The Role of Experts In Wikipedia 266
Hugh Pickens writes "Episteme, a magazine about the social dimensions of knowledge, has a special issue on the epistemology of mass collaboration, with many of the articles focusing on Wikipedia. One of the most interesting articles is by Lawrence M. Sanger on the special role of experts in the age of Wikipedia. Sanger says the main reason that Wikipedia's articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily, but that some articles suffer precisely because there are so many aggressive people who 'guard' articles and drive off others (PDF), including people more expert than they are. 'Without granting experts any authority to overrule such people, there is no reason to think that Wikipedia'a articles are on a vector toward continual improvement,' writes Sanger. Wikipedia's success cannot be explained by its radical egalitarianism or its rejection of expert involvement, but instead by its freedom, openness, and bottom-up management and there is no doubt that many experts would, if left to their own devices, dismantle the openness that drives the success of Wikipedia. 'But the failure to take seriously the suggestion of any role of experts can only be considered a failure of imagination,' writes Sanger. 'One need only ask what an open, bottom-up system with a role for expert decision-making would be like.' The rest of the articles on the epistemology of mass collaboration are available online, free for now." Sanger was one of the founders of Wikipedia, and of its failed predecessor Nupedia, who left the fold because of differences over the question of the proper role of experts. Sanger forked Wikipedia to found Citizendium, which we have discussed on several occasions. After 2-1/2 years, Citizendium has a few tenths of a
percent as many articles as Wikipedia.
Re:Got a better way to do things? (Score:5, Informative)
You can say a lot of things about wikipedia, but if you say that the majority of articles are worse off now than in (say) 2002, you'll be full of shit. You can point to some good articles in the past that have degraded from random edits. Or articles which have been subject to turf wars. But on the whole, there is improvement.
Re:Got a better way to do things? (Score:5, Informative)
One of the main problems of Wikipedia is it has firm guidelines on what it is and what it is not.
Actually, I wish. It's simply not true. They may have a few core rules (e.g. the one you complain about) that are quite rigid, but overall there is virtually no rule in Wikipedia that is not subject to modification - including by certain senior people at Wikipedia - when circumstances dictate it.
Don't take my word for it - I got it from the horse's mouth [ted.com]. He says it in so many words.
Re:Got a better way to do things? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, because I had a related problem. A series of related articles I wished to edit had considerable problems. I worked on the item described in one of the articles while I was in the Navy, I had the unclassified manuals at one elbow, at the other elbow I had a stack of expensive reference books... All were trumped because a handful of websites all referenced the same handful of coffee table books - and disagreed with me.
Except there aren't any checks and balances - there is only whether or not the guy you discussing the issue with has more time on his hands and whether or not he can quote an interpretation of policy that supports his position. Your story is one of how the checks and balances fail.
Re:Got a better way to do things? (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies [wikipedia.org]
Dig in. Or we could look at the increase in "Featured" articles [wikipedia.org] and "Good" article stats [wikipedia.org], though the latter is not a community process but an individual process.
Citizendium is not without issues (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps associated with its culture of 'experts', or perhaps simply its low population. One needs look no further than the Homeopathy article, which on Wikipedia is strongly rooted in reality, but on Citizendium is largely controlled by one Homeopath editor (who has been banned from Wikipedia for pushing his unsupportable POV), and leans towards promotion and advocacy.
Re:It isn't "experts" that are needed... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know if you have actually given 18 hours a day to Wikipedia. I have (expert enough :p), and I can tell you right now that Wikipedia already has karma [wikipedia.org] system [wikipedia.org].
Now it is well established in Wikipedia "groupthink" that quality counts more than either. But the crux lies in the question: Who decides the quality?
Re:Wikipedia Experts? (Score:1, Informative)
NSFW!!
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not learning from failure... apparently (Score:1, Informative)
The only good expert ... is one that can back up their claims with good references. That's the nature of a real expert -- not that you should automatically believe what they say, but that they've got the reasons and documentation at their fingertips. It's still your decision what to believe, and it's all about that documentation rather than the authority. In that respect anyone can become an "expert" if they put enough effort into it (I'm thinking of that guy that put together enough information to figure out the way that the first atomic bombs were really put together). In the scientific literature people don't say "Oh, that's so-and-so, an expert in the field. No more need be said." That's a recipe for disaster.
"Citation needed" is all the expertise that wikipedia really needs, and its result (that list of citations) is the most valuable part of wikipedia because people can read the sources and make their own call.
It's true that system and the people putting wikipedia together are fallible (just like in the scientific method), but wikipedia is emulating the best technique we've found so far to get rid of the unfounded fluff. Designating "experts" and giving them a special status is both unnecessary and potentially destructive for the reasons you list. "Show me, don't tell me" is supposed to be the way forward, not "Sit down and shut up because I'm an expert and you aren't."
Re:Wikipedia Experts? (Score:3, Informative)
The average is usually below the best and above the worst. People "know" different truths. That wouldn't be much of a problem if only proven facts could be entered into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia actually uses a simple truth-by-discussion approach, weighed by the dedication which people are willing to put behind their point of view. This approach is cemented by the "no original research" rule. A citation is not proof, just a deference to an external evaluation mechanism. It is therefore no surprise that any one Wikipedia article isn't at the top of its field. Wikipedia's strength is the collection, not the individual factoid. It doesn't need the experts to achieve average results for the whole, as long as it can keep the other end away too.
Re:Got a better way to do things? (Score:3, Informative)
If you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand that I was talking about wikipedia as its community of editors then I can't wait for the rest of what you have to say..
mmm insults against faceless people. We're really getting to it now. Obviously you had some pet page you created that was deleted for some reason. Things are not made better by endlessly adding to them. Do you think when a director shoots a movie that he includes every last take and scene he shot in the final product? No. In order to create a good body of written work things need to be taken out. This applies to articles and to the encyclopedia as a whole.
Nope, but the average person who might be interested in him (for whatever reason) will likely find only an adequate amount of information about him and not an endless list of everything he had for breakfast throughout his entire life.
Actually there may be a number of students in university classes who could care a great deal about him, christians may find themselves interested, etc. But that is besides the point. I was making a point about excessive detail in articles. You're trying to compare that to an article about a minor historical figure. Two very different things. An article on World of Warcraft is quite appropriate. It is a notable subject. Delving into minutia with raiding strategies, item guides, etc isn't.
Re:Got a better way to do things? (Score:2, Informative)
[c]an you provide citations that Wikipedia's aggregate quality has improved?
Certainly. I found several of them by just reading this discussion. And a quick scan of the messages below this one shows several more. And there have been many other /. discussions with similar citable claims. But don't use the /. search thingy; it ain't worth a damn. Use google. ;-)
Re:Wikipedia Experts? (Score:3, Informative)
That wouldn't be much of a problem if only proven facts could be entered into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia actually uses a simple truth-by-discussion approach, weighed by the dedication which people are willing to put behind their point of view.
No, it's about verifiable sources. You shouldn't be discussing what's true, you should be discussing what's supported by references. That's a fundamental Wikipedia policy.
This approach is cemented by the "no original research" rule.
Allowing original research would give the problem you claim exists - as then you would have people claiming that what they say is true based on their "research", despite a lack of any sources.
A citation is not proof, just a deference to an external evaluation mechanism.
What would constitute a proof?
It is therefore no surprise that any one Wikipedia article isn't at the top of its field.
Well, if the worst that can be said of Wikipedia is that it's not the number 1 best reference, I don't think that's too bad for something that's free on the web.
Re:Got a better way to do things? (Score:3, Informative)
With cheap disk space, and cheap bandwidth, and volunteers doing the work... where is the money going?
$130K - Board expenses, including D&O insurance
$472K - Executive director expenses. Includes salaries for Executive Director and Deputy Director; some fundraising and travel expenses; consultants and contractors; staff and volunteer development
$2.7M - Technology. Includes salaries for technical staff, servers, bandwidth and contractor expenses.
$1.6M - Office & Admin. Includes salaries for finance/admin staff, audit fees, fundraising expenses, office rent, office supplies, bank fees, etc.
$595K - Outreach programs. Includes salaries for program staff, public outreach expenses, communications expenses.
$357K - Legal.
$96K - Wikimania. Includes travel for board, advisory board and staff.
Gee, that was hard. Took all of 2 minutes to find this info.
Re:Wikipedia Experts? (Score:1, Informative)
What would constitute a proof?
A proof is reasoning which anyone can follow and come to the stated conclusion, which is thereby proven. It can only rely on other proven facts and methods. Most notably, a proof does not require trust. "He said it and therefore I believe it" is not proof. An actual proof constitutes original research and, unless it is in itself noteworthy, will therefore not find its way into Wikipedia.
At first sight, Wikipedia's approach looks like it's about verifiability, but a citation is not proof. It can reference a proof, but in the relatively few cases where a piece of information on Wikipedia is supported by a citation, it's usually a mere reference to external authority. In addition to the rules, the editing process discourages any other way. Leaving the barrier to entry low is what sets Wikipedia apart from other efforts to accumulate knowledge. Weighing expertise higher than dedication isn't necessarily better, because it's fundamentally the same principle. After all, who's an expert?
Re:Got a better way to do things? (Score:2, Informative)
Which is why they just completed a six million dollar fund raising campaign. With cheap disk space, and cheap bandwidth, and volunteers doing the work... where is the money going?
You can just read the various financial statements on the Wikimedia Foundation's website [wikimediafoundation.org]. For instance, you can look at the page 2008-2009 Annual Plan Questions and Answers [wikimediafoundation.org]:
I'm pretty sure there were links to explanations of why Wikimedia needed the money all throughout the fundraiser.