Wikipedia as a Source of Information

[myorgan]

Folks,

Here's why I have issues with Winkipedia as a reliable source of information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...(1971%E2%80%93)

One would think that a discussion of digital organs would yield at least one (1) lonely photo of the first digital organ-at least! Nope, no such luck. Only two (2) paragraphs even contain information about Allen, and one in a negative light, referencing the lawsuit between Allen & Ralph Deutsch/North American Rockwell.

For photographs of digital organs, there are no less than 3 photos of Johannus organs and 1 Rodgers-no Allen, the company first creating a digital instrument 50 years ago.

Further, the current "author" states:

The best digital organs of the 2000s incorporate these technical features:

Best? By whose estimation? The list includes: DSP technology, Sampling, Surround sound, and I think they include (Pipe organ simulations) in their list, but the formatting is a bit confusing.

I guess the last editor gets the free advertising that is Winkipedia!!! Michael steps off his soapbox.🙄

Michael

[toodles]

I personally do not find the mention of Allen suing North American Rockwell to be a negative reference--it is factual, and doesn't discuss the merits one way or the other, just the outcome.

The article at the top indicates that additional citations are needed for verification--meaning, this is a work in progress.

[AllenAnalog]

All articles on Wikipedia are the product of volunteer writers and editors. It us a user-based living document. I've seen multiple articles written, re-written and over-written when someone with an ax to grind or a product to push edits content to be favorable to their point of view. That usually gets flagged and caught. Disclaimers about content being too skewed or lacking citations are frequent. And, most importantly, you can see the history of the edits and people doing the editing for any article.

I always tell myself that if I don't like the tone or content of an entry that I can get qualified as an editor and fix it myself. As one of my teachers once said, "Don't whine, contribute!" But then I get lazy and don't follow up with that grand plan.

[myorgan]

Agreed, Larry. Articles about politicians and political parties are often most-edited during campaigns.

Michael

[SchnarrHorn]

Wikipedia has always been pretty sketchy at best and trashy at worst. It's only good for an initial, broad stroke outline of a topic, but that's it. Unfortunately, most folks stop there.

If you think that entry is bad, get a load of this paragraph under the heading of GENISYS on the Allen Organ Company wiki page:
A computer software called GENISYS controls the sound and power panels on the organs. GENISYS is seen as the company's best for sound quality and tone control. There is a variety of orchestral and organ tones that can be tuned for an individual's organ. The sound can be modified using a computer program that goes along with the GENISYS interface.

George

[AllenAnalog]

Actually I find Wikipedia to be amazingly accurate and helpful when it comes to explaining highly technical or math subjects that are not so subjective or connected to specific products or places. Some of the articles are exquisitely detailed and a good starting point for references to the actual source material.

Here's an example of that kind of article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

And I find their lists of things (from TV show episodes to camera models to the evolution and features of specific motor vehicles nameplates over time) to be surprisingly thorough. I suspect that fanatics of those subjects are delighted to share their knowledge. I've even used it to supplement my meager knowledge of Hammond organ models.

[myorgan]

George, I wonder who edited that? Scholarship was certainly lacking there!

Larry, I think perhaps people don't contradict technical articles because they lack the knowledge to contradict what is posted. OTOH, there is some amount of academic pride in correcting someone else's technical document. However, in the field, academia at that level tends to be more congenial and cooperative than competitive or catty.

Michael

[Silken Path]

When I worked as a tech editor, I was always asking engineers NOT to include Wikipedia as a reference. They were supposed to be the experts...

[sandstone42]

I've seen several "documentaries" on TUBI TV where the narration was taken directly from a Wikipedia article. One was about the New Wold Order taken from the Wikipedia article "New World Order (conspiracy theory)."

[Silken Path]

I have seen some "informative" videos on YouTube with a computer-generated voice. It makes me think that if the originator wants to remain anonymous, my confidence in the accuracy is low.

[Momboc]

As Abraham Lincoln said "Don't believe everything you read on the internet"

[myorgan]

WOW!!! Did he really? Wait until I tell my students about that!;-)

Michael

[Origano]

They have done studies comparing Wikipedia to other encyclopedias like you used to pay for and they found Wikipedia quite accurate. Remember even the writers/editors of those other encyclopedias can have their biases.

[myorgan]

True, Origano. What used to be slowed down by publishers and printers is now being altered at the speed of someone's typing skills.

