Communal Digital Culture

[trivas7]

Communal aspects of digital culture run deep and wide. If you want to know what communist work will look like, look no further than Wikipedia (http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism?currentPage=all).

[mel]

Wikipedia has higher-level administrators that monitor, censor, and remove things. Entire conversations have been known to disappear completely at the behest of Jimbo Wales, even from the archives and "version history" of pages. Wikipedia is a tremendously successful public effort, and information is usually relatively accurate, and it serves as a good starting point for research, but given its problems, I'd rather not put it up as the poster child for communal effort.

Google "wikitruth" for more information about the problems with wikipedia. I'm not allowed to post links yet.

[Kronos]

I get the idea here...that means of communicating are expanding...which would supposedly create stronger collective interests.

There is a flip side to this, though, that is counter effective. You have to consider that one million "face book" users are not the ideal revolutionary type. Ironically, you have one million consumers with average-to-below IQs, minimum knowledge of communism (what they see on the history channel is about it), a head full of consumer culture garbage, and a preoccupation only with getting laid.

If anything, these zeros are making website owners more profit, not strengthening the revolutionary spirit on planet earth.

Its a good, optimistic thought.....but the cynic in me doesn't see it happenin.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Back in the 90s, there were many techno-utopianists (not hardcore ideologically, they just felt that many problems would be solved through digital technology).

But downloadable music is a good example of how capitalism gets in the way. At first the record companies tried to fight it and destroy it, then when they won they copyright battles, they bought it all up and now are trying to distribute MP3s on their terms.

In theory, digital technology is a huge advancement and potentially, everyone in the world could have a Kindle type device and have the library of Alexandria in their pocket... Amazon.com will never let this happen because where's the profit in it. In theory, any band should have an equal shot because you don't need the distribution networks... movies can be made much cheeper and distributed at not cost to the producers... fill in your own examples here.

But since there's no profit in a more democratic distribution method, these things will only happen if corporations can figure out how to make money with these advances.

I think it demonstrates how this era of capitalism actually holds back technological progress rather than being a catalyst like it was initially.

Get rid of capitalism and run production and distibution democratically and there will be an explosion of both culture and technologies that revolutionize our daily lives.

PS... Iphone: great idea, why did it take so long, because competeing companies had to work out deals and legal issues so that a computer company could get phone plans with ATT. Why the hell would we waste resources making small camperas, planners, mp3 players, and cell phones when we could use less resources and make 1 thing? Why would we continue to make TVs with seperate stereo systems, a seperate cable box, a seperate DVD player etc?

Capitalism is irrational.

[mel]

PS... Iphone: great idea, why did it take so long, because competeing companies had to work out deals and legal issues so that a computer company could get phone plans with ATT. Why the hell would we waste resources making small camperas, planners, mp3 players, and cell phones when we could use less resources and make 1 thing? Why would we continue to make TVs with seperate stereo systems, a seperate cable box, a seperate DVD player etc?

Capitalism is irrational.

Just on this, something which is just a camera, planner, mp3 player, or cell phone is far cheaper to produce, and specialized to its purpose. Some people don't need all of the separate components, so why get something more expensive which has all of them included? I have an iPhone and enjoy it greatly, but I still like having a separate camera because my regular camera is specialized to the task. A separate camera has a specialized design, higher build quality, higher picture quality, and is ultimately better suited to the task than an all-in-one device. Sometimes the tradeoff of convenience vs. suitability is worth it, sometimes it isn't. I'd hope that not all cameras in a post-revolutionary society would also be phones, tvs, dvd players, and sinks.

By the way, the TVs have a separate cable box because analog TVs need a way to convert the new digital signals so that they can still display a picture. As the older analog TVs begin to phase out, you'll be seeing fewer and fewer digital cable boxes, especially if they decide to put the DVR and associated equipment into the television set as well.

[trivas7]

Wikipedia has higher-level administrators that monitor, censor, and remove things. Entire conversations have been known to disappear completely at the behest of Jimbo Wales, even from the archives and "version history" of pages.
I believe that Jim Wales is a Randian; how this affects the administration of WP I don't know.

[bellyscratch]

Don't think I've seen his mentioned here yet, but what about open source software...

I'd add more but I'm a bit hungover and can't really think properly

[mel]

Depends on the software. A lot of it is developed with a sort of "benevolent dictator" at the top, like Linux. Linus Torvalds is pretty much in charge of what does and does not go into the kernel, and nobody dares fork it because they couldn't get the developers to properly support the fork. Some might be developed, as far as features and things go, by a direct democracy, sometimes the developers are mostly in-house people paid by a corporation, so they develop the features that will make money for their company, which is sometimes in line with the features users want, and sometimes not.

[IcarusAngel]

There is nothing communist about Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with people's needs (or really even wants) and there is massive right-wing distortion on that website. Really, it is not recognized as a viable source anywhere but netzians land. Try publishing a research paper based on research from Wikipedia.

Also, open source software was a term created by a far right libertarian to make it more business friendly. He thought the "free" in "free-software" might give off the idea that people should share things freely. Open Source software is about profiteering and people have made tons of money off of it. As for things like Apache, people do contribute to it, but that's something that's used for webservers and things and so they often contribute to it out of their own personal self-interest.

How can socialism exist without class struggle? It is the idea of socialism that there can be no hierarchies and no property, and things like "digg," Red edit, facebook, and so on, are very much your average corporate endeavor. In fact, those things are used by corporations to make profits, like to generate more hits to people who have the power and resources to influence it or hack it. This is neither communal socialism or individualistic socialism.

Interestingly, the Free-software foundation has a boycott of facebook going on and I believe it's connected with the Rupert Murdock Conglomerate.

Socialism has been distorted so badly it is basically a meaningless term at this point.

[IcarusAngel]

Depends on the software. A lot of it is developed with a sort of "benevolent dictator" at the top, like Linux. Linus Torvalds is pretty much in charge of what does and does not go into the kernel, and nobody dares fork it because they couldn't get the developers to properly support the fork. Some might be developed, as far as features and things go, by a direct democracy, sometimes the developers are mostly in-house people paid by a corporation, so they develop the features that will make money for their company, which is sometimes in line with the features users want, and sometimes not.

