Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "ข้อวิจารณ์วิกิพีเดีย" in Thai language version.
an apparent tussle of opinions in the shadowy world of hard drives and 'independent' editors that comprise the Wikipedia industry... strenuous attempt to portray the cylinder as nothing more than the propaganda tool of an aggressive invader... a complete dismissal of the suggestion that the cylinder, or Cyrus' actions, represent concern for human rights or any kind of enlightened intent
But if a reader had started on the page for either of Breivik’s guns, the Ruger or the Glock, they would not know this. That reader would find a great deal of technical information about the weapons in question - their weights, lengths, cartridges, rates of fire, magazine capacities, muzzle velocities - and detailed descriptions of their designs, all illustrated with abundant photographs and diagrams.
{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: date format (ลิงก์).Organizations like Sony, Diebold, Nintendo, Dell, the CIA and the Church of Scientology were all shown to have sanitized pages about themselves.
toward encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy
Neither proponents nor detractors of hive mind rhetoric have much interesting to say about Wikipedia itself, because both groups ignore the details ... Wikipedia is best viewed as an engaged community that uses a large and growing number of regulatory mechanisms to manage a huge set of proposed edits ... To take the specific case of Wikipedia, the Seigenthaler/Kennedy debacle catalyzed both soul-searching and new controls to address the problems exposed, and the controls included, inter alia, a greater focus on individual responsibility, the very factor 'Digital Maoism' denies is at work.
{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: date format (ลิงก์).{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: date format (ลิงก์)Inelegant or ranting prose usually reflects muddled thoughts and incomplete information.
The problem is in the way the Wikipedia 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 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.
According to The Verge report and an independent follow-up by Haaretz, the top editors of the Colt page are pro-gun enthusiasts who skewed the information presented on it and are also involved in editing other articles on Wikipedia - for example, the much more general article, titled AR 15 - to push their worldview ... Through countless exhausting debates, this small group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors - linked together through Wikipedia’s Firearms project (or “WikiProject: Firearms,” mentioned below) - has managed to control almost completely the discourse around the rifle, predominantly by making sure any potentially negative details about it be excluded from the original Colt AR-15 article.
I rejected Wikipedia as a mish-mash of truth, half truth, and some falsehoods...
The Wikipedia's open structure makes it a target for trolls and vandals who malevolently add incorrect information to articles, get other people tied up in endless discussions, and generally do everything to draw attention to themselves.
In Wikipedia, debates can be won by stamina. If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable. These less-committed editors simply have less at stake and their attention is more distributed.
The search for a 'neutral point of view' mirrors the efforts of journalists to be objective, to show both sides without taking sides and remaining unbiased. But maybe this is impossible and unattainable, and perhaps misguided. Because if you open it up for anyone to edit, you're asking for anything but neutrality.
the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable – use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research.
{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: date format (ลิงก์)A group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors tried to hide the true number of mass shootings associated with the AR-15 rifle in the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.
There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out.
... the considerable and often-noted gender gap among Wikipedia editors; in 2011, less than 15 percent were women.
Such checking leads to a daily battle of wits with the cyber-wreckers who insert erroneous, ludicrous and offensive material into entries. How frequently entries get messed about with depends on the controversy of their subjects. This week the entry Muslim is being attacked dozens of times a day following the row about cartoons of Mohammed with angry denunciations of suicide bombing and claims of hypocrisy. Prime Minister Tony Blair's entry is a favourite for distortion with new statements casting aspersions on his integrity.
Tiring out one's opponent is a common strategy among experienced Wikipedians ... I have resorted to it many times.
The bias in the articles was not explicit, but structural. The project did not insert false information into the articles, but instead purged information that showed the weapons in a bad light - dismissing it as "off topic".
But on Wikipedia, as in the real world, the users with the deepest technical knowledge of firearms are also the most fervent gun owners and the most hostile to gun control. For critics, that’s led to a persistent pro-gun bias on the web’s leading source of neutral information at a time when the gun control debate is more heated than ever.
What do the perpetrators of the massacres at Sandy Hook, at Aurora, at Orlando, and at Sutherland Springs have in common? They were all men under 30 and they all used versions of the same kind of firearm, the AR-15, the semi-automatic version of the military's M-16 and the bestselling gun in America. It might be difficult to make this connection because as I write this, the section on the use of AR-15s in mass killings has been deleted from Wikipedia ...
I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule... People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum.
The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial—Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it.
I rejected Wikipedia as a mish-mash of truth, half truth, and some falsehoods...
the bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable – use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research.
I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule... People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum.
toward encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy
an apparent tussle of opinions in the shadowy world of hard drives and 'independent' editors that comprise the Wikipedia industry... strenuous attempt to portray the cylinder as nothing more than the propaganda tool of an aggressive invader... a complete dismissal of the suggestion that the cylinder, or Cyrus' actions, represent concern for human rights or any kind of enlightened intent
But if a reader had started on the page for either of Breivik’s guns, the Ruger or the Glock, they would not know this. That reader would find a great deal of technical information about the weapons in question - their weights, lengths, cartridges, rates of fire, magazine capacities, muzzle velocities - and detailed descriptions of their designs, all illustrated with abundant photographs and diagrams.
The Wikimedia Foundation has defended itself and Wikipedia from allegations of being host to these kinds of influence campaigns, arguing that the encyclopaedia is constantly being updated and improved.
{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: date format (ลิงก์)The Wikipedia's open structure makes it a target for trolls and vandals who malevolently add incorrect information to articles, get other people tied up in endless discussions, and generally do everything to draw attention to themselves.
Neither proponents nor detractors of hive mind rhetoric have much interesting to say about Wikipedia itself, because both groups ignore the details ... Wikipedia is best viewed as an engaged community that uses a large and growing number of regulatory mechanisms to manage a huge set of proposed edits ... To take the specific case of Wikipedia, the Seigenthaler/Kennedy debacle catalyzed both soul-searching and new controls to address the problems exposed, and the controls included, inter alia, a greater focus on individual responsibility, the very factor 'Digital Maoism' denies is at work.
The Wikimedia Foundation has defended itself and Wikipedia from allegations of being host to these kinds of influence campaigns, arguing that the encyclopaedia is constantly being updated and improved.