Dont Limit Your Sources
Do not limit your sources ThinkingOutLoud DonaldNoyes 20071030
- I recently read a Computer related article from the Wikipedia which had a disclaimer which indicated that no "reliable" sources were cited within the page. Even though such sources as the UN, ANSI, several governmental agencies and generally accepted practices since before the age of the microcomputer were mentioned and linked. This puzzled me. What "reliable" sources are referred to in the disclaimer? Since it seemed to me to be related to housekeeping and control of content, by whatever preservers of accuracy that presently exist, and which matched the content templates which seem to have evolved, rather than as an expression of the articles value, I did not thereby introduce the notion that the content might not be accurate or useful, or because it might not have been authored by "experts", so as to make it "reliable". I read the article, thought about what it said, and from that became aware of new concepts and ideas about the subject.
Examine and test
-
I have always been inquisitive, considering ideas which are explained and presented in a form which makes them both understandable an reasonable, regardless of source. Thus, even though I might consider a topic as expressed by one of a religion not my own as having value such as to be practiced, I can also consider the expressions of those who have values which are not based on any religion foundation as also worthy of emulation. Before I was old enough to know much about such things, I had formed a notion of what seemed sensible, reasonable and fair. I had formed these notions as a result of seeing what people did and said, and observing the results. Even now that I have a religious persuasion which closely matches those early notions, I discover ideas and things which come from a wide variety of sources. I consider listening as a valuable and essential prerequisite to learning. As a result I have formed the conclusion that one can learn and accept things as valuable regardless of the "authority", "prestige", or "presentation position" its presenter occupies. I have chosen to be open to ideas, and to test their value in practical and reasonable fashion.
-
"To define is perhaps to value" (Definition is an important prerequisite to valuation)
-
[I have no idea what that means.]
- Math example -> pi = 3.14159265359
- Presentation -> pi is a numerical constant used in calculating the circumference of a circle, as in circumference = pi * diameter
-
[I have no idea what that means.]
-
"To define is perhaps to value" (Definition is an important prerequisite to valuation)
- [I heartily agree with the notion of being open to ideas, regardless of source, and testing their value in practical and reasonable fashion. That is common sense. However, it's worth noting that any and all sources -- especially those in a scientific or engineering domain -- should be critically evaluated, and must be carefully examined to verify their claims. In particular, note whether or not they have been subject to formal peer review and independent, objective validation. Any claims -- no matter how reasonable-seeming -- that have not been validated through peer review and multiple, independent validations should be considered inherently more suspect than sources that have been peer-reviewed and independently validated. Otherwise, we are forced to consider sources purely on the basis of their reputation or the quality of their rhetoric, i.e., how convincing they seem. That is why many academic journals as regarded as inherently better sources than magazines and 'blogs, and why multiple, independent double-blind medical studies should generally be given more weight than a handful of anecdotal reports.]
- {While you are certainly free to open yourself to ideas from many sources, WikiPedia needs to take more care. There are plenty of people who wish to peddle their own crackpot theories and original research (and we see our fair share on this wiki) and a source like WikiPedia makes these seem to be more credible than is reasonable, especially since WikiPedia, like all Encyclopaedias, has a primary purpose of informing the uninformed - those who, due to lack of surrounding education, cannot critically evaluate the information. The ability to tag articles as needing references and such provides a necessary tool for SocialEngineering of the wikizens to better meet the WikiPedia vision.}
Wiki in General
- The kind of ideas which I am referring to are those which are usually on the "bleeding edge", where there may be few who can be considered qualified as peers. I am sure that things such as Innovations, Inventions, new paradigms, departures from the cut and tried into new approaches and schemes which hold a very narrow to little chance of success, do not garner the attention, let alone the review of a significant number of those who could be considered experts or "peers".
- Examples might include the personal computer, which began, not in the research laboratories of the experts, but in the dream spaces (garages) of visionaries with little support or resources. I wonder where computing would be today without such developments and developers who had a vision which was not the result of the peer-reviewed, academic, governmental, or corporately supported scholarly treatises and papers which are found in the majority of journals. Was Wiki and Wikipedia the result of ideas which received appropriate peer-review? Wiki has been successful even though the premise of free collaboration and cooperation with little limitation on who might participate would not have been advocated in an environment of "peers".
- I am not minimizing the value of journals and peer-review, I am simply suggesting that there are other sources which are numerous as well as "free" and "open", which can result in developments which will be immediately useful and eventually valued by those who become new "peers".
Social Engineering in Wiki
- SocialEngineering may be a strategy of conformation which those who annotate ideas in WikiPedia may think appropriate to enforce a design on what is an appropriate contribution. They may design and exact controls on and apply expert peer-review on presentations, but some ideas which engender new thinking and approaches are rarely if ever the objects of actions or review of peers, or even of non-peers. There are those who are often much more concerned with their investment in considerable "surrounding education" which prohibits introduction of ideas which can not be made to mesh comfortably with ideas considered acceptable among "peers". Thus they either criticize or ignore them.
