Wikipedia

Wikipedia has banned the IP blocks of U.S. Congress from the ability to make changes, due to repeated abuses by Congressional staffers who repeatedly engage in revert wars, blank content, engage in libelous behavior or violate WP:NPOV, WP:CIV [Wikipedia’s standards for neutral point of view and civility]. The editors from these IP ranges are rude and abrasive, immature, and show no understanding of Wikipedia policy. The editors also frequently try to whitewash the actions of certain politicians. They treat Wikipedia articles about politicians as though they own the articles, replacing community articles with their own sanctioned biographies and engaging in revert wars when other users dispute this sudden change. They also violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, by deleting verified reports, while adding flattering things about members of Congress that are unverified.A newspaper article has been written on this subject in the Lowell Sun by Evan Lehmann. A list of further details is in the Wikipedia entry on Congressional Staffer Edits. Kudos to Wikipedia for treating Congress the way it deserves to be treated.

The December 2005 issue of Communications of the ACM contains an “Inside Risks” column raising concerns about some of the risks of Wikipedia: relying on Wikipedia presents numerous risks: * Accuracy: You cannot be sure which information is accurate and which is not. Misinformation has a negative value; even if you get it for free, you’ve paid too much. * Motives: You cannot know the motives of the contributors to an article. They may be altruists, political or commercial opportunists, practical jokers, or even vandals (WP: Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages'').</p><p> * Uncertain Expertise: Some contributors exceed their expertise and supply speculations, rumors, hearsay, or incorrect information. It is difficult to determine how qualified an article's contributors are; the revision histories often identify them by pseudonyms, making it hard to check credentials and sources.</p><p> * Volatility: Contributions and corrections may be negated by future contributors. One of the co-authors of this column found it disconcerting that he had the power to independently alter the Wikipedia article about himself and negate the others' opinions. Volatility creates a conundrum for citations: Should you cite the version of the article that you read (meaning that those who follow your link may miss corrections and other improvements), or the latest version (which may differ significantly from the article you saw)?</p><p> * Coverage: Voluntary contributions largely represent the interests and knowledge of a self-selected set of contributors. They are not part of a careful plan to organize human knowledge. Topics that interest the young and Internet-savvy are well-covered, while events that happened before the Web’’ may be covered inadequately or inaccurately, if at all. More is written about current news than about historical knowledge. ...

Tomorrow’s featured article on Wikipedia is “Space Opera in Scientology Doctrine," a very well-written entry that tells you pretty much all you need to know about Scientology’s cosmology. Oh, the entry on Xenu is also a good one.