Yes. The way software is created is really not free-market nor socialistic, but out of that kind of a spectrum altogether, like science.

Sometimes software has been developed by large corporations, like MS, AT&T, etc., sometimes software has come from University research and the research of mathematicians & computer scientists, sometimes software has come from individual inventers, who've benefitted from said research.

In much the same way, science began under feudalistic and monarchical systems and made some of its best advancements in the FDR-style era of democratic-capitalism. Soviet scientists also made contributions and the Soviet Union industrialized faster than any other nation in history.

So it's hard to try and pigeonhole something like software and/or science or note where it comes from.

Python programming language also has a benevolent dictator, so even though it's free, it's governed by the Python Software Foundation. Interestingly, if you're a Java developer you can vote on new features if you're a member of the Sun Community, you can't do that with, say, C#, but I think C# is a far more preferable language.

[mel]

As for things like Apache, people do contribute to it, but that's something that's used for webservers and things and so they often contribute to it out of their own personal self-interest.

Isn't all software created to scratch an itch or solve a problem that is of interest to you? Why contribute to software that is of no use and that you do not have an interest in using?

Everything else you said makes decent sense, except that "open source" is an umbrella term that is just more inclusive of which licenses are accepted than "Free Software", open source software does not necessarily allow distribution and modification rights. It just allows the source code to be viewed. Free software is software which necessarily allows for distribution.

[mel]

Interestingly, if you're a Java developer you can vote on new features if you're a member of the Sun Community, you can't do that with, say, C#, but I think C# is a far more preferable language.

At this point, Java is a far superior choice for advocates of freedom because it is now 100% free software. C# is proprietary and locks you into Microsoft's development environment (although Mono is getting there). Java is completely open now, and there are no restrictions on modification and distribution, so if somebody wanted to fork java to create a version which was entirely democratically run insofar as feature changes and additions, free from Sun's input, they could.

[IcarusAngel]

Isn't all software created to scratch an itch or solve a problem that is of interest to you? Why contribute to software that is of no use and that you do not have an interest in using?

I think it's obvious to programmers you do not always work on things that are needed or interesting. But yes, many people work on software that they neither have an interest working in, nor do they find it of any use.

For example, for many people, software development is merely a job, and they do nothing more than maintain code. That is the extent of their interest, that it provides them with subsistence.

Also, to learn software programming (perhaps for a job), you may create things that A. you have no interest in or B. is of no use and/or has been made a thousand times before.

It's like being a machinst and using dies. Perhaps you've used worked with dies in your life, and now decide to get a job making products with them, but you may not have an interest in it other than money at this point.

Programmers generally do not have the freedom to always study in the area they want to work in, like a scientist has, except maybe a computer scientist.


At this point, Java is a far superior choice for advocates of freedom because it is now 100% free software. C# is proprietary and locks you into Microsoft's development environment (although Mono is getting there). Java is completely open now, and there are no restrictions on modification and distribution, so if somebody wanted to fork java to create a version which was entirely democratically run insofar as feature changes and additions, free from Sun's input, they could.

If it's just about "free-software" why not develop an application in C++? If it's a GUI, why not make it in QT or GTK+, or what have you, which are also 100% free-software. You could also use Python, which also has free GUI tools, like wxwidgets, which can also can be done in C++ even.

C# was Microsoft's attempt to "fix" java. I feel it's a superior language for my purposes, and the applications run far faster than their java counterparts. I think it's going to stay around for a while and grow in popularity, but we'll just have to wait and see.

[mel]

I think it's obvious to programmers you do not always work on things that are needed or interesting. But yes, many people work on software that they neither have an interest working in, nor do they find it of any use.

You just seemed to stigmatize people working on things that they were working on out of "self-interest" as if that made it somehow anti-left. When we're talking about software as a hobby (which was the context I had assumed we were talking about because it was about "people contributing to apache") somebody would not spend their free time working on software that was not interesting or useful to them.


For example, for many people, software development is merely a job, and they do nothing more than maintain code. That is the extent of their interest, that it provides them with subsistence.

Also, to learn software programming (perhaps for a job), you may create things that A. you have no interest in or B. is of no use and/or has been made a thousand times before.

It's like being a machinst and using dies. Perhaps you've used worked with dies in your life, and now decide to get a job making products with them, but you may not have an interest in it other than money at this point.

Programmers generally do not have the freedom to always study in the area they want to work in, like a scientist has, except maybe a computer scientist.

I'm a student of Computer Science and have programmed software before. I understand how maintenance in the industry usually works, and that many programmers do not have freedom to work on interesting or directly useful software projects to them, but I didn't think that this point was really relevant to the discussion we were having.


If it's just about "free-software" why not develop an application in C++? If it's a GUI, why not make it in QT or GTK+, or what have you, which are also 100% free-software. You could also use Python, which also has free GUI tools, like wxwidgets, which can also can be done in C++ even.

C# was Microsoft's attempt to "fix" java. I feel it's a superior language for my purposes, and the applications run far faster than their java counterparts. I think it's going to stay around for a while and grow in popularity, but we'll just have to wait and see.

C# was Microsofts attempt to expropriate Java after Sun's action against them for bundling a custom version that was incompatible with Sun and lock in sun's customers. A properly programmed Java application can be as fast or faster than its C# counterpart, especially with the more recent releases of Java. That said, many java developers are not very good at their jobs and release very laggy and unresponsive software that has, unfortunately, given Java a bad name.

I think it's important to the greatest extent possible to promote and use "Free Software". I have no problem with people using Python or C++ (although QT has its own legal issues that you should be aware of, due to corporate enforced usage restrictions on the free version), and wxWidgets. I was simply noting that when possible Java should be used over C# (if those were the two presented options) as Java is platform agnostic and not tied to any corporate interest now that it has been GPLed.

[IcarusAngel]

You just seemed to stigmatize people working on things that they were working on out of "self-interest" as if that made it somehow anti-left. When we're talking about software as a hobby (which was the context I had assumed we were talking about because it was about "people contributing to apache") somebody would not spend their free time working on software that was not interesting or useful to them.