- {The designers of WikiPedia are quick to point out that there are plenty of other forums for bleeding-edge discussion: blogs, C2, Everything2, Ars Technica, etc. There is little need to take that bleeding edge and apply it to WikiPedia. If you do that too much, you end up with, well, a bleeding Encyclopaedia. I consider their desire to reach their vision to supersede my personal desire to promote various theories I might possess, and reaching their vision has required them to limit the WikiPedia to 'established' views (where 'established' means 'needs verifiable references'). Verifiability is among the ultimate goals - and a very reasonable one - for any encyclopaedia.}
On Topic Wikis
- {I respect that. If I were making a wiki for multi-author writing of fiction, or for helping users configure Gentoo Linux, or for teaching Python, etc. I wouldn't want it used for other things. Off-topic is distracting and, ultimately, somewhat degrading to the vision. But, to enforce on-topic, you need to provide rules that the enforcers can leverage against ego, and you need to enable the enforcers.}
- I appreciate all that has been said about conformity, vision, mission, establishment, verification, that articles be fitting and appropriate, and where enforcement of these limitations and other controls imposed by those who have accepted the challenge of monitoring content. In a publishing atmosphere these are the essential requirements that an "editor" imposes on authors. It would seem to me, if all of the above is applied with rigor, that the contribution base will be restricted to those who are "supported or sponsored" to be the maintainers and experts, and who will along with and in cooperation with their "peers", present topics of interest or related to what their environment may promote or make public, released in a manner required by those who sponsor them.
Results
- If authors are limited to "qualified peers", the resulting effect is to provide Quality, accuracy, and verifiability. These are hallmarks of good journalism. In an encyclopedia, this is a GoodThing. This is however not an entrance requirement, since anyone can, and many do participate in the creation of new pages and the editing of existing pages. This is also a GoodThing
Wiki Environment
- Quality and verifiability are arrived at as destinations. through strategies employing frequent releases, observation of developments, modifications and enlightenment of those who become "peers" whose only qualifications are those being of "questioners", "enquirers" and "seekers' of information through their interaction with those who play the role of "providers" and "originators" and who take the time and spend the energy required to share their knowledge at a level and in a manner which allows comprehension and within an environment which elevates "collaboration". This is an interactive medium which encourages information sharing.
'WikiPedia Environment'
- Interaction is a valuable process which is missing when one applies the rules and policies of another paradigm (publishing and editing of paper-based journals, articles and books.
- [Failure to impose any controls also results in the promulgation of utter rubbish, which can frequently be seen here on C2 and elsewhere. Unfortunately, those least able to critically distinguish sense from nonsense are often the ones most inclined to generate more rubbish, thus perpetuating a cycle of ever-growing rubbish-generation. The need to conform to restrictions and submit to peer review helps filter out the casual pundits and outright zagnuts, leaving (hopefully) those with a genuine commitment to professional knowledge generation. I suspect there's an ideal (or at least better) balance to be sought in a region somewhere between the undifferentiated blather of the Web and the highly restricted channels of academia.]
- I would propose to those that are concerned with highly reliable and conformable information, that it is wise for them to refer to the freely available pool of original, scholarly journals, both in print and electronic, devoted the collection and presentation of the required reliable and verifiable knowledge, and not to refer to or be bothered by the information termed above as "utter rubbish" which is generated by the those who can not be considered as "peers".
- [Those with the education and/or experience to recognise rubbish aren't the problem. They ignore it. (...Or create a ThreadMess arguing against it on a Wiki. :) {Guilty as charged.} The problem is those who lack the education or critical thinking skills to recognise the difference between rubbish and value, and therefore may be inclined to treat rubbish as value and value as rubbish. Arguably, this is a problem with the education system rather than the Web per se.]
- {It isn't a problem of the education system. You have to remember that even children are among those who browse wikipedia, looking to learn. But, even among adults, specialization in our education is 'required today; a hundred and fifty years ago, a person could become a doctor on every subject with just ten to fifteen years training. Today, just mastering everything in one specialty of the medical field can take at least ten to fifteen years, and we lack the lifespan to cover everything. There are charlatans and sophists and faith-healers and fortune-tellers ready to take advantage of this, presenting false 'solutions' to people looking for simple answers to complex problems. Admittedly, a good education should teach sufficient skepticism, but even for the educated it is difficult to figure out where skepticism is warranted. And, of course the WikiPedia doesn't prevent rubbish; it just prevents unverifiable rubbish.}
- [It isn't a problem of specialisation; it's a problem of critical thinking skills not being emphasised in most curricula. This is true, for example, in much of current higher education, where getting an education is increasingly deprecated in favour of gaining vocational training.]
