The Guardian published an article by Zoe Corbyn on the relationship between Wikipedia and academics. It featured an interview with User:Mike Peel, a postdoctoral researcher at Jodrell Bank Observatory and secretary of the Wikimedia UK chapter, as well as Dario Taraborelli (who last week was announced as the Wikimedia Foundation's "Senior Research Analyst, Strategy", having served as a contractor since December), Mark Graham from the Oxford Internet Institute, Paul Goldberg from the University of Liverpool, Suzie Sheehy from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, and Daniel Mietchen, the managing editor of Citizendium.
The story highlights the Expert participation in Wikipedia survey being conducted by Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee members Mietchen, Taraborelli and Dr Panagiota Alevizou. It was featured in a Slashdot story that has generated 384 comments as of April 4.
An ongoing debate regarding the neutrality of the article Murder of Meredith Kercher came to a head recently with the intervention of Jimmy Wales, causing attention from outside the project from passionate advocates on both sides of what some believe to be a miscarriage of justice in a murder trial.
Kercher, a British university student, was killed in Perugia in Italy in 2007, and in 2009 two of her flatmates, Raffaele Sollecito and US citizen Amanda Knox, as well as a third person (Rudy Guede), were convicted of the murder. A movement of sorts has emerged who believe that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. They have been campaigning online through various blogs and other outlets and editing the Wikipedia article. On the other side, a campaign has started that argues that the convictions are sound (originating in part from the True Justice for Meredith Kercher website – also known as 'TJMK').
The controversy has gotten so heated on the talk page that the page is now semi-protected and has twenty-nine pages of archived discussion. Adding fuel to the fire is the perception that the split between the innocence and guilt advocates falls along national boundaries between the U.S. and Europe.
Joseph W Bishop, an advocate on the 'innocent' side, posted an Open Letter to Wikipedia Founder Jimbo Wales concerning the Murder of Meredith Kercher Article on the blog "Injustice in Perugia". The post alleged that the article
| “ | for the most part relies on obsolete and inaccurate British tabloid reports for its information. The omission from the article of the criticism of the numerous important experts who have stated in no uncertain terms that Knox and Sollecito did not receive a fair trial calls into question the article’s neutrality. Other flaws in the article include false statements about luminol evidence, the de-emphasis of Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini’s criminal acts prior to the crime, and the characterization of the support for Ms. Knox as a PR campaign. Until recently, the article contained a fabricated claim that the Rudy Guede’s apartment had been purchased for him by a wealthy Perugian family. | ” |
Wales answered this with a long comment posted on the talk page on March 24 which attempted to show how the article could be made more neutral by carefully replacing the use of the word "testified"—which has the implication of being sworn testimony as in a courtroom—with words like "claimed", "maintained" and "said".
Wales also argued that the selection and placement of sources biases the article towards Knox and Sollecito's guilt by making it seem that the comments of Timothy Egan, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, have the same weight as the comments of the businessman and Apprentice host Donald Trump. Wales' other contributions include supporting a call for a review by uninvolved editors as part of the Good Articles review process, as well as weighing in on the notability of Amanda Knox and whether she should have an article created on her. Replying to allegations of hostility "to any potential editor who has a potential skepticism regarding the guilt of the accused", Wales questioned the block of an article contributor in September 2010 for block evasion: "I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing". In response, it was pointed out that this observation was meaningless as the Checkuser data from the time of the block would have already expired.