Yes. What I implying was that even if software were free and open, it wouldn't necessarily fix any problems related to the class struggle. Corporations would still exist and they would continue find ways to make profits out of this "free-software."

Science has always been open, far more open than even software has always been. But this has not prevented corporations from using science to their advantage. Of course, science necessarily can benefit everybody, but problem the consolidation of resources has become worse rather than better.

Science is of course far more versatile and applicable to civilization than computer software as well, which shows its "openness" generally wont fix problems. The problems of society are political, so I fail to see how comparing, say, free-software or even science to "socialism" is helpful.


I'm a student of Computer Science and have programmed software before. I understand how maintenance in the industry usually works, and that many programmers do not have freedom to work on interesting or directly useful software projects to them, but I didn't think that this point was really relevant to the discussion we were having.

Yes. My point was that I do not view software as a left-right issue so I do not necessarily promote free-software and have no real interest in it - I've always liked some MS products like visual studios as well.

When I studied computer science we also used java. I never really liked the language that much, but that's probably because I started with C++. Now I use C# to develop windows applications and such.


I think it's important to the greatest extent possible to promote and use "Free Software". I have no problem with people using Python or C++ (although QT has its own legal issues that you should be aware of, due to corporate enforced usage restrictions on the free version), and wxWidgets. I was simply noting that when possible Java should be used over C# (if those were the two presented options) as Java is platform agnostic and not tied to any corporate interest now that it has been GPLed.

If I was going to make a free-software app of course I would use one of those languages, but it would be C++ or C (what most free-software is written in), or even python, as I have forgotten much of java and do not want to start it again.

[mel]

Yes. What I implying was that even if software were free and open, it wouldn't necessarily fix any problems related to the class struggle. Corporations would still exist and they would continue find ways to make profits out of this "free-software."

Science has always been open, far more open than even software has always been. But this has not prevented corporations from using science to their advantage. Of course, science necessarily can benefit everybody, but problem the consolidation of resources has become worse rather than better.

Science is of course far more versatile and applicable to civilization than computer software as well, which shows its "openness" generally wont fix problems. The problems of society are political, so I fail to see how comparing, say, free-software or even science to "socialism" is helpful.

I can agree with this, especially the bolded sentence. I've been failing to make that point a few times in this thread.



Yes. My point was that I do not view software as a left-right issue so I do not necessarily promote free-software and have no real interest in it - I've always liked some MS products like visual studios as well.

I don't think it's necessarily a left-right issue, but I think that as a person concerned with freedom and free access to information, one might not want to use a programming language which is tied to a single, monolithic corporation and relatively expensive tools to actually compile and use the software. As a developer, I can understand liking MS's development tools, as a person concerned with freedom, I would prefer to write software that somebody could still compile and use WITHOUT tying them to MS's operating system and toolchain.


When I studied computer science we also used java. I never really liked the language that much, but that's probably because I started with C++. Now I use C# to develop windows applications and such.

I use a combination of languages at school, and I've run into some frustrating limitations in Java and PHP. I don't know C# myself, and it might be great, but as I am primarily a linux and mac user, I can't actually use the language.


If I was going to make a free-software app of course I would use one of those languages, but it would be C++ or C (what most free-software is written in), or even python, as I have forgotten much of java and do not want to start it again.

All of those languages are fine, as they have free and open toolchains. I just can't support C# due to its closed nature. This isn't a left/right issue, it's just a "I support free software when possible, and encourage others to do the same" issue.

[ckaihatsu]

and a preoccupation only with getting laid.


Hey, don't knock it -- I think I've chased more tail than a lion in the savannah...! I suppose, to your credit, you've done more *coding* than said lion, but it ain't *everything*...!





Iphone: great idea, why did it take so long, because competeing companies had to work out deals and legal
issues so that a computer company could get phone plans with ATT. Why the hell would we waste resources
making small camperas, planners, mp3 players, and cell phones when we could use less resources and make 1
thing? Why would we continue to make TVs with seperate stereo systems, a seperate cable box, a seperate DVD
player etc?
Capitalism is irrational.


Capitalism is "rational" within the context of the profit motive, as you've described above. It may not play out in the modern era quite as bloodily as swinging axes and stabbing swords, but it may as well be, because we see the result -- a *delay* (of decades) of technological capability made available to the public while the overarching turf battles are slowly settled by the titans of capital.

From a worker's point of view we could *easily* determine what end-user features we need, all at once, and work backwards from that to-do list to engineer that comprehensive tool without having to concern ourselves with territorial fences of any sort.

Wired Magazine had a recent article called "The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online" in which they conveniently -- and ideologically -- confuse socialism for *societalism*. Blithely ignoring the productive *source* of technological goods their collaborative utopia is premised on they twist and disfigure the class basis of the term 'socialism' in order to provide their technological elitist report.

To their credit they *do* point out the obvious post-market nature of our new era of digital-leveraged collaborations, but decidedly at the expense of a clear class consciousness about whose labor underlies this privilege. If the same First World denizens simply had the same free time to daydream to their hearts' content instead of spending the time online would the world be any different, really?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Communal Digital Culture" is just another example of a technology that could make socialism easier to build and more efficient. Such technologies have been piling up for quite some time. Socialism is more feasible today than ever before - and it's getting increasingly feasible every year. Today we have computers that could be used to draw detailed economic plans in days and update them in minutes, meaning that we could have a much more efficient planned economy than was possible before. The technology that powers our mobile phones could be used to create portable voting devices, meaning that large-scale direct democracy is now feasible for the first time in human history. And the internet - the "Communal Digital Culture" - is giving us the means to collect and share information faster and more efficiently than any capitalist market.

The more our technology develops, the less we need capitalism. This is just the latest step in that direction.

[ckaihatsu]

The more our technology develops, the less we need capitalism. This is just the latest step in that direction.


Along these lines I'd like to recommend taking a look at 'revolutionary policy *solution* (SOCIALIST SUPPLY & DEMAND)', a blog entry in the header of this post -- it describes a framework that could potentially be used to provide virtually zero-overhead, bottom-up direct democracy on an industrial proletarian basis, by locale.

