Wikepedia

Wed Nov 1 18:10:34 UTC 2006

For the sake of fairness:  the "discussion" and "history" tabs in the 
article should have information on what happened to the changes you 
made; who removed them, why, and when.  I assume there is also a 
mechanism there for disputing the removal and resolving grievances.  
It'll probably be a long and annoying process, and for all I know that 
process is flawed or biased in some way, but there is a process.

Rebecca Pyatkevich

Andrey Shcherbenok wrote:

>Robert, I do not really find this entry SO MUCH objectionable, I just
>encountered it once and tried to edit it a little. I attempted to underscore
>some dissimilarities between the Soviet and the Nazi policies that this
>entry (at least in its version a month ago) made to look very similar. For
>example, the treatment of civilians on the occupied territories or overall
>political objectives of the two leaderships before 1941. But, anyway, the
>fact that my changes were abolished several hours later made me realize that
>Wikipedia is not "shared" or "common" knowledge; it is the knowledge of
>someone anonymous who either has power (Big Brother version) or just
>happened to be the last one to click the "Enter" key. This process, by the
>way, is easy to make automatic -- you can just install very simple software
>that would regularly check for changes in the selected entries and restore
>the original texts. Not that I can think of any improvements to the project
>-- probably it is just impossible to automatically create a text reflecting
>common wisdom or shared knowledge, especially in subjects like history. So,
>I prefer a regular authored (collectively or individually) text to anonymous
>Wikipedia. Too many people do not, though -- when you Google something,
>Wikipedia article often shows up first. I am afraid that this popularity,
>along with the mythology of "objective" or "shared" knowledge, makes it a
>huge resource for mass consciousness manipulation, at least potentially.
>
>Thank you for the reference to Jonathan Brunstedt's article, it is very
>interesting.
>
>Best wishes,
>Andrey
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list
>[mailto:SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert Chandler
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 2:12 AM
>To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Wikepedia
>
>Thank you, Andrey, what you say about trying to make changes is interesting.
>But can you say at least a few words about what you find so objectionable in
>this entry?  I have only  had time to glance at it very briefly indeed
>myself.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Robert
>
>  
>
>>I totally agree that a lot of printed materials are filled with bias and
>>plain factual inaccuracies/mistakes/lies. However, I think there is a
>>difference between a history book by a concrete author with whom you can
>>disagree and engage in a discussion and who has his scholarly reputation
>>    
>>
>at
>  
>
>>stake to prevent him or her from lying, and an anonymous on-line article.
>>    
>>
>Of
>  
>
>>course, if critical thinking is applied to a Wikipedia entry just as it
>>should to an expressed opinion of someone obscure individual you never
>>    
>>
>heard
>  
>
>>about, it is just fine; I often feel, however, that Wikipedia is referred
>>    
>>
>to
>  
>
>>as THE source of objective information, the expression of collective
>>    
>>
>wisdom,
>  
>
>>shared knowledge etc, that is, something having more authority than a
>>writing of a concrete individual, let alone an anonymous one.
>>
>>As to the idea of changing something in Wikipedia myself, it is not at all
>>that simple. I tried editing "Great Patriotic War" entry. My changes
>>reflected on the screen on the day I made them; however, the next day the
>>entry looked exactly as it did before I edited it. I do not know how it
>>works -- whether there is some Big Brother secretly monitoring the site,
>>    
>>
>or
>  
>
>>just an individual who likes the entry as it is and re-edits it every time
>>someone makes changes -- at any rate, this blindfolded process is not a
>>scholarly discussion, neither is it a process thereby some existing public
>>or scholarly consensus gets reflected in the entry that we can read.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list
>>[mailto:SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On Behalf Of Josh Wilson
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:53 AM
>>To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>>Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Wikepedia
>>
>>I would also add that inaccuracies or biased statements in Wikipedia are
>>    
>>
>not
>  
>
>>proof that it should not be used. If you've ever read anything by Daniel
>>Goldhagen, for instance, you'll know that a lot of printed histories are
>>filled with biases. (However, I have read much of his work as his biases
>>    
>>
>are
>  
>
>>interesting and good for debate.)
>>
>>On another thought, accuracy in history can change overtime:
>>http://www.sras.org/news2.phtml?m=768
>>
>>In short, it's not that the Internet is unreliable, but that it's simply
>>much more important now that it is much easier to publish material to not
>>believe everything you read. So I hope that all the educators on this list
>>are doing all they can not only teach language and literature, but also to
>>teach critical thinking skills.
>>
>>IMHO, 
>>
>>JW
>>
>>PS. Also, if you don't like Wikipedia, you may join Wikipedia and change
>>    
>>
>it.
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list
>>[mailto:SEELANGS at listserv.cuny.edu] On Behalf Of Alina Israeli
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:36 AM
>>To: SEELANGS at listserv.cuny.edu
>>Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Wikepedia
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Yes, science and technology sections in Wikipedia (which Nature your
>>>      
>>>
>quote
>  
>
>>>refers to) are usually quite good -- there are a lot more experts around
>>>      
>>>
>to
>  
>
>>>check for accuracy and there are no particular stakes in misinforming the
>>>public about the structure of DNA or the engines used in 1949 Fords, for
>>>example. History is a very different matter...
>>>      
>>>
>>If you don't like the Wikipedia article on "Great Patriotic War" (or
>>anything else for that matter), you can click on the left hand side
>>for another language and get a completely different article in
>>Russian 
>>
>>    
>>
>http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%
>  
>
>9E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%
>  
>
>>D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0
>>
>>or in German 
>>http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronologie_Zweiter_Weltkrieg (in fact
>>two German versions
>>http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fer_Vaterl%C3%A4ndischer_Krieg)
>>
>>or in French http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Barbarossa
>>
>>or in a number of other languages. These are not translations, for
>>some articles I compared Russian, English and French and had ample
>>opportunity to observe differences.
>>    
>>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------