Advocates of Knox and Sollecito's innocence have welcomed the intervention of Wales with Candance Dempsey, author of a book on the case and a blogger on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website, posting an article discussing Wales' intervention. Advocates of Knox and Sollecito's guilt have been less than happy with Wales' intervention. A Wikipedia editor posting on the True Justice for Meredith Kercher website said:
| “ | Wales entered the Murder of Meredith Kercher article rather like an elephant in a china shop, essentially accusing established editors who had laboured for years to try and maintain the article of having conspired to suppress and censor other points of view. | ” |
| “ | On the walls of his office were framed copies of Google search results and Wikipedia entries of clients: a reality television star, a movie actress and a chief executive officer. Mr. Tom calls it his “wall of fame.” | ” |
Discuss this story
The full quotation from Wales on the checkuser point is "I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing; I invite more experienced checkusers to follow up on my exploration. I am merely raising questions, not putting forward conclusions - at this time." so it was maybe a bit unfair to quote only the first bit? Tom B (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia wants more contributions from academics" -- Is that an April Fool's joke? The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some of us would like to see that. Unfortunately they either start their edits in the areas where their would-be supporters don't watch, or there is some failure in communicating with them. The failure is not always on the Wikipedia side. -- llywrch (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- llywrch, speaking as a bona-fide expert in certain topics, Wikipedia doesn't want to grapple with the absurd expectation that experts should congenially debate endlessly with cranks and status-gamers. It's not worth it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most Wikipedians don't want to debate endlessly with cranks & status-gamers either; but I don't see how your comment relates to my point. My point is that in this case, there is enough blame to go around. Some experts come to Wikipedia with the expectation that their titles & CV should be sufficient to carry any argument, but problems with confirming both credentials & identity inevitably result in disappointment -- sometimes to the dismay & shock of all involved. Or are you saying that there are no arrogant academics in the world? -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that's deflecting from an analysis of Wikipedia's institutional dysfunction vis-a-vis academics by trying to shift the focus onto the other side's supposed failings - roughly the "so-fix-it" defense writ large. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly there are two sides to the issue. What bothers me is the commonly held presumption that people with expertise will show the behavior that Llywrch describes. Yes, it happens sometimes. I think the more serious problem is the radical egalitarianism that sees expertise as fundamentally incompatible with "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In praise of… academic Wikipedians, Editorial The Grauniad, Wednesday 6 April 2011.
- Floydian Slip? The Wikimedia SURVEY: Expert barriers to Wikipedia reminds me of the extraordinary expertise shown by some politically committed non-experts in erecting barriers, indeed barricades, against any well informed input. Perhaps the survey was intended to invite comment on barriers deterring experts from contributing to Wikipedia, but that ain't what the title says. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Grauniad article is interesting, and the comments especially so: Wikipedia's dirty little secrets appear finally to be getting out. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly enough, I came across this whole discussion by looking for the editorial concerned as it's referred to in a letter in today's Graun by academics involved in the History & Policy website who tried adding to Wikipedia articles relevent references to articles on their site, and having found a significant increase in visitors to their site from Wikipedia, intend to continue. The signatories are Virginia Berridge, Alastair Reid and Simon Szreter, so hope their expert input is welcomed. . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SBHB (if he doesn't interpret my avoiding his nom de jour as outing him) understands my point -- although I've never met Randy in Boise, & were I to, I'd find it difficult not to use my Admin bit to uninvite him from Wikipedia. (But I wonder if critics like Seth Finkelstein would then criticize my use of those privileges.) Some experts come to Wikipedia as if it were one thing, when they might have amazing success were they to present themselves as one individual addressing several: make their arguments without appealing to authority & just let the facts & sources speak for themselves.
Regarding "In the news..." did people catch the April 5, 2011 episode of "The Good Wife" on CBS where two lawyers are discussing the meaning of life upon the death of their partner and they conclude that after you die all that is left is your Wikipedia biography? Racepacket (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]The problem I have with many criticisms of Wikipedia is that they envision it as one thing, which does not match the reality. On the other hand Wikipedia's advocates routinely oversell its virtues -- entranced that a group of strangers could possibly collaborate on a single goal -- when it does have a number of serious flaws. Meanwhile people like me -- & I assume SBHB & Dave souza, too -- are frustrated that we cannot find anyone to take our criticisms seriously, which are based on experience.
I believe I can say that Wikipedia is at least as good as Encyclopaedia Britannica without it sounding like empty bluster -- but saying that is not the high bar people might think. From my research, I would say that EB is not as reliable or accurate as people might think, & for the better part of a century it has rested on its laurels. So Wikipedia could be better than EB -- yet still not be as useful as an ideal encyclopedia would be. Now I believe that Wikipedia could achieve a level of quality closer to that ideal encyclopedia than other encyclopedias in the last 100 years, but it would require better leadership than what I've seen so far. Then again, these folks probably aren't any worse than the average university president or museum head. -- llywrch (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]