[mikelepore]

Wikipedia has higher-level administrators that monitor, censor, and remove things. Entire conversations have been known to disappear completely at the behest of Jimbo Wales, even from the archives and "version history" of pages. Wikipedia is a tremendously successful public effort, and information is usually relatively accurate, and it serves as a good starting point for research, but given its problems, I'd rather not put it up as the poster child for communal effort.

Google "wikitruth" for more information about the problems with wikipedia. I'm not allowed to post links yet.

A main problem with wikipedia is their publication bias. If someone with a printing press were to write that the moon is made of green cheese, then an article on the composition of the moon is supposed to say: according to one theory the moon is made of rock, however, another theory asserts that it's made of green cheese. If a scientist who has studied the moon for forty years tries to post the actual answer, that person's report has no more weight than the green cheese movement that was just born yesterday, because any use of "original research" is strictly prohibited by the formal rules. The result is a collection of comments that were selected, not according to how well the writers know something, but how frequently statements have been found in a variety of publications.

Wikipedia is usually a convenient place to get facts that no one wants to dispute but are merely interesting, like what was the first album by the Beatles, who was Washington's vice-president, etc. But it's turns into a mess whenever a disagreement occurs.

Finally, no matter how it gets resolved, and a few paragraphs that leave all sides satisfied seems to be agreed upon, anyone in the world who has a delete key on their keyboard is allowed to come along the next day and delete the whole thing.

[trivas7]

Wikipedia is usually a convenient place to get facts that no one wants to dispute but are merely interesting, like what was the first album by the Beatles, who was Washington's vice-president, etc. But it's turns into a mess whenever a disagreement occurs.

Finally, no matter how it gets resolved, and a few paragraphs that leave all sides satisfied seems to be agreed upon, anyone in the world who has a delete key on their keyboard is allowed to come along the next day and delete the whole thing.
Is this the fault of how wikis work or specifically their use as encyclopedias?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Communal aspects of digital culture run deep and wide. If you want to know what communist work will look like, look no further than Wikipedia (http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism?currentPage=all).
Except Wikipedia is a website, and in no way demonstrates what a "communist world" would look like; since you can't run the world on the internet.

Also, Wikipedia has some horribly unreliable information; and reliability of information should be a cornerstone of any sane society imo.

[trivas7]

Except Wikipedia is a website, and in no way demonstrates what a "communist world" would look like; since you can't run the world on the internet.

I said communist work not "communist world". It will be collaborative, interactive and democratic.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I said communist work not "communist world". It will be collaborative, interactive and democratic.
Excuse me for misreading.

True, I guess. I just don't see the point of using Wikipedia as an example, because again, it is an internet site.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Also, Wikipedia has some horribly unreliable information; and reliability of information should be a cornerstone of any sane society imo.

If by horribly you mean "Same reliability as encyclopedia Britannica" then yes.

Anti-Wikipedia sentiments almost always feel like there part of this low level mistrust of democracy that seems to pervade modern society.(There are of course reasonable attacks on wikipedia but these involve the mods and not the democratic elements.)

[mikelepore]

Is this the fault of how wikis work or specifically their use as encyclopedias?

It would be great to have a place where you can look up any word, and there you will find many articles of opinion related to it, knowing that they are a spectrum of opinions. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has successfully found a formula that can lead to a collection of objective articles and keep the opinions out.

[Lynx]

I enjoy Wikipedia but it is too bureaucratic for my taste. Editing Wikipedia is partly an exercise in bureaucracy.
I believe it would be more realistic (and involve less editorial wrangling) if Wikipedia were developed as a compendium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compendium).

[GPDP]

In light of this discussion, the following Wired article might be of interest:

http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism

Basically, it argues that the internet and its many social networking and open source aspects are leading us towards a "new" socialism distinct from the old (i.e. Stalinism, though they call it "communism" here, as one would expect). It repeats much of the same crap about communism that pervades its popular perception, but it argues that we may be approaching a "stateless" bottom-up form through cutting-edge technology. A "third way" that's neither statist "communism" and chaotic free market capitalism. Basically, a decentralized planned network a la gift economy, as advocated by anarchists and other "libertarian socialists."

Obviously, given what has been said here, some of you might find the conclusions a bit ridiculous. Nevertheless, it's interesting to see such an article in a magazine like Wired.

[trivas7]

It would be great to have a place where you can look up any word, and there you will find many articles of opinion related to it, knowing that they are a spectrum of opinions. I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation has successfully found a formula that can lead to a collection of objective articles and keep the opinions out.
You're describing a search engine, no? Perhaps WolframAlpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/)?

[mykittyhasaboner]

If by horribly you mean "Same reliability as encyclopedia Britannica" then yes.

Anti-Wikipedia sentiments almost always feel like there part of this low level mistrust of democracy that seems to pervade modern society.(There are of course reasonable attacks on wikipedia but these involve the mods and not the democratic elements.)
I wasn't attacking democratic elements of Wikipedia, tbh I could care less about whether or not Wiki is democratic or not.

A lot of Wikipedia's information is unreliable, because much of it goes un-cited, and stays that way. Some info is actually really great, but I can't help but notice that a lot of Wiki's articles (especially political subjects) have been written with an obvious bias and content that doesn't provide any external source other than the author's word. Of course I realize Wiki can't be perfect, but the thing is, most people take Wikipedia like its complete fact, and don't even bother to look anywhere else; not even the sources at the bottom.

[mel]

I wasn't attacking democratic elements of Wikipedia, tbh I could care less about whether or not Wiki is democratic or not.

A lot of Wikipedia's information is unreliable, because much of it goes un-cited, and stays that way. Some info is actually really great, but I can't help but notice that a lot of Wiki's articles (especially political subjects) have been written with an obvious bias and content that doesn't provide any external source other than the author's word. Of course I realize Wiki can't be perfect, but the thing is, most people take Wikipedia like its complete fact, and don't even bother to look anywhere else; not even the sources at the bottom.

