I have claimed for a long time that Wikipedia is doomed to fail, because it is simply too easy to vandalize (though of course I am open to arguments). Sure, a bollixed page can be fixed, but for some amount of time entries can be changed, and if it’s a lesser-traveled topic it can be wrong for months or more.
Still, vandalization can be funny.
Take the Wikipedia entry for the MESSENGER spacecraft. Looks fine, right? Yeah, well now look at the version that was up for a while before it got caught. Notice any difference? I have a small piece of that page presented in the image here on the right.
I have no idea why this person did this, but it’s pretty funny. I wonder if my Canuckian friends think so too? Fraser? Comments?
Maybe Fraser is the one who did it! Hmmmm.
Still and all, it’s fixed now. But what nefarious country will be next? Will the New Horizons probe go to Mexico? Will Cassini orbit Bulgaria*? We may have to get Homeland Security in on this.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
do i hear a rendition of south parks “Blame Canada” song being redone to “Blame the Planet Canada”.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I don’t even know if this really counts as vandalism. The young fogey in me tut tuts at it, but the anarchist in me celebrates it as a Discordian act that encourages us, nay forces us, to question authority and not take things at face value.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I visited that page earlier today and it was written Mercury and not Canada.
Heh. If canada was the innermost planet, our days would be warmer right now.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
On the whole, Wikipedia is about as accurate as an paper encyclopaedia. Really, who would use Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source in any non-grade school paper?
January 17th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
This Canuckian says: “Hey! Somebody noticed us!!!”
Pretty funny really! I’m sending it to all my non-Canuckian friends.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Everyone gets so sniffy about Wikipedia, but i) the vandalism was corrected, ii) mistakes can be corrected easily, iii) Wikipedia is by orders of magnitude the best internet encyclopedia we have and iv) instead of complaining about mistakes- why not help to improve the articles?
I also have gripes with Wikipedia, but it’s important to realize just how great it is given its limitations. Also keep in mind that the contributors are not paid a single dime for their hard work.
(What’s with the ‘bollixing’? Is the BA now trying out British/Irish swear words, because American ones aren’t up to the job? If so- I approve.)
January 17th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Aww.. be nice to the Bulgarians.
I spent a month there the summer after I graduated from high school. Very friendly people. (I can still speak a few sentences in Bulgarski. Useful things like ‘I love you’ and ‘How much is that book?’ LOL)
January 17th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
ROFL. whoever did it pat them on the back for me, I needed the laugh today.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I read somewhere recently that one prominent skeptic of Wikipedia has recently changed his mind about its long term viability. The reason? The tools provided by Wikipedia to combat vandalism make it easier to fix wanton mischief than to cause it.
I use it all the time, and while it is far from perfect, the Internet only gains by its presence.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Not all pages on Wikipedia can be edited freely. Some of the more popular pages are protected or semi-protected from editing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy
Wikipedia realises that allowing pages to be edited by anyone won’t work 100% of the time. The protection policy is really just bringing Wikipedia more in line with reality.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
A few days ago I learned that Jefferson’s Monticello has an elevation of 3,000,000 ft.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Those people have got to know, Mercury is the opposite of Canada. What I wouldn’t give for a few days of 630-degrees Celsius.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Sorry… 350-degrees.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I have long maintained that Canada has an inflated sense of itself because it appears disproportionately large on most maps.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
The fallacy of Wikipedia is that it invented the paradigm that anyone can contribute to the world’s biggest online encyclopedia.
Before Wikipedia there already existed an even larger online encyclopedia, to which anyone could contribute, but the articles for which were solely the responsibilities of their respective authors. There was no problem with arbitrary editing by Party-B of work originated by Party-A. If Party-B wanted to say something differently, it just published its own version, while Party-A’s stayed intact. And there was no need for donations to fund this venue, nor for volunteers to staff it.
That online democratic encyclopedia was something called the “World Wide Web”. Wikpedia is just an also-ran with a quality control problem.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
And I always thought Canada was just America’s moon.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Canada sounds ok by me. Besides, it’s a dry heat.
Now can we restore the name of our 7th planet, Uranus, back to its original name…. George (ok Georgium Sidus)???
January 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Last I heard, Bulgaria was orbiting Canada too. It’s getting crowded up there.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Actually Canada orbits around Toronto, at least that is what people in Toronto think.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Sounds like Lugosi has a case of Country Envy
January 17th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
The morning they announced the creation of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument, the Wikipedia entry said this…
“On June 15, 2006, after confirming that no GOP campaign contributors could find anything worth selling, President George W. Bush issued an executive order creating Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument under the Antiquities Act of 1906.”
