The FUD-based Encyclopedia
| From: | "McHenry, Bob" <bmchenry-AT-websense.com> | |
| To: | <letters-AT-lwn.net> | |
| Subject: | The FUD-based Encyclopedia | |
| Date: | Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:52:46 -0800 |
Dear Editor,
I have just read Aaron Krowne's rather hysterical article in Free
Software Magazine #2, rebutting my criticisms of the Wikipedia project.
Mr. Krowne lives, it seems, in a much more dramatic world than do I. I
do wish to thank him for the compliment (even if not intended as such)
of putting me into such distinguished company as that of Messrs.
Ballmer, McBride, Ellison, and McNealy. My first thought on seeing that
he had done so was, naturally, that now perhaps I, too, might be rich
and famous, or at least that I might be invited to one of those
high-flown international conferences they are always addressing. Alas,
it is not to be, for Mr. Krowne has sent the scouts in the wrong
direction. The photo he imposes upon the mugshots of the other four is
not me. Evidently, Mr. Krowne did a Google image search on my name and
selected the first hit. A single further click would have revealed that
the man pictured is a former executive with VideoDisc and now a lawyer
and professor. Frankly, I'm surprised they don't teach this digital
research trick at Emory University. On the other hand, it does seem
quite Wikipedian.
Mr. Krowne's argument consists of little more than a restatement of the
faith I questioned. The substance is captured perfectly in the graph
labeled "A hypothetical chart...". A more honest caption would have read
"If we had data relevant to the question, and if my unsupported prior
beliefs are somehow correct, then a graph of that data might conceivably
look something like this." To which one can only respond, Well, yes, it
might. Mr. Krowne's article is not the least useful response to mine
that I have seen, but it is the most elaborately silly.
Robert McHenry
Posted Mar 4, 2005 0:27 UTC (Fri)
by dvdeug (guest, #10998)
[Link]
Posted Mar 4, 2005 2:53 UTC (Fri)
by stock (guest, #5849)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 8, 2005 0:29 UTC (Tue)
by illtyd (guest, #2124)
[Link]
It depends what you mean by open. The wikipedia is akin to a linux kernel where anybody can apply a patch to the current official tree. I'd agree that a system needs to allow other to suggest improvements, but such improvements need to be referreed.
Posted Mar 4, 2005 4:19 UTC (Fri)
by jabby (guest, #2648)
[Link] (2 responses)
To me, both articles were tinged with not a little emotional fervor. I think both commentators are threatened by the model represented by the other. What this discussion could use is some good, objective research. Mr. Krowne is upset that Mr. McHenry only references one article (though it was very well chosen and effective as a demonstration). So, someone ought to conduct a review of 100 articles, distributed over many topics and genres (biography, geography, ancient history, recent history, etc.). And then do a review of the corresponding articles in traditional encyclopedias.
I think both of them make good points, though. The Alexander Hamilton's birthdate example does clearly demonstrate a weakness of the open development model. However, by pointing it out, Mr. McHenry has actually just aided Wikipedia by providing more common information that can be added to the article. In fact, the Wikipedia entry has been updated with this information. It should now be clear to anyone updating the entry that the birthdate is in question and that the best known dates are already included. So, McHenry just proved in some sense that the open collaboration model does in fact work!
Posted Mar 4, 2005 14:44 UTC (Fri)
by imres (guest, #12)
[Link] (1 responses)
Krowne's article has a great merit, in my view. Mixed with the FUD anti-FUD talk there is an attempt to explain the phenomenon underlying why Wikipedia works and produces content of good quality? And the first step in this direction is Yochai Benkler's seminal paper "Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm" http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html . Krowne even proposes some interesting extensions to Benkler's theory.
The point is that there is a *lot* of explaining to be done. One of the best places I know of where this explaining is being slowly undertaken is the Many2Many website http://www.corante.com/many/ where a number of columnists including Clay Shirky, Ross Mayfield, Danah Boyd and others are regularly posting some quite ineresting observations and hypothesis.
Posted Mar 8, 2005 0:34 UTC (Tue)
by illtyd (guest, #2124)
[Link]
Its one thing to explain how something works. Its another to demonstrate that it does. Does it? The one article referred to by McHenry was corrected. As an earlier comment noted, no-one has done a review of a representative sample of entries and assessed how they have done independently of such a review of the articles, which Krowne claims is unnecessary
Posted Mar 9, 2005 10:29 UTC (Wed)
by gerv (guest, #3376)
[Link]
The Wikipedia model may indeed be better, but Aaron Krowne didn't do a very good job of proving it.
Gerv
The proof of the pudding is in the eating; the only reason why we should be talking about faith here is because it's easier for McHenry to make fun of faith.The FUD-based Encyclopedia
The only system which has a chance of reaching a 100% truth value , can The FUD-based Encyclopedia
only be an open system. As wikipedia is exactly that, Mr. Robert McHenry
should step down from his Ann Coulter approach of discussion. As you may
know the Ann Coulter style of discussion is something like your sergeant
tells you the truth, and you can only say "Yes Sir!".
Robert M. Stockmann
stock@stokkie.net
The only system which has a chance of reaching a 100% truth value , can
only be an open system.
The FUD-based Encyclopedia
I am honestly disappointed with both articles. When I first read McHenry's article, I was somewhat convinced by his Alexander Hamilton example, but I was uncomfortable with the thin evidence for his conclusions. After reading the Krowne response and Mr. McHenry's letter here, I can only shake my head.The FUD-based Encyclopedia
I agree only partially with your take.The FUD-based Encyclopedia
The FUD-based Encyclopedia
McHenry's follow-up is better than his original. I think Wikipedia's great, but I wasn't impressed by Krowne's "rebuttal" at all, and McHenry makes some telling points about it.The FUD-based Encyclopedia