As far as this is concerned, you can't blame wikipedia for people misusing it. No encyclopedia is meant to be used as the end-all be-all of informational sources. It can't be blamed if people use it for other than what it was intended. It's great as a starting point for research on a lot of topics (because of its citations).

It's also good for looking up little facts and tidbits of information that aren't otherwise important. A quick primer on a subject you know nothing about. I use it often to look up quick summaries of artistic movements and things like that so that I can talk a little more intelligently about things I don't have much background in, for that it's great.

[DIzzIE]

There is nothing communist about Wikipedia.

This seems to me to be quite a loaded statement, so perhaps it is best if you start out by outlining a definition of 'communist' you happen agree with, and then we can see how that definition could or could not be applied to Wikipedia.


It has nothing to do with people's needs (or really even wants)

Why then, pray tell, is it currently listed (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org) as the seventh most viewed site on the web? If people neither want it or need it, why do they visit the site by the truckload? Are you suggesting that the millions of daily page views are made entirely by automated bots, through involuntary coercion, or perhaps through incidental surfing? If not, then how do you otherwise explain your seemingly obscene claim?


there is massive right-wing distortion on that website

Funny indeed, considering many 'right-wingers' would say that there is a massive left-wing distortion (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_bias_in_Wikipedia) :lol:.


Really, it is not recognized as a viable source anywhere but netzians land.

Well, this statement is demonstratably false (http://www.newton.k12.in.us/ele/complab/fifth.htm), but that's beside the point. If it indeed wasn't recognized as a viable source anywhere but netzians land (which it is), so what? Are you for some reason attempting to devalue Wikipedia because it is allegedly 'not recognized' anywhere outside of the net? Do keep in mind that Wikipedia is inhabited by people who also inhabit net-land's foil, meatspace. And for that matter, why the fuck is the knee-jerk anti-web bias of any staunch defenders of the Old Guard of Information of any relevance? You've heard that one study (http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html) that found Wikipedia to be as 'reliable' as Encyclopedia Britannica?


Try publishing a research paper based on research from Wikipedia.

What exactly is the point of this remark? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; have you seen too many (any) published research papers based on research from, say, Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, or any other encyclopedia? Encyclopedias serve as rudimentary introductions to a topic, they are not the be all and end all of available information, and one certainly does not become an expert on any topic solely by reading any encyclopedia article about it, whether that encyclopedia is Wikipedia or any other. As such, I don't see why you and others only seem to coat Wikipedia in your vitriol. Claims of bias, censorship, lack of accuracy, and so forth can be applied to any similar compendium of information.




Also, open source software was a term created by a far right libertarian to make it more business friendly. He thought the "free" in "free-software" might give off the idea that people should share things freely.

Fair enough, but 'free software' is, in turn, a term that serves to mask RMS's own stance of not being categorically anti-business. This semantic obfuscation is just as nefarious as ESR's championing of 'open source'.


It is the idea of socialism that there can be no hierarchies and no property, and things like "digg," Red edit, facebook, and so on, are very much your average corporate endeavor.

Absolutely agree with this, but your choice of examples is highly selective. Freenet, usenet, stealthiswiki, and so on are very much not your average corporate endeavors.

[RGacky3]

This seems to me to be quite a loaded statement, so perhaps it is best if you start out by outlining a definition of 'communist' you happen agree with, and then we can see how that definition could or could not be applied to Wikipedia.

let me put it to you this way, if you voted about what to write in a card you were giving to someone who was sick, that would be 'democracy' in a way, however that does'nt mean its the democracy that people are talking about when they talk about democracy.

Communism applies to recourses and capital and socio-economic hiarchies. Not to encyclopedia design.


Why then, pray tell, is it currently listed (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org) as the seventh most viewed site on the web? If people neither want it or need it, why do they visit the site by the truckload? Are you suggesting that the millions of daily page views are made entirely by automated bots, through involuntary coercion, or perhaps through incidental surfing? If not, then how do you otherwise explain your seemingly obscene claim?

Its a nice thing to have, but theres a big difference between reading interesting things and actual resources and capital, that has power attached to it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If by horribly you mean "Same reliability as encyclopedia Britannica" then yes.
ONLY ON HARD SCIENCE ARTICLES.

It is a myth that Wikipedia has "The same reliability as Encyclopedia Britannica" in general. There was one study - and only one, by the way - which said Wikipedia is as reliable as Britannica on hard science articles. The study only looked at science articles, not at everything.

Mikelepore is correct:


A main problem with wikipedia is their publication bias. If someone with a printing press were to write that the moon is made of green cheese, then an article on the composition of the moon is supposed to say: according to one theory the moon is made of rock, however, another theory asserts that it's made of green cheese.
Furthermore, I would add that since no one knows the full list of publications that talk about a subject, many articles are biased simply because the editors cite the publications that support their point of view and ignore the existence of the rest.

Or in other words, if someone said the moon is made of green cheese, you could only dispute it on Wikipedia if you can cite a reliable scientific source that denies it. If you know it's wrong, but can't find a citation to dispute it, tough luck.

[DIzzIE]

let me put it to you this way, if you voted about what to write in a card you were giving to someone who was sick, that would be 'democracy' in a way, however that does'nt mean its the democracy that people are talking about when they talk about democracy.

What is the democracy that 'people' (who, exactly?) are talking about when they talk about democracy then? If your definition of democracy includes something about voting or whatnot (your example is quite hazy), then yes the card-writing would indeed be democratic. Similarly, if an encyclopedia displays communist characteristics, then it could be said that there is 'something' (not 'nothing' like IcarusAngel claimed) communist about it. But neither IcarusAngel nor you have ventured to outline your definitions of 'communist', so we cannot proceed with this matter...



Communism applies to recourses and capital and socio-economic hiarchies. Not to encyclopedia design.

