can trust it
1479:"A Compendium of Knowledge Criticism"
1291:the "Winner" and "Loser of the Year".
1217:Snared in the Web of a Knowledge Liar
75:for a list of Knowledge limitations.
1360:, edição 1889, 26 de janeiro de 2005
1136:K5 Article on Knowledge Anti-elitism
584:Knowledge needs safeguards that work
15:
1439:most-visited sites on the Internet.
1199:Reference.com for three more weeks.
714:The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks
235:, Syracuse NY (15 September 2004).
149:On the other hand, he also writes:
13:
14:
1539:
1228:Knowledge and the nature of truth
992:and Orlowski apparently refer to
988:With regards to Wales' "death" ,
648:Another point, spang on my line.
321:The (Syracuse, NY) Post-Standard
173:Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog
26:This Knowledge page needs to be
19:
1287:. (December 16 2005). Rated as
421:(2), 79-82 (March/April 2002).
1451:Knowledge:External peer review
1158:The Great Failure of Knowledge
809:Why Knowledge isn't like Linux
63:Knowledge:External peer review
1:
1186:A false Knowledge 'biography'
878:, for believing us, they say.
301:The Wikification of Knowledge
73:Why Knowledge is not so great
1250:Who owns your Knowledge bio?
1024:National Review's The Corner
59:replies to common objections
7:
1162:ASCII: Jason Scott's Weblog
10:
1544:
1375:20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
1285:Tech Tuesday - Yahoo! News
1281:Winners and Losers of 2005
1117:atmosphere in the project.
669:The real bias in Knowledge
543:From Doctorow's response:
303:. Retrieved July 15, 2005.
39:
1343:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
1322:, whose first article on
1043:, author of the webcomic
734:Sham editing at Knowledge
299:Dvorak, John C. (2005).
90:The Sydney Morning Herald
676:Countering Systemic Bias
623:The Education of Gesture
617:(Booklocker.com, 2004).
169:The amorality of Web 2.0
40:Not to be confused with
1431:Encyclopædia Britannica
1425:Encyclopædia Britannica
1319:Encyclopædia Britannica
1068:(30 Nov. 2005).30 2004]
611:Encyclopædia Britannica
571:up your own Britannica.
86:Online, it's us or them
1461:Criticism of Knowledge
1456:Knowledge:Testimonials
1433:on article Knowledge:
1237:Katharine Q. Seelye, "
1215:Katharine Q. Seelye, "
1178:John Seigenthaler, Sr.
1093:, Fri Dec 31st, 2004,
972:article mentioned is:
461:epistemic collectivism
1416:Matthew Amt, Legio XX
1144:weblog (3 Jan. 2005).
1184:John Seigenthaler, "
627:Tech Central Station
1528:Knowledge publicity
1091:http://Kuro5hin.org
740:(10 September 2012)
357:(10 September 2012)
331:Knowledge:Main Page
167:Nicholas G. Carr, "
115:By Hiawatha Bray, "
42:Knowledge:Criticism
1495:The Knowledge node
1326:was, according to
1248:Andrew Orlowski, "
1060:Mitch Ratcliffe, "
949:Andrew Orlowski, "
913:Andrew Orlowski, "
851:Andrew Orlowski, "
807:Andrew Orlowski, "
780:Andrew Orlowski, "
763:Andrew Orlowski, "
674:He notes that the
484:, most notably by
324:(25 August 2004).
1392:lorica segmentata
1226:Charles Cooper, "
1051:in the sequence.
1027:(June 12, 2005).
1006:User:Ben E. Rande
937:31 per cent worse
836:(Robert McHenry,
738:The Baltimore Sun
712:Robert McHenry, "
621:Robert McHenry, "
522:Martin Wattenberg
387:Michael Fraley, "
349:Willard Foxton, "
233:The Post-Standard
84:Charles Arthur, "
38:
37:
1535:
1259:Steve Johnson, "
975:Simon Freeman, "
932:culture entries.
927:Science journal
732:John McIntyre, "
613:, and author of
588:The Mercury News
582:Mike Langberg, "
538:Howard Rheingold
490:Douglas Rushkoff
314:By Al Fasoldt, "
161:Nicholas G. Carr
123:(12 July 2004).
121:The Boston Globe
23:
22:
16:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1513:
1512:
1491:
1469:
1447:
1428:
1367:
1309:
1276:
1267:(15 Dec. 2005).
1265:Chicago Tribune
1245:(11 Dec. 2005).
1192:(29 Nov. 2005).