- {I'm not sure I agree. I'd consider myself well educated in critical thinking skills, but when comes time to fix my car (a subject in which I possess no education at all) I really do need to trust the guys talking about the coils and sprockets and whatnot. Critical thinking can only be applied where you possess an applicable base of knowledge from which to make predictions.}
- [I can appreciate your point, but critical thinking skills combined with no knowledge is still more effective than no critical thinking skills combined with no knowledge. In part, it is your ability to think critically that enables you to recognise the limits of your knowledge, and also your critical thinking skills allow you to apply logic, reason, common sense, and appropriate knowledge from other areas so you can make educated (!) guesses about your mechanic's explanations, and thereby (hopefully) avoid getting swindled on a regular basis. Now, as it happens I am a pretty good mechanic and can apply both critical thinking and knowledge in that area, but I haven't a clue about (e.g.) quantum mechanics and couldn't tell a page of legitimate formulae from random gibberish. However, knowing that I know nowt doesn't stop me from applying critical thinking to evaluating sources on the topic -- I know not to trust anything on the subject written here, and that I am far more likely to get accurate explanations from respected, reviewed texts. Those without any critical thinking skills are inclined to treat all sources as equal. I've had students untrained in critical thinking, for example, who claimed buzzword-laden advertisements were more truthful than academic papers because they sounded more upbeat.]
- {You make a good point.}
- JimmyWales indicates below, "Wikipedia is not a forum for original research and writing. It will only include articles that can be verified by references to other sources".
- Some would require the provision of citations, peer-review and enforcement of form of presentation on "all" pages. They do not choose to provide pointers to correct information, but are found occupied in "SocialEngineering" pointing out the incompleteness or lack of "proper" citations, and other faults in pages initiated by those not possessing the "surrounding education" they think essential. Some contributors furnish the page title and a skeleton upon which later collaborators may provide additions. The masses of internet and wiki users are attracted and encouraged by the existence of a convenient vehicle of wiki as a "SpeakersCorner" and they use this forum for "ThinkingOutLoud". What results may be thoughts, ideas (and even objects and methods) which have not yet become the ideas, thoughts, and objects and methods of those in the establishment and considered to be StatusQuo.
-
[By "all", do you mean every page on the Web?]
- No
- [That wouldn't be reasonable and I don't think anyone requires that, though I personally think some C2 wiki content would benefit from more rigour and less, er, ThinkingOutLoud. However, for Wikipedia, which bills itself as an encyclopedia, requiring citations and validated sources on each and every page should be considered a minimum standard of verifiability. Skeleton pages are fine as a WorkInProgress, but there are more appropriate non-encyclopaedic places to be used as a SpeakersCorner or for ThinkingOutLoud. An encyclopedia is not the appropriate place for such things.]
Jimmy Wales
- first tried to apply the collaborative model to Nupedia, which was an encyclopedia where experts would write the articles for free and volunteer editors would be approved based on their credentials. But the hurdles to participation were so high, said Wales, that Nupedia failed. (Wales did not explain what he meant by hurdles to participation; presumably, he meant that professionals would not work for free.) Wales then came up with the idea of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia where anyone could write an article and anyone could be an editor, regardless of credentials. Wales’ great fear was that someone else would come up with the same concept and beat him to the punch. That did not happen.
- A critical question for a printed encyclopedia is what to include and what to exclude. Not so for Wikipedia, since it is online. Wales said that Wikipedia aims to be as comprehensive as possible, emphasizing that the space limitations imposed on hard-bound volumes do not constrict it. Wikipedia does have limitations, however. The main limitation is verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research and writing. It will only include articles that can be verified by references to other sources.
- Wales spent a great deal of time discussing how Wikipedia insures the accuracy of articles given that practically anyone at all can visit Wikipedia and change the content. He noted that, contrary to popular belief, the articles are not generated by millions of people adding one sentence at a time. What actually happens is that a small group of people, knowledgeable about a particular topic, generate an article, each person adding a substantial amount of text. This small group of people monitors the accuracy of what is written, each member of the group checking what other members write. The group also monitors, and corrects when necessary, the phrases or sentences added by a stray individual.
- Interestingly, Wales claimed that it was not difficult to insure and maintain the accuracy of articles on significant topics. That is because, for such topics, there is generally a dedicated group of volunteer editors continually monitoring what is being written. For less important matters, Wales conceded that it was a challenge to insure and maintain accuracy, since few people ever check what is written about them.
Consider and search for information
- When you encounter interesting and thought provoking information which is incompletely presented, you can use hints contained within it to use to search elsewhere on the internet. DontLimitYourSources. Consider searching via Google or other search engine. This is not an easy task, for it requires discrimination and time to filter what you find there. Consider many, not just a few of the references. That means visiting the references which may be ranked 10th, 20th or 100th as well as those ranked at the top of the list. This will allow you to add to what you know the newly discovered pearls of wisdom, information and inspiration which often encourages more exploration.
Related: