The Pigeon on Wikipedia

Un-[PIGEONED]-believable.

I did it... I actually tried to edit information on a Wikipedia article. 

Wikipedia, the bane of my academic existence:  purveyor of half-truths, epitome of hive mind research, and a time waster of magnificent proportions (yes, even I can be accused of article hopping to kill 15 minutes).

Sure, I let my students use Wikipedia as a place to start... but if it shows up anywhere on their work it's an immediate failing grade.  I simply stop reading the paper I soon as I see the damned citation, and then crumple it up and throw it at them in the classroom.

But there I was today, distraught over what I saw as a complete lack of academic integrity.  A source in such bad taste I felt moved to dive in and edit it.

It was the article on Bob Ross.

Indeed, the same poofy-haired bob Ross who painted happy little trees in my youth, with a voice as soothing as a finger of Cruzan rum.  But damn if he wasn't lethal when armed with a painting knife--he'd slice out those mountains with Samurai precision, neatly wrapping up paintings inside of 30 minutes that would take me a month to stumble through.  Such a damn shame he died so young.

A moment of silence, please... (I think I have something caught in my eye... *sniff*).

Anyways, I noticed in the citation section someone had used Rotten.com as a source.  Rotten.com!  I won't even grace such a cesspool with a hyperlink.  But I did check it out for the sake of my readers... nay, for humanity. 

The Rotten.com version of Mr. Ross's biography, as expected, was absolute crap.  No, I'm not a Ross historian, but I'm informed enough to know lines such as "harmless international cult" aren't common within official biographies.

And yes, I was distraught.  The it was, an example of piss-poor research I've crusaded against in the classroom staring me right in the face!  So I did what millions of other uniformed souls do on a daily basis:  I anonymously edit the article.

Feeling pleased with myself I went about my business... but an hour or so later I got an email notification stating the article was edited back and that I was a bad, bad pigeon for editing the article without cause.

Without cause?  I couldn't believe the source made it through the first time, and now someone was protecting it?

So I did what millions of other uniformed souls do on a daily basis:  I actually registered for an account and edited the article.  Again.

Same thing:  changed back because it was edited without cause.

Jesus, what a waste of my Sunday afternoon.  But I wasn't about to let this one go.  I mean, we're talking the memory and dignity of Bob Ross here!

This time I added cause, justifying my change by claiming the source was bogus and without merit.

Changed back a third time, this time with a terse note from some Wiki-functionary named Collectonian saying she put it there, she was right, and that I obviously didn't know what I was doing.  Let alone accusing me of vandalizing the article!

So let me get this straight:  I'm a professional geopolitical analyst and get paid to sniff out diamond information from mountains of coal, and I'm getting owned by one of the dark thrall of Wikipedia?

So I called a spade a spade and left Collectonian a comment:

"You seriously used Rotten.com as a biography source for Bob Ross?

Someone apparently learned how to conduct research from the back of a cereal box--it's such lack of academic rigor that makes me deny use of Wikipedia as a source in my college classes. 

As long as Wikipedia is filled with such half-baked information, let alone edited by Collectonian-types who advocate half-baked information, the site will remain nothing more than a colossal child's toy."

Well, Collectonian didn't like that (and rightfully so) so she promptly deleted it, with some remark about irrelevancy.  Irrelevant?  Calling out poor scholarship is highly relevant in my humble pigeon opinion.

So I left another comment:

"Collectonian:  Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response."

But you're allowed to be uncivil towards someone trying to cull b******t sources from an article?

Deleted already, of course, with a remark on how I, "don't get it" (I feel bad enough wasting the afternoon on this, so I can't begin to grasp where she finds the time to chase down malcontents such as myself).

Well, Mrs. Collectonian, if I "didn't get it," I probably wouldn't of bothered to fix your work in the first place.  After this debacle, I'm not sure it's even worth it.

So I'll make you a deal:  You keep living in your collaborative bubble, and I'll keep your decrepit work out of my classroom.  Sounds fair?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, A Blog For All, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Angel]

lol..sounds fair to me!

[MOGS]

I basically look at wikipedia as yet another failed experiment in collectivism :)

"I know know! If we start this website, and let everyone and anyone contribute, then all the people will want to get together an write for the benefit of their fellow human bein and won't lie, or use slipshod methods, or inject their own political and cultural biases (unless they are slightly left of center approved politically correct biases) and we'll all eat cake an ice cream and drink cholocalate milk an...."

I think you get the idea.

Sorry, I'm not finding the Super Bowl to be terribly inspiring tonight...though the Giants are beating the spread ( I think it was 13.5 - a pretty solid bet as far as Vegas goes)

[Sam Tresler]

Well, I guess I just see it differently. The vast resource of Wikipedia isn't in it's conflicted articles that people create or edit solely for self aggrandizement, but rather for it's thousands non-conflicted articles, that appear at a central source that is easy to access. Of course, it isn't a viable source all the time, but its a damned good start and as ANY researcher knows, confirming things is easier than discovering them.

Explicit defense of wikipedia aside, I give you the:

Three revert rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tip_of_the_day/July_8%2C_2006
of which it sounds like your particular editor is guilty.

Also, from "undoing edits":

Anyone can revert a page to fix vandalism. All revisions of a page back to the first one are stored in the page history. To revert to an earlier version, just select it from the history, edit and save it. When not dealing with obvious vandalism, reverting often is a bad strategy. It alienates other users and provokes edit wars. Stay cool, talk to the user in question directly, or try to resolve issues on the talk page. Please do not revert the same page more than three times within 24 hours (the Three-revert rule). Doing so can lead to a temporary ban against you. Administrators have a handy "rollback" feature that allows them to instant-revert changes from a user's contributions page. This helps to quickly revert vandalism as well.

Clearly you had a bad first experience from an admin that isn't following the community rules. Calling the whole project a failure is a little out of line. Indeed, I think wikipedia is hurt by outsiders touting it's accuracy, more than it touting it's own accuracy.

Now, professional geopolitical analyst that you are, is it better to go through the established channels for dealing with a foreign entity, or to dismiss a foreign culture altogether because you have trouble communicating with them?

Of late, I've had a great deal of fun with wikihow.com - I find it more practical than wikipedia. Anyway, I couldn't resist playing devil's advocate. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new here Pidge, but all sources are valid if read in a proper context. That, and if someone doesn't get it the first or second time... why try a third?

Cheers.

[Sam Tresler]

That and Bob Ross is why I wanted to learn to paint (and did!... enough for me) in the first place.

[The Mad Pigeon]

" but its a damned good start and as ANY researcher knows, confirming things is easier than discovering them."

Agreed--I have no problem with my students using Wikipedia as a starting point to build their web. But I don't trust the site itself enough (yet) to consider wikipedia in itself a valid source. But if the wiki minions (wikimons? Nah, too much like Pokemon) would peer review and lock more articles I'd be happier!