1181:
1153:
1087:
1057:
1055:Mitch Ratcliffe
1038:
1019:
983:(15 Dec. 2005).
859:(12 Dec. 2005).
815:(27 Oct. 2005).
788:(24 Oct. 2005).
760:
757:Andrew Orlowski
729:
720:(14 Dec. 2005).
629:(25 Oct. 2005).
607:
590:(11 Dec. 2005).
579:
518:Fernanda Viegas
454:
415:ONLINE Magazine
410:
395:(18 Dec. 2005).
384:
346:
312:
286:
229:
190:
164:
113:
92:(17 Dec. 2005).
81:
45:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1541:
1531:
1530:
1525:
1523:Knowledge FAQs
1511:
1510:
1501:
1490:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1483:Wikipediocracy
1476:
1468:
1467:External links
1465:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1427:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1413:
1405:
1404:
1397:
1396:
1385:
1384:
1378:
1377:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1324:psychoanalysis
1308:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1293:
1292:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1257:
1256:(6 Dec. 2005).
1246:
1243:New York Times
1235:
1234:(2 Dec. 2005).
1224:
1223:(4 Dec. 2005).
1221:New York Times
1209:
1208:
1202:
1201:
1194:
1193:
1180:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1166:
1165:
1164:(19 Nov. 2004)
1152:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1134:Clay Shirky, "
1128:
1127:
1120:
1119:
1112:
1111:
1104:
1103:
1086:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1072:
1071:
1056:
1053:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1018:
1016:John Podhoretz
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
986:
985:
984:
959:
958:
957:(17 Dec. 2005)
946:
945:
923:
922:
921:(16 Dec. 2005)
910:
909:
908:
907:
897:
896:
889:
888:
881:
880:
869:
868:
861:
860:
848:
847:
841:
831:
826:(Tom Panelas,
817:
816:
804:
803:
797:
790:
789:
777:
776:
769:
768:
759:
754:
753:
752:
748:
742:
741:
728:
723:
722:
721:
706:
705:
698:
697:
691:
690:
683:
682:
666:
665:
659:
653:
645:
644:
643:
631:
630:
606:
604:Robert McHenry
601:
600:
599:
592:
591:
578:
575:
574:
573:
566:
565:
559:
558:
551:
550:
498:Yochai Benkler
479:
478:
471:
470:
463:in Knowledge:
457:Digital Maoism
453:
448:
447:
446:
442:
441:
437:
436:
432:
431:
427:
426:
409:
406:
405:
404:
397:
396:
383:
382:Michael Fraley
380:
379:
378:
374:
371:
368:
365:
359:
358:
345:
344:Willard Foxton
342:
341:
340:
335:
311:
306:
305:
304:
296:
295:
291:
290:
285:
283:John C. Dvorak
280:
279:
278:
271:
270:
264:
263:
253:
252:
246:
245:
243:authoritative.
228:
227:Brian Cubbison
225:
224:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
210:
209:
202:
201:
198:
189:
186:
185:
184:
177:
176:
163:
158:
157:
156:
147:
146:
139:
138:
132:
131:
112:
107:
106:
105:
94:
93:
80:
79:Charles Arthur
77:
36:
35:
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1540:
1529:
1526:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1518:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1496:
1493:
1492:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1432:
1426:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1411:All the best,
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1403:
1399:
1398:
1395:
1393:
1387:
1386:
1383:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1335:
1333:
1332:Sigmund Freud
1330:, written by
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1314:
1306:
1305:Veja Magazine
1299:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1232:CNET News.com
1229:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1156:Jason Scott,
1155:
1154:
1151:
1143:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1085:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1066:RatcliffeBlog
1063:
1059:
1058:
1052:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1026:
1025:
1017:
1007:
1004:" article by
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
982:
978:
974:
973:
971:
967:
966:
965:
961:
960:
956:
952:
948:
947:
944:
940:
938:
933:
928:
925:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
905:
901:
900:
899:
898:
895:
891:
890:
887:
883:
882:
879:
877:
871:
870:
867:
863:
862:
858:
854:
850:
849:
845:
842:
839:
835:
832:
830:spokesperson)
829:
825:
822:
821:
820:
814:
810:
806:
805:
802:
798:
796:
792:
791:
787:
783:
779:
778:
775:
771:
770:
766:
762:
761:
758:
751:
744:
743:
739:
735:
731:
730:
727:
726:John McIntyre
719:
715:
711:
710:
709:
704:
700:
699:
696:
693:
692:
689:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
672:
671:
670:
664:
660:
658:
654:
652:
649:
646:
642:
639:
638:
637:
633:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
616:
612:
605:
598:
594:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:
577:Mike Langberg
572:
568:
567:
564:
561:
560:
557:
553:
552:
549:
546:
545:
544:
541:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:Quentin Hardy
491:
487:
486:Cory Doctorow
483:
477:
473:
472:
469:
466:
465:
464:
462:
458:
452:
444:
443:
439:
438:
434:
433:
429:
428:
424:
423:
422:
420:
417:
416:
403:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
377:
361:
360:
356:
355:The Telegraph
352:
348:
347:
339:
336:
334:
332:
327:
326:
325:
323:
322:
317:
310:
302:
298:
297:
293:
292:
288:
287:
284:
277:
273:
272:
269:
266:
265:
262:
258:
257:Alex Halavais
255:
254:
251:
248:
247:
244:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
221:
220:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
204:
203:
199:
196:
195:User:Helicoid
192:
191:
183:
179:
178:
175:(3 Oct. 2005)
174:
170:
166:
165:
162:
155:
152:
151:
150:
145:
141:
140:
137:
134:
133:
130:
126:
125:
124:
122:
118:
111:
110:Hiawatha Bray
104:
100:
96:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
76:
74:
69:
66:
64:
60:
56:
53:See also the
51:
50:
43:
33:
32:the talk page
29:
25:
18:
17:
1437:
1429:
1415:
1410:
1400:
1388:
1381:
1357:
1350:
1338:
1336:
1327:
1317:
1312:
1310:
1296:
1288:
1284:
1279:Dan Tynan. "
1264:
1254:The Register
1253:
1242:
1231:
1220:
1210:
1205:
1197:
1189:
1169:
1161:
1141:Many-to-Many
1139:
1129:
1123:
1115:
1107:
1100:
1088:
1084:Larry Sanger
1075:
1069:
1065:
1039:
1023:
1020:
998:this version
994:this version
989:
980:
969:
962:
955:The Register
954:
941:
936:
934:
930:
926:
919:The Register
918:
892:
884:
875:
872:
864:
857:The Register
856:
843:
837:
833:
827:
823:
818:
813:The Register
812:
799:
793:
786:The Register
785:
772:
747:information.
745:
737:
717:
707:
701:
694:
686:
680:
667:
661:
655:
650:
647:
640:
634:
626:
614:
610:
608:
595:
587:
569:
562:
554:
547:
542:
530:George Dyson
514:Larry Sanger
510:Esther Dyson
480:
474:
467:
455:
451:Jaron Lanier
418:
414:
411:
400:
392:
362:
354:
337:
328:
319:
313:
274:
267:
259:
256:
249:
241:
232:
230:
205:
188:Paulo Correa
180:
172:
153:
148:
142:
135:
127:
120:
114:
101:
97:
89:
70:
67:
55:testimonials
52:
47:
46:
27:
1499:Everything2
1150:Jason Scott
1049:First strip
1041:Scott Kurtz
1002:Jimmy Wales
615:How to Know
534:Dan Gillmor
526:Jimmy Wales
506:Kevin Kelly
502:Clay Shirky
459:criticizes
408:PĂ©ter JacsĂł
393:KPCNews.com
367:CV service.
49:quotation.)
1517:Categories
1372:WoodenTaco
1347:Pernambuco
1307:(unsigned)
968:Note: The
838:Britannica
828:Britannica
750:reference.
657:hindrance?
309:Al Fasoldt
1504:Knowledge
1273:Dan Tynan
1190:USA Today
1045:PVPOnline
1036:PVPOnline
990:The Times
981:The Times
718:TCS Daily
71:See also
1445:See also
1365:Legio XX
1000:of the "
276:France."
840:editor)
373:novels.
129:expert.
28:updated
929:Nature
663:posts?
520:&
1481:, on
970:Times
801:wins.
1508:h2g2
1402:you.
1382:Ave!
1358:Veja
1351:Veja
1339:Veja
1328:Veja
1313:Veja
1289:both
1241:,"
536:and
1506:at
1497:at
1283:".
1263:",
1230:",
1219:",
1188:",
1138:",
1064:",
996:or
979:",
953:",
917:",
876:you
855:",
811:,"
784:,"
736:",
716:,"
625:",
586:,"
391:,"
353:",
318:",
171:",
119:",
88:",
1519::
1334:.
1252:"
1160:,
540:.
532:,
528:,
524:,
516:,
512:,
508:,
504:,
500:,
496:,
492:,
419:26
939:.
767:"
197:)
44:.
34:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.