JD on EP

If you have a hard time remembering passwords, check out the open source project Keepass at http://keepass.sourceforge.net

It is a great little program, doesn't require installation (5-10 files in a directory are all that is necessary) and it encrypts all your passwords (and presumably the whole data file of user names, urls, etc.) for you into one nice little program and data file.

I find it really helpful to use to record all my internet website passwords, machine passwords, etc. Sure, I remember both, but instead of keeping a master sheet in Excel or Word, you can use this program to categorize everything. It can print your list if you want too.

If you notice errors in a Wikipedia post, can't you just fix them? Isn't that kinda the point, that fact that anyone can add wrong info or vandalise the site is weighed up by the fact that anyone can fix it?

What should you do? Um, as Adam says: 'fix it'.

Thanks, but that phrase "opportunity costs" shows that investing such time at Wikipedia means that time cannot be used for other, more profitable pursuits. Getting into a perpetual reversion war with some evangelical of dubious mental capacity seems quite unappetizing.

I'm still not sure if I'll invest my time that way or not....

Well, at least you thought it was important enough for you to post on your blog so others can do it for you ;)

[jd sez: ?? Sounds like funky mindreading. I have an implicit responsibility for such shared public records, and I'm considering making it explicit that I don't find it worth the cost of trading time with detractors. I might invest time in temporarily improving that document; might not... haven't decided. I'm curious for feedback from others in the meantime, and your message did teach me one thing.... ]

Two more articles this week on Wikipedia dyanmics... Lore Sjoberg at WIRED discusses the site as Argument Central; Mark Glaser at PBS interviews principal Jimmy Wales and a banned contributor.

On mailing lists the usual strategy is "let the unreasonable person have the last word", but wiki-style editing means that the full argumentation isn't presented, only the most persistent results. Weblogs may be better for eventually discovering consensus, while wikis may be better for subjects past controversy.

There's a problem, though: if a Wikipedia entry gets polluted by partisan content, some newbie readers will still believe it. Because non-controversial group-edited articles can often become useful, the credibility bleeds over into articles....

... hmm, what if each wiki page had a feedback gizmo, "After reading this article, how confident do you feel of its accuracy?" This could give a visual guide to new readers of how controversial each page might be.

But for me and that Wikipedia Flash entry, I'm still leaning towards washing my hands of it... cleaning up after every damaging visit gets to be a big cost.

Wikis are useful as tools of information, but when used as tools of persuasion, are they even worth the reading? Weblogs, with history and reputation, may be better than wikis for gradually getting consensus on controversial subjects....

Wikipedia has a saying, "so fix it".

So, fix it! You are no doubt an expert on Flash; share your knowledge!

It's not "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" for nothing.

[jd sez: Thanks for proving my point, even though I'm sad you didn't listen to what I had to say before telling me what to do. The difference between sequential weblog comments and all-or-nothing wiki editing is that your repeated material here did not erase the material I had published above.]

I don't think fixing it would have much lasting effect, as the contributors of erroneous content are, in my experience, more committed to seeing their contributions that seeing the truth (or a more accurate representation of the truth).

I've corrected some entries before only to return and see that they were again spewing the same false statements. So, the 'so fix it' saying means little to me.

But I do think it's worth the time to correct. More and more people are citing wikipedia as _the_ credible source.

Hey JD,
It kind of seems like you had your answer before you posted this. I think that we can read your comments, understand them, and still say, "so, fix it!" As Dan did. If you remove it then someone adds it back in you can follow the change history, right?

The point of the Wiki as a place of textual debate is important. However, you're right if the vandal is more passionate about his/her vandalism than you are about the truth then his/her words will be the ones that are read and reported.

So what exactly are you suggesting be done?

[jd sez: I was seeking contrary evidence, novel perspective. (As a debate mechanism it fails; wikis are better as a record of emerging consensus.) I'm still being capable of being persuaded either way, but I'm leaning towards washing my hands of the Wikipedia Flash entry -- wrong way to deal with trolls.]

Well here's a little more perspective: People need sources of information that aren't just copies of the same marketing brochure. Wikipedia's not perfect, but so far it's not so easy to buy a spot on it as it is on, say, the evening news. Blogs can be good for that too.

There are some vandals, but most aren't that persistent. [jd sez: As noted previously, these particular vandals are.] There are also some people who are difficult to come to consensus with. All-in-all though, there's at least the oppurtunity for a point of view that's not motivated purely by money.[jd sez: As previously noted, blogs and mailing lists don't suffer a wiki's erasure problems. And money is not the only strange human driver.]

Wikipedia also takes time to get used to, I'm not completely there as far as editors go but I am working on contributing some of my time in exchange for the value that I derive from it as a reference.

If you spend the time on it and get into debates, there are policies on resolving disputes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and other problems people run in to. [jd sez: Thanks, Rob, but I'm still wondering whether the Wikipedia scene earns its maintainence costs when used to persuade rather than discover.]

It needs to be fixed. Or at least disputed. Its worth the effort for the type of resource wikipedia is. Not fixing it doesn't help us any. I mean how many times do I have to explain why flash is a good solution for a problem that a client presents and why.

Thanks, Stacey... I'm with you on the need to not leave misleading viewpoints as the sole viewpoints in such a venue. But that guy with the LSO obsession has kept putting his slant back in, as you can tell from the comments in the edit history of that document. I think the wiki format may be wrong for issues where not all yet agree.

But maybe we could take canonical snapshots of un-propagandized versions of that document... last night I was thinking of doing an edit and then posting the copy here in my weblog (or wherever), and trying to maintain a link in the Wikipedia version back to this particular snapshot. Your thoughts...?