You do realize that Wikipedia is a resource (I'm assuming here you meant 'resource' not 'recourse' as that would seemingly make more sense; but Wikipedia can be interpreted as a 'recourse' (in terms of access to information) as well, so no matter)? You also do realize that Wikipedia is free, while some other encyclopedias (like Britannica) are not? And that Wikipedia is run by a 'non-profit' (Wikimedia), while other encyclopedias are run by private companies, for profit. This would indeed place encyclopedia design within the schema of 'capital and socio-economic hierarchies' in terms of regulating access to information and so on...


Its a nice thing to have, but theres a big difference between reading interesting things and actual resources and capital, that has power attached to it.

What on earth are you talking about?

My statement was a direct reply to IcarusAngel's statement, here let me quote it again since you're apparently confused:



It has nothing to do with people's needs (or really even wants) Why then, pray tell, is it currently listed as the seventh most viewed site on the web? If people neither want it or need it, why do they visit the site by the truckload? Are you suggesting that the millions of daily page views are made entirely by automated bots, through involuntary coercion, or perhaps through incidental surfing? If not, then how do you otherwise explain your seemingly obscene claim?

I fail to see how your comments address any of the questions I asked that would explain IcarusAngel's seemingly obscene claim.

If you indirectly mean to imply that some wants/needs, such as those potentially served by Wikipedia, are more frivolous than other wants/needs related to "actual resources [what the fuck is an 'actual resource'?] and capital, that has power attached to it", then I would only point out that a desire for free information is most certainly linked up to power relations, and not the least bit frivolous...but this is all presumption as to your meaning on my part, since you haven't exactly explained yourself...


It is a myth that Wikipedia has "The same reliability as Encyclopedia Britannica" in general. There was one study - and only one, by the way - which said Wikipedia is as reliable as Britannica on hard science articles. The study only looked at science articles, not at everything.

Speaking of myths...is it likewise a myth to say that EB has a greater reliability than Wikipedia? How many studies have examined the reliability of EB articles? (I'm genuinely curious about this) Not that I am implying that you think these are or aren't myths, but based on your limited reply (which didn't mention any other EB reliability studies), we can rephrase your statement as follows, no?

It is a myth that Encyclopedia Britannica has "the same reliability as Wikipedia" in general. There was one study - and only one, by the way - which said Encyclopedia Britannica is as reliable as Wikipedia on hard science articles. The study only looked at science articles, not everything.


I would add that since no one knows the full list of publications that talk about a subject, many articles are biased simply because the editors cite the publications that support their point of view and ignore the existence of the rest.

Again, much like the earlier criticisms mentioned in this thread, this seems to me to be a universal criticism applicable to all texts, let alone all encyclopedias, so I fail to see why we need to single out Wikipedia in this regard; unless of course your comment about 'many articles' was not limited to Wikipedia, which given the context (your quoting of mikelepore whose comment was explicitly referring to Wikipedia...) it seems like it was.

Indeed, your comment poses quite an intriguing dilemma: given that "no one knows the full list of publications that talk about a subject", and that this apparently leads to an inherent bias ("many articles are biased simply because the editors cite the publications that support their point of view and ignore the existence of the rest"), then objectivity is altogether an impossibility until indeed someone does learn of the full list of publictations that talk about a subject (and apparently also cites them and gives them equal weight), not only for Wikipedia but for, again, any text...so, yet again, why single out Wikipedia?


Or in other words, if someone said the moon is made of green cheese, you could only dispute it on Wikipedia if you can cite a reliable scientific source that denies it. If you know it's wrong, but can't find a citation to dispute it, tough luck.

Maybe you should read over the Verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) page, since your usage of "wrong" seems to imply that you're confounding verifiability with truth...


The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

While you're there, you should probably pay special attention to the subsection on Sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources) as well, and consider whether any publication that mentions that the moon is made of green cheese is going to be a reliable one...since all sources are not considered equal, as you seem to be implying.


In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

And finally, be sure not to miss the section as the bottom, conveniently entitled Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require _exceptional_sources).


Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[nb 5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

So in light of this basic information from Wikipedia, we can now to return to your statement,


if someone said the moon is made of green cheese, you could only dispute it on Wikipedia if you can cite a reliable scientific source that denies it

and see that it is seemingly incorrect. The onus of proof to provide an exceptional source would be on whoever injected the exceptional statement ('that the moon is made of green cheese') into the article; if it is added without such a source, it would be deleted outright.

Thus it would seem to me that your attack on Wikipedia is based on a skewed oversimplification of their policies...which is quite unfortunate because there are plenty of real criticisms of Wikipedia to be made (see particularly mikelepore's first reply (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1454992#post1454992) in this thread) that don't rely on the erection of frivolous strawmen.

[RGacky3]

What on earth are you talking about?

My statement was a direct reply to IcarusAngel's statement, here let me quote it again since you're apparently confused:

What I'm saying is not all needs and wants are equal, for example, the want for air conditioning is much different than the want to read interesting information.


What is the democracy that 'people' (who, exactly?) are talking about when they talk about democracy then? If your definition of democracy includes something about voting or whatnot (your example is quite hazy), then yes the card-writing would indeed be democratic. Similarly, if an encyclopedia displays communist characteristics, then it could be said that there is 'something' (not 'nothing' like IcarusAngel claimed) communist about it. But neither IcarusAngel nor you have ventured to outline your definitions of 'communist', so we cannot proceed with this matter...


I'm not saying its not democratic/communistic perse, I'm saying that it is really insignificant. When people think of the word democracy, they are thinking in the political realm, meaning desicions that effect people directly and severely. With communism its the same, significant desicions, that effect people directly and severely.

Its like the difference to choose between the freedom to choose paper or plastic, or the freedom of press.


You do realize that Wikipedia is a resource (I'm assuming here you meant 'resource' not 'recourse' as that would seemingly make more sense; but Wikipedia can be interpreted as a 'recourse' (in terms of access to information) as well, so no matter)? You also do realize that Wikipedia is free, while some other encyclopedias (like Britannica) are not? And that Wikipedia is run by a 'non-profit' (Wikimedia), while other encyclopedias are run by private companies, for profit. This would indeed place encyclopedia design within the schema of 'capital and socio-economic hierarchies' in terms of regulating access to information and so on...¨

Your right, but remember, the Internet is essencially infinate, the only thing that makes it fit into Captialism is intellectual property (one of the most rediculous forms of property in my opinions), so things will work differently on the internet.