January 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“Travel to Canada requires an extremely large velocity change”
This is of course true.
I’m not sure if you know this phil, but there are bots that troll wikipedia now and auto-revert vandalism almost instantaneously (anything with a profanity in it mainly). So while subtle, mostly true (points to statement above:)), amusing vandalisms like this may have to be manually reverted, most of them are virtually instantly put back to their previous version. And even when a manual revision is necessary the speed with which it happens, on all but the most obscure pages, is awing.
Mark Martin wrote:
That online democratic encyclopedia was something called the “World Wide Web”. Wikpedia is just an also-ran with a quality control problem.
Kinda. Cept if the web were like Wikipedia then I’d be able to edit your page and Phil’s page. But what you are describing is identical to the new Google encyclopedia. Kinda makes you wonder what Google is thinking doesn’t it? At least the Wikimedia Foundation had a semi-original idea. Google is just creating its own version of the web, inside the web. It’s weird and … weird.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
A couple of points:
1. Most vandalism, like that one, is BLATANTLY obvious to any person who is at all familiar with the English language. Nobody actually really takes the time to put up false information specifically meant to deceive people. That’s not to say there isn’t false information, but then again most textbooks or encyclopedias have neither as much information, with as many sources (most I’ve seen don’t even really HAVE sources, and those that do are fairly hard to verify), or are updated as often, or with as little cost (wiki IS free after all).
2. there are many ways to fix the vandalism, and are always improving. I’m not as up to date as I should be on the process, but I know that bots can be made to detect blankings (and I’m sure key the addition of certain words), and fix it. There is also a recent changes page which is constantly monitored by a good number of wikipedians, and vandalism usually does not last very long at all. For example, this particular “canada” vandalism lasted FOUR minutes. That’s it. It’s frankly a “miracle” you even managed to see it. I challange people to monitor the “recent changes” page and find vandalism that lasts any real amount of time. I’ve tried, and it is VERY hard to find any that does.
3. If wikipedia had been doomed to fail, it would have already done so. Search for pretty much anything, and you are very likely to see a wikipedia page close to the first results. EVERYONE knows about wikipedia. The proof is in the pudding- wikipedia works. It’s like science. Sure, you can pick at little stupid stuff all day, finding flaws in the peer-review method or whatnot, but again, the proof is in the pudding. It works. I highly doubt that anything will change that will doom wikipedia, and I think as programming advances, wikipedia will actually only get better.
*steps away from soap box*
January 17th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
If Wikipedia was destined to fail, it would have done so a long time ago. It’s not meant to be used for research, the results of research however can be made available through Wikipedia.
I have found no better source of general knowledge on the net. Recently I came across a strange old tower in the middle of London’s business district, nobody I asked could tell me anything about it, but five minutes of searching through Wikipedia gave the answer that would have taken many hours of looking through books in a library.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Alban%2C_Wood_Street
January 17th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
upon reading this post, i have decided to take all my fact checking to conservapedia.com because we all know that a truly neutral site demonstrates a partisan allegiance in their domain name.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Is it just me, or does vandalizing Wikipedia seem almost . . . Sacrilegious?
January 18th, 2008 at 12:16 am
how many deaths have been caused by meteorites or asteroids?
January 18th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Canada may not be that large but for some reason BBC thinks that Mercury is the galaxy’s smallest planet
January 18th, 2008 at 2:17 am
What’s the Homeland Security Theater Company going to do? If it’s not on this planet, they couldn’t be bothered either way. I call that institutional speciesism.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:08 am
I agree with Thomas Siefert — if Wikipedia could fail, it would have already done so. Sure, it is not a resource for research and it is not 100 per cent accurate, but then, neither is the Encyclopedia Britannica (and the Encyclopedia Britannica does not have to deal with internet trolls, so what is its excuse?).
With respect to the moderately funny bit of vandalism that you have pointed out here, check the article’s history — even with several cycles of vandalising and correcting, the whole thing took under ten minutes to fix. I can’t think of a better way of proving that Wikipedia works.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Turn the question round. Suppose all encyclopaedias had been open like Wikipedia then somebody came out with one with each article only written by a few people and nobody who could see obvious flaws could fix them?
