Adrian Falleiro
archives | syndication | random post

Wikipedia as an Reliable, Credible and Verifiable source08Feb10

Its been ranked the tenth most popular website on the Internet and with over one and a half million articles ranging from the perils of pop culture to the overly obscure it looks sure to revolutionise the way we store, access and think about information.

Knowledge is a powerful tool. Wikipedia, or rather wikis are all about the liberalisation and consolidation of information and turning it into knowledge.

The concept of the wiki, is both new and challenging for society. I say challenging because there is there is a certain stigma surrounding Wikipedia and the reliability and credibility of its information. Please, allow me to debunk some of the myths surrounding Wikipedia.

The information is not reliable because anyone can edit it.
Wikipedia is a secondary source, as I said before, it’s a collaborative effort, the consolidation of information. If you’re claiming Wikipedia to be incorrect, you’re claiming all of its sources to be incorrect. Each Wikipedia article cites each source used to create the article at the bottom of each page.

Independent studies have shown that in fact Wikipedia is on par with the likes of Encyclopedia Britannica, each having an average of 3-4 errors per article.

Wikipedia adheres to its strict verifiability policy, which states “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth…Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources…Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.”

Wikipedia also has a strict policy, called the No Original Research policy, which states: “Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a “novel narrative or historical interpretation.”

Additionally Wikipedia has an administration staff of around 1,000 and a moderation staff of many many more who sift through the articles and either remove or enclose in a disclaimer, statements that are in violation of Wikipedia’s policies including statements lacking sources. Anyone can edit any article and make changes, however, through the power of the wiki you’re free to make changes and any corrections, through this wonderful thing called peer review. History is not being re-written, it’s being refined.

Wikipedia is biased because anyone can edit it
According to Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle, “absolute and non-negotiable”. Wikipedia has a simple formula for neutrality.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By “fact” we mean “a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.” By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean “a matter which is subject to dispute.” Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, “The Beatles were the greatest band,” we can say: “Most people from Sydney in the 1960’s believe that the Beatles were the greatest band,” which can be supported by references. Articles that have bias either have the relevant content removed, or when the challenge of the bias is being challenged itself the page includes a disclaimer at the top of the page.

Wikipedia’s policy on Neutrality states: “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.” Content is no longer biased, but balanced.

Wikipedia is not reliable because it’s subject to vandalism and abuse
Committing vandalism is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy; once spotted it is dealt with accordingly. Wikipedia supports a policy of conflict of interest and treats vandalism in this vein COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. It also discourages self-promotion and campaigning. Articles that make no plausible claim of notability are usually found and deleted shortly after creation.

Again, through the power of the wiki, either the administration, moderation staff, regular readers and editors and the article restored. Information is not vandalized, it’s evaluated and evaluated.

So from this we can conclude that Wikipedia indeed is a reliable, credible, and verifiable source of information and one can have no hesitation in referring to it as a source.

Liveblogging: The Future or a Fad?07Feb10

The idea of ‘live blogging’ an event prompted much thought in me. It seems like the most logical progression from conventional past-tense blogging.

Recently on Injury Time (a sports website I also run)  we started live minute-by-minute commentary of  Barclays English Premier League fixtures. In the age of Twitter, microblogging and the constant real-time stream of  information that permeates us it only seems natural for the traditional blogging platform to adjust and ‘change with the times’.

So I’m wondering if the recent obsession with liveblogging is of any indication of the future in online syndication

Real-Time v Recorded
The major advantage that liveblogging offers content publishers over traditional blogging conventions is the ability to cover something as it happens. Like live televison revolutionised the  media industry, so too may liveblogging.

Looking Retrospectively
However, what live television did not bring is the retrospective tone and reflective nature that allowed us to learn. These days this task is left up to documentaries and films. Whilst liveblogging may be the perfect avenue to cover events, its real-time nature does not allow us to truly reflect since the stream of information is constant.

Conclusion
Liveblogging has its pros, but it’s certainly not applicable for all content producers. Whilst it may be the hot thing going around the blogosphere at the moment, the functionality of the concept is not enough to maintain its usability in the online syndication platform.

Once all the hype disappears, it will disappear into its own niche, only used only by a select few.

The Devaluation of a Free Product On the Internet02Feb10

The Internet has been crafted around a free and liberal philosophy – there is a  emphasis on freedoms (GPL, Creative Commons, et al.)

Services are always free, the majority of websites are free to use but has the abundance of premium and quality services undermined the very value that made these services so great.

What I’m saying is that becuase the internet is built about a free model that users have become expectant of free products and free quality products

Law and Technology16Nov09

The rate at which technology is evolving is far far greater than the rate at which the Australian legal sytem is evolving. It is much easier to rip an MP3 off a CD and post it to a file sharing server than it is to stand next to a stereo with a handheld mic and hand out bootleg cassettes

These are some of the questions raised and reasons why the law is inefficient at responding to the technological change of society

Timely nature – The law is way to slow at responding to key technological issues

  • Copyright Act 1968 – It was illegal to rip a CD to MP3 in Australia till 2006
  • It was also illegal to record TV for the purpose of timeshifting.

Whose jurisdiction? – Who has legal jurisdiction on the Internet

  • In 2007 Yahoo was sued by a French court for having Nazi content for sale in a Yahoo.com store. The issue here is that Yahoo.com is stored and served by a US Internet Network, therefore it is under the jurisdiction of US Law, however Yahoo.com’s content can be accessed anywhere in the world.

The idea of Embedded Law – law not in terms of statues but in the technology itself.

  • DVD players – It is not illegal to purchase a DVD in America and bring it to Australia but my DVD player prohibits me from doing so.
  • Playstation Case 2002 – A man installed region protection circumvention hardware in his Sony Playstation and was sued by Sony. He however was found to be not guilty
  • However the Copyright Act was swiftly updated in 2006 to make circumvention of these methods illegal.

Technology, and ultimately the internet has revolutionised society as we know it. The internet is no longer just linking information. It is linking people – People sharing, trading and collaborating

Revolution does not happen when society adopts new tools, a revolution happens when society adopts new behaviours. In a digital age we need to rethink a few things  – copyright, authorship, commerce, ethics, privacy, governance and ultimately ourselves.


« older entries