Michael

[davidecasteel]

I often consult Wikipedia for information about locations and structures, and adapt it when I prepare briefs in my photo presentations; I often also consult other web sources to combine with and corroborate the Wikipedia data. I do NOT consult Wikipedia on politics or other highly controversial material (nor do I go to other sites known to have strong political biases). FWIW, my news of political issues usually comes from posts on several fora by folks I know do good research and I trust.

David

[human-potato_hybrid]

The vast majority of a given smaller Wikipedia article is often written by only a few people. For example, I wrote about 1/2 of this one. If you come across a poorly-written article, try to rewrite what is inappropriate, or put a template at the top like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Advert .

[Leisesturm]

I have a problem (sorry Michael) when people slam something as vast as the body of work that is Wikipedia, because of one poorly edited or researched topic in an area where they have unique insight!!! Have any of you read the entry on Pipe Organ? It is almost laughable. I haven't consulted it in years. It might have improved since, but as of ~10 years ago, the entry asserted that 32' stops were useless. And? What? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? Where the <expletive> else will you find the THOUSANDS of data points, discographies, biographies, rankings ... etc. and etc. that one needs to be well informed and intellectually well rounded in today's society? Seriously. Where? I LOVE Wikipedia. I give them money. I want them to remain in the game. If they improve. Fine. If they don't. Equally fine. As they are right now they are better than anything that has ever come before ... that simply cannot be argued with. The sheer accessibility to the breadth of information available with a few mouse clicks ... is that not worth the odd clinker of an entry?

Ummm. Hold my beer while I hop an Uber across town to the Library and consult Encyclopedia Britanica (what you think I can afford EB on an organists salary?) on the fire at the Dobson Pipe Organ Factory last month. As others have said, there is nothing stopping anyone from editing an article that they have issue with. This discussion hits a nerve. My wife and I have it every time one of her colleagues comes out swinging against Wikipedia, even when they admit it has no competition. That is where the issue lives for me. What do you do when you don't feel Wikipedia is a credible source of knowledge?! It is not a rhetorical question.

[myorgan]

This discussion hits a nerve. My wife and I have it every time one of her colleagues comes out swinging against Wikipedia, even when they admit it has no competition. [emphasis mine] That is where the issue lives for me. What do you do when you don't feel Wikipedia is a credible source of knowledge?! It is not a rhetorical question.

Leisesturm,

Sorry to hit your last nerve (I know you never said that).😏

I highlighted the bold section so I could reference it. Perhaps that quote is why I have such a problem with Wikipedia. I freely admit it is not necessarily their problem, rather, the problem lies with the lack of competition by others. What do I do about it? I freely admit, I voice my objections in my circle of acquaintances for their consideration, then I spend my time more fruitfully by changing something I can change in my time left on earth vs. trying to fight the gorilla in the room. One has to make choices. Perhaps someone else has the resources to correct the ills of the Internet world, but I'm not that resourceful. That was made clearer to me when reading the obituary of a 69-year old Forum member this last week.

I'd change the article, and then my time would be wasted when Cluster**** reverses my edits. Not a good use of my time.

Michael

P.S. I spent some time today reading through the revision history of the article. That's 2-3 hours of what was left of my life I'll never get back.😢
P.P.S. I wonder who Cluster**** is, and what claim to expertise on the subject (s)he has?

[beyerjf]

the whole Wikipedia thing is just a microcosm of the entire internet. Which is why I will refer to my favorite meme of all time:

Q. If someone from the 1950's suddenly appeared today,
What would be the most difficult thing to explain to them about life now.

A. I possess a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing
the entirety of information known to mankind. I use it to
look at pictures of cats and get in arguments with strangers.

[Leisesturm]

Pictures of 'cats'? Really?

[davidecasteel]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5730ff65_z.jpgDEC_3249-1 by David Casteel, on Flickr

[Larason2]

Wikipedia has its uses, but I agree it is pretty close to useless for information on organs of any kind. I frequently use it for science related information, especially plants or chemicals. I also use it if I want to read the plot of a movie or TV show, or to figure out what certain things in popular media are about. But again, pretty much no useful organ information is on there, at least in my opinion!

[Admin]

Ummm. Hold my beer while I hop an Uber across town to the Library and consult Encyclopedia Britanica (what you think I can afford EB on an organists salary?) on the fire at the Dobson Pipe Organ Factory last month.

I too have a problem when people complain about the information they get FOR FREE on the Internet. (Especially so when I get unfair and unsolicited complaints about some aspect of this Forum.)

If you don't like Wikipedia, just head on over to Encyclopedia Britannica | Britannica and do you research there. Oh, that requires a paid subscription? Yep, you get what you pay for.