I’m with those who say that if Wikipedia was going to fail it would either have done so already or, if it is going to happen, it’ll be due to changing circumstances which are not obvious now. Having certain limitations and failing are different things.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:02 am
“Canada may not be that large but for some reason BBC thinks that Mercury is the galaxy’s smallest planet”
Dammit! Where’s the edit button???
January 18th, 2008 at 6:08 am
[[Nobody actually really takes the time to put up false information specifically meant to deceive people. ]]
The hell they don’t. You should see the kind of things that have gone up from time to time on sites discussing global warming or DDT.
[[Canada may not be that large but for some reason BBC thinks that Mercury is the galaxy’s smallest planet]]
They may be misusing “galaxy” to mean “Solar system.” The ’50s SF classic The Demolished Man made the same mistake, so that readers learned there were nine planets in the galaxy.
Of course, Mercury isn’t even the smallest planet in the Solar system. Ceres, Pluto and Eris are smaller. But they’re classified slightly differently (“dwarf planets,” which I for one think is silly).
January 18th, 2008 at 6:43 am
I don’t know why, but this line from the old version of the article made me laugh: “MESSENGER was chosen as the probe’s name because Canada was the messenger of the gods in Roman mythology.”
January 18th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Today, the inner planets. Tomorrow, the universe!
January 18th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Textbooks are no better. I have an 11th edition of a Physical Science text that says the moon’s gravitational force on Earth is larger than the Sun’s. Also, 90-27.5=63.5
January 18th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I corrected some pretty funny vandalism myself the other day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augustin_Louis_Cauchy&diff=178767106&oldid=178665217
January 18th, 2008 at 7:59 am
My only gripe with Wikipedia is how it spawned an entire generation of “wiki” spin-offs. It’s genius marketing, it’s the most sincere flattery, but I find it annoying. But more to the point, Wikipedia is the greatest warehouse of cited sources. Whenever I want to write an essay (I’m the only guy I know who writes essays as a fun hobby), Wikipedia is the first place I check.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Fraser, you’re in the BC rainbelt. What’re you complaining about?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Corey, the reason for that is because Wikipedia makes the software that runs the site free to use by anybody. I used to work for a company that used their software for document management because anybody could add or edit documents and any changes or revisions could be tracked and the person who made them identified. The employees were scattered all over the world so having a way to communicate easily online in that manner was invaluable. This was actually before wikipedia became popular.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Bill Nettles,
I agree that textbooks often have several errors, but at least I can understand the gravity statement. Although the sun’s gravitational force is much stronger than the moon’s on earth, the moon has a much stronger tidal force, which is almost certainly what a physical science textbook would be discussing.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:47 am
[[The hell they don’t. You should see the kind of things that have gone up from time to time on sites discussing global warming or DDT.]]
Good point, although that is true for only a very few number of issues and is usually corrected by other wikipedians. Right now they look fairly accurate to me (although admittedly I don’t know as much as I should about either). Again, the proof is in the pudding-it works.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:04 am
If Pluto isn’t a planet, then either is Canada.
It is a planetesimal at best.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
The outrage from Quebec right now is palpable. If Canada gets a planet, la belle province should at least get a large moon.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Interestingly, the next item in my mailbox (after the feedblitz for this article) was an ad for a Canadian “virtual pharmacy)!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Canada is not the smallest planet,Canada is the mightiest planet. It’s where hockey players and strong beer come from.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
This article doesn’t make Phil’s point very well. The article was erroneous for all of 3 minutes before it was corrected.
Wikipedia is a great tool if used properly. If you are looking for an overview of a subject from a non-authoritative source, it’s great. If you want something authoritative, you scroll down to the ‘References’ section and click through.
Criticism of Wikipedia seems to focus on the inability of many people to distinguish between reliable and unreliable information. That’s hardly Wikipedia’s fault, and the fact that cheap, abundant unreliable information still has significant value means that it still provides a good service and should continue to be available.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Bill Nettles posts:
[[Textbooks are no better. I have an 11th edition of a Physical Science text that says the moon’s gravitational force on Earth is larger than the Sun’s. Also, 90-27.5=63.5]]
They may have meant the moon’s tidal force on the Earth, which really is greater than the sun’s.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Those people have got to know, Mercury is the opposite of Canada. What I wouldn’t give for a few days of 630-degrees Celsius.
Hey, it’s getting all the way up to -18 here in Ottawa this weekend, and we have yet to have a day below -30 this winter… go go global warming!