Thats all I'm saying, I'm not saying it does'nt follow certain principles, I'm saying its comparing apples to oranges.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Speaking of myths...is it likewise a myth to say that EB has a greater reliability than Wikipedia? How many studies have examined the reliability of EB articles? (I'm genuinely curious about this)
I don't know. But since Encyclopedia Britannica has quality control and Wikipedia does not, it is safe to assume that EB is more accurate unless proved otherwise.

For the record, I'm not terribly happy with the quality of EB either. Many of their articles on politics are downright amateurish. But no one uses EB as the end-all Absolute Authority on Everything, the way they use Wikipedia. Wikipedia is used by far more people far more often than EB, so it should be judged by higher standards.



I would add that since no one knows the full list of publications that talk about a subject, many articles are biased simply because the editors cite the publications that support their point of view and ignore the existence of the rest.
Again, much like the earlier criticisms mentioned in this thread, this seems to me to be a universal criticism applicable to all texts, let alone all encyclopedias, so I fail to see why we need to single out Wikipedia in this regard; unless of course your comment about 'many articles' was not limited to Wikipedia, which given the context (your quoting of mikelepore whose comment was explicitly referring to Wikipedia...) it seems like it was.
There is an important difference between Wikipedia editors and the editors of other encyclopedias: Wikipedia editors are self-selected. Because of this, there is no guarantee that a controversial article will be edited by people representing all sides of the controversy.

By contrast, a traditional encyclopedia can invite known scholars to write on a subject, making it easier to ensure balance between writers in a dispute.


Indeed, your comment poses quite an intriguing dilemma: given that "no one knows the full list of publications that talk about a subject", and that this apparently leads to an inherent bias ("many articles are biased simply because the editors cite the publications that support their point of view and ignore the existence of the rest"), then objectivity is altogether an impossibility until indeed someone does learn of the full list of publictations that talk about a subject (and apparently also cites them and gives them equal weight), not only for Wikipedia but for, again, any text...so, yet again, why single out Wikipedia?
Because, although no single person knows the full list of publications that talk about a subject, it is possible to find a group of people that collectively have that information - if you actively look for them.

Wikipedia, however, does not actively look for new editors to improve articles that are incomplete or biased. The improvement of articles is a game of random chance: An article will be good only if it's lucky enough to be edited by the right people.


Maybe you should read over the Verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) page, since your usage of "wrong" seems to imply that you're confounding verifiability with truth...

While you're there, you should probably pay special attention to the subsection on Sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources) as well, and consider whether any publication that mentions that the moon is made of green cheese is going to be a reliable one...since all sources are not considered equal, as you seem to be implying.
The "moon made out of green cheese" example was extreme, I will grant you that.

But the point still stands: If there is a controversy on a subject, with sides A and B taking radically different stands, and both of them having reliable sources to back them up, it is possible for editors to write an article about the controversy based entirely on sources that support side A - and completely ignore the very existence of side B. I have seen it happen.

And contrary to what many casual readers of Wikipedia seem to think, side A is not always the majority side. Wikipedia is not biased in favour of popular opinion - it's biased in favour of the opinions of whoever spends more time editing articles.


The onus of proof to provide an exceptional source would be on whoever injected the exceptional statement ('that the moon is made of green cheese') into the article; if it is added without such a source, it would be deleted outright.
Except, of course, that the definition of "exceptional" is left entirely up to the judgment of an article's editors. And in practice, "exceptional" means only "whatever the article's current editors don't agree with."

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Gregory Balk apparently dreamed about something very similar to Wikipedia the night before he died, apparently that's where they got the idea.

[DIzzIE]

What I'm saying is not all needs and wants are equal, for example, the want for air conditioning is much different than the want to read interesting information.

OK, then 1) note that what you are saying is entirely different from what IcarusAngel was saying and hence what I was responding to when you quoted me, and 2) present a viable formula or some sort of scale for deciding which wants/needs are more or less important, meanwhile to repeat what I already said:


If you indirectly mean to imply that some wants/needs, such as those potentially served by Wikipedia, are more frivolous than other wants/needs related to "actual resources [what the fuck is an 'actual resource'?] and capital, that has power attached to it", then I would only point out that a desire for free information is most certainly linked up to power relations, and not the least bit frivolous


I'm not saying its not democratic/communistic perse, I'm saying that it is really insignificant.

OK, then once again 1) note that what you are saying is entirely different from what IcarusAngel was saying and hence what I was responding to when you quoted me, and 2) I very strongly disagree that how information is compiled/accessed is 'insignificant', in fact I would say that it is of the utmost significance as it allows everyone, as opposed to an elite few, to spread knowledge.


intellectual property (one of the most rediculous forms of property in my opinions)

I absolutely agree with you here, my point was only that the Internet is indeed deeply situated within ongoing conflicts related to capital and otherwise; it is not an isolated apolitical island.


since Encyclopedia Britannica has quality control and Wikipedia does not, it is safe to assume that EB is more accurate unless proved otherwise.

Wikipedia has no quality control? If anyone sees anything inaccurate in an article they can correct it. As such, information sharing isn't restricted to a publisher-chosen elite panel of 'expert advisors'. QC becomes everyone's responsibility.


But no one uses EB as the end-all Absolute Authority on Everything, the way they use Wikipedia.

melbicimni already addressed this matter:


you can't blame wikipedia for people misusing it. No encyclopedia is meant to be used as the end-all be-all of informational sources. It can't be blamed if people use it for other than what it was intended.

If readers choose to use WP as the Absolute Authority, then your beef should be with them, not with WP, which does not present itself as anything more than an encyclopedia.


Wikipedia is used by far more people far more often than EB, so it should be judged by higher standards.

In that case, and in keeping in mind that WP is based on user-generated content, the onus to bring WP up to a higher standard literally lies on everyone.


There is an important difference between Wikipedia editors and the editors of other encyclopedias: Wikipedia editors are self-selected. Because of this, there is no guarantee that a controversial article will be edited by people representing all sides of the controversy.