January 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Travel to Canada requires an extremely large velocity change
It sure does… not much worse that dawdling down the 401 from Montreal to Kingston at a leisurely 150 km/h and coming up behind some slug with NY plates doing “double nickels” (90 km/h).
You’re in Canada now, you can press on the pedal on the right.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Mus said “Nobody actually really takes the time to put up false information specifically meant to deceive people.”
Sure they do, if they are twelve. My older daughter once played an elaborate practical joke on her little sister. She claimed to have invented a new color, then looked it up on Wikipedia. The younger one (she was nine at the time) was amazed.
Yes, my kid created a detailed Wikipedia entry in advance just to freak out her sister. By the time I saw it it had a warning sign, and it was removed a few hours later.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
My only gripe with Wikipedia is how it spawned an entire generation of “wiki” spin-offs.
Indeed it has, and because many of the spin-offs copy the look/feel of Wikipedia, it can be difficult to distinguish the quality of the source if you’re sent directly to a page.
If you’re a regular Pharyngula reader you’ll know of this abomination, but if you aren’t…
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
January 18th, 2008 at 11:32 am
>>Travel to Canada requires an extremely large velocity change<<
Well of course it does. Just look at any map. You have to go up to get there….
January 18th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
From time to time I have flirted with the idea of declaring myself a conservative, in the sense that we should always be careful about making changes, and that I liked constitutional democracy, natural-rights ethics, and free markets. Then I see something like the Conservapedia, and I have to remind myself — no, I also like science, taking care of the poor, and keeping the government out of peoples’ bedrooms. So count me, once more, as a self-declared liberal. The day I join up with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, please shoot me.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
When I started to write the paper for my masters degree, my adviser ranted against Wikipedia as an insult to genuine scholarship. OK, I get the message, don’t cite Wikipedia.
I did find it very useful in terms of finding search terms, helping me to understand terms I was not familiar with, and getting a general idea of what was going on. I then was able to find more authoritative sources to confirm what I had found, and then I could cite those.
Now if I could just get my students to stop citing “Google” as a source.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I’m picturing a beaver wearing winged sandals…
One thing I’ll say about Canada, they at least have a television show devoted to astronomy. (When the ionosphere is stable I can pick up T.V. Ontario)
January 19th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Wikipedia is successsful enough that it has often replaced google as a first source when looking for information on any well-known subject (since it’s usually the first google hit anyway,) and has replace the Encyclopedia Britannica in all but the most backward of households. It is so accurate that it has spawned a “competing” site to contain the commonly-told lies on many of the same subjects it covers.
Wikipedia is the single most complete, best-organized, and most accurate collection of consistently-presented and correctly hyperlinked body of language mankind has ever assembled, and it only gets better. The pre-Wiki WWW was at best a crapshoot and at worst a joke for finding any kind of current or vaguely accurate information on nearly any subject. To the point where it wasn’t allowed on even grade-school papers.
In short, not only is Wikipedia not doomed to failure, it has already succeeded and will continue to do so. Folks who think otherwise need to have a skeptical reality-check and figure out not if they are wrong, but why they are wrong. This means you, Phil.
Any web page can be vandalised. The ease with which Wikipedia can be vandalised (and restored) renders it an unattractive target for vandalism. It’s like a highway overpass where it’s legal to paint on it and the effort of cleaning the paint off is both routine and trivial.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Being a Canuck, I find this to be extremely amusing. Particularily the line “Canada was the messenger of the gods in Roman mythology.”
January 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Bumper sticker? “Canada… That’s no moon.”
(Complete the sentence as you please.)
January 20th, 2008 at 1:28 am
[...] Kommentar zu einem Artikel auf Bad Astronomy über die Mission der Raumsonde Messenger nach Kanada. [...]
January 20th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I don’t know, but I’ve had one of my spammy, ad-filled websites as one of only fives sources on a popular Wikipedia article for a couple weeks now (hello, PageRank!) and no one seems to have noticed. And, no, I’m not going to tell you the site or the article! Although I suppose it does technically back up what I sourced, it’s just a dubious citation because, as I say, there are a lot of ads on the site and not very much (and not very helpful) content.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Shoot… my last comment made me actually check the source, and Wiki uses nofollow!
January 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I sent this post to my history professor, who happens to be Canadian. He told me not to tell anyone he was an alien.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:35 am
The problem is not the fact that WP can be edited this way. It would be problem if there were people who actually believed, after reading this page version, that there’s a planet called Canada. I *really* hope nobody would automatically believe that.
I’m all for stuff that encourages careful reading and critical thinking.