Yes, and the editors of other encyclopedias are selected by corporate boards (thus with a profit motive that always already precedes any other potential motive to impart unbridled information). Standard encyclopedias are first and foremost about making money, all other goals, if there even are any aside from profit, are secondary. So you're damn right I'm going to prefer the 'self-selection' of Wikipedia contributors over the choice of editors or experts made by some corporate cronies.

Secondly, while you're certainly right that there is no innate guarantee that a controversial article will be edited by people representing all sides of the controversy, the key thing to keep in mind is that there is nonetheless the possibility that those representing all sides may edit the article. On the other hand, even with noncommercial encyclopedias whose contributions are strictly regulated by editorial boards, if one side is not presented in the article, it cannot easily be amended to include that side! Then what the fuck are you going to do? I am not about to place my trust in accuracy to some elite editorial committee.

And do keep in mind that the boards of encyclopedias are themselves self-selected, with the difference being that once that initial selection has congealed, no one else may join without that board's approval; unlike WP wherein anyone may 'self-select' to edit an article at any time (obviously there are exceptions to this, for instance protected articles...but they are indeed exceptions, not the rule).


By contrast, a traditional encyclopedia can invite known scholars to write on a subject, making it easier to ensure balance between writers in a dispute.

And again, with WP these 'known scholars' don't need to wait for an invitation on a silver platter, they can edit the pages whenever they want to themselves.


although no single person knows the full list of publications that talk about a subject, it is possible to find a group of people that collectively have that information - if you actively look for them.

Wikipedia, however, does not actively look for new editors to improve articles that are incomplete or biased. The improvement of articles is a game of random chance: An article will be good only if it's lucky enough to be edited by the right people.

Err...WP entries are, by nature, collective enterprises. Traditional encyclopedia articles, on the other hand, are usually done by a single person or a small controlled set of collaborators. So according to your own argument it would seem that WP has the potential to amass a greater reference list of publications about a subject...

Note also that once again, since WP is largely user-generated, to 'look for new editors' is as simple as sending an email to someone you want to edit the wiki and ask them to do so.

Some articles also have open declarations for help, for instance some articles may say:


This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

or...



This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


If there is a controversy on a subject, with sides A and B taking radically different stands, and both of them having reliable sources to back them up, it is possible for editors to write an article about the controversy based entirely on sources that support side A - and completely ignore the very existence of side B. I have seen it happen.

Sure, and it is then possible for someone else to edit the entry to include side B...whereas this is not possible with traditional encyclopedias (see the point already made above about this).


And contrary to what many casual readers of Wikipedia seem to think, side A is not always the majority side. Wikipedia is not biased in favour of popular opinion - it's biased in favour of the opinions of whoever spends more time editing articles.

Yup, but again, this is true for all articles. With the key difference being that the error can readily be corrected on WP; not so for other traditional articles.


Except, of course, that the definition of "exceptional" is left entirely up to the judgment of an article's editors.

Except, of course, that this is where the Dispute Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes) guidelines would come into play.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Wikipedia has no quality control? If anyone sees anything inaccurate in an article they can correct it.
If they have the time to invest in correcting it, that is.

Correcting an error isn't as simple as editing an article. If all you do is edit a wiki article to change something it says, it is very likely your change will be undone by someone else. You have to go out of your way to find sources to support your correction. And then you have to argue with the other editors and get them to accept your changes. All of this takes time. Time that many people don't have.


In that case, and in keeping in mind that WP is based on user-generated content, the onus to bring WP up to a higher standard literally lies on everyone.
You're saying Wikipedia could be great and very accurate, if everyone contributed to it.

True enough. But everyone doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, so it isn't accurate. In fact, the last time I checked, most WP content had been created by less than 1000 users.


Yes, and the editors of other encyclopedias are selected by corporate boards (thus with a profit motive that always already precedes any other potential motive to impart unbridled information). Standard encyclopedias are first and foremost about making money, all other goals, if there even are any aside from profit, are secondary. So you're damn right I'm going to prefer the 'self-selection' of Wikipedia contributors over the choice of editors or experts made by some corporate cronies.
You realize that there's nothing stopping corporations and capitalist politicians from paying their cronies to edit Wikipedia, right? And anyone who is getting paid to edit Wikipedia has much more time on his hands for editing than normal people, so he will be able to push his point of view.


Secondly, while you're certainly right that there is no innate guarantee that a controversial article will be edited by people representing all sides of the controversy, the key thing to keep in mind is that there is nonetheless the possibility that those representing all sides may edit the article.

Sure, and it is then possible for someone else to edit the entry to include side B...whereas this is not possible with traditional encyclopedias (see the point already made above about this).
It can be as possible as you like, but the problem is that it often doesn't happen, no matter how possible it is.


And again, with WP these 'known scholars' don't need to wait for an invitation on a silver platter, they can edit the pages whenever they want to themselves.
Known scholars are usually too busy with their jobs to invest time and effort into Wikipedia.


Some articles also have open declarations for help, for instance some articles may say: [...]
But again, you need to see those articles first in order to find out about their declarations for help. And you need to have the spare time to help.


Except, of course, that this is where the Dispute Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes) guidelines would come into play.
Dispute Resolution is always won by the side with more time on their hands.


On the other hand, even with noncommercial encyclopedias...

And do keep in mind that the boards of encyclopedias...

Err...WP entries are, by nature, collective enterprises. Traditional encyclopedia articles, on the other hand...
This is the crux of the matter: You're comparing Wikipedia to traditional encyclopedias, while I'm criticizing Wikipedia on its own merits, not in comparison with anything else.

I'm saying Wikipedia is inaccurate, and sometimes horribly so, on political and historical articles. I don't care how it compares with other encyclopedias. There is no excuse for spreading false information.

And Wikipedia does spread information, much more so than any other encyclopedia. People use the wiki as Absolute Authority - and this may not be Wikipedia's fault, but it is nevertheless a problem, and something should be done to fix it. One way to fix it is to tell everyone to stop putting so much trust into Wikipedia.

Which is exactly what I'm doing right now.