Wikitruthiness
Posted By Mike Orren in The One That's Not About Music on August 1, 2006
When Sam Machkovech wrote his article on the local online music scene a couple months ago, he referred to us as "a local music Wikipedia of sorts." I didn't entirely take that as a compliment -- while I appreciate the scope of Wikipedia and think its community-edited ideal is a noble one, I do take pride in the fact that we live in a world between the top-down mainstream media and the free-for-all anarchy of community-editing. First, I can guran-damn-tee you that on a local level, the 1,248 events and 101 band pages that were entered into our system last month wouldn't have happened without some direction and organization of our volunteer forces. Further, an editorial layer prevents bands from pulling a fast one on you -- "We play nothing but covers, but we're not a cover band"; "We're a bunch of guys who met last week and just bought instruments playing on a bill with six established local bands, but really we're the headliner."
Yeah, we make some mistakes, but in my mind that's a fair tradeoff for delivering a wealth of information that no one else does. BUT, it should be an entity's job to strive for fewer mistakes, and I'm enough of a cynic to say that "the community" ain't that guy. It might be for Wikipedia, but when you scale down to a local level and have fewer active participants, the intellectual economics change.
Then again, who woulda thunk that when Sam Myers died a coupla weeks ago, his Wikipedia entry would have been updated before the news even hit the wires?
That's all a lot of ballyhoo to intro a video clip from last night's Colbert Report. Our pal Jeremy is going to a conference on Wikipedia tomorrow, and when I got home tonight and saw this clip on yesterday's re-run, I had to call his attention to it. He wasn't on GoogleChat, so I went retro-twentieth-century mode and emailed him that it was on.
Silly me, I shoulda just sent him the YouTube link, which already had 250 views. (Stick that in your Long Tail and smoke it.)

Mike Orren, says:
Dunno if this proves or disproves my skepticism of Wikipedia. At the top of the entry on Elephants:
<img src="http://media.texasgigs.com/img/photos/2006/08/01/elephant.gif">
And noted on the page: "On July 31st, 2006 popular celebrity and show host Stephan Colbert prompted viewers to change the Wikipedia page on the Elephant to say that the African Elephant population has tripled in the last 3 months, as part of his The Word segment on The Colbert Report about Wikiality. While this is untrue, several attempts were made to change the page."
Probably dispositive of nothing but the genius of the writers of the Report.
Staff
3 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Mike Orren, says:
Here's a good example of what I call our "moderated wikiality." Note the short interim between correction and fix.
http://www.texasgigs.com/places/cocon...
Staff
3 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
jdunck, says:
There's some scholarly work[1] indicating that media mentions of Wikipedia articles significantly improves those articles over time.
Just because Colbert suggested misinformation be posted to Wikipedia doesn't mean that there won't be net gain for Wikipedia. Sort of like there being no such thing as bad publicity.
I found the segment particularly interesting as it drew into conflict several different interests of mine. This'll be fun to watch. :)
[1] http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publi...
Anonymous
3 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Mike Orren, says:
Wow. A footnote.
We're now officially legit.
;-)
Staff
3 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Mike Orren, says:
One final point before I call it a night. Back to the WP quote in my first comment.
I just rewatched the Colbert video. He clearly said "6 months," not 3.
That proves someone's point. I'm just not sure whose.
Staff
3 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
ScottChaffin, says:
Check Nick Carr at Rough Type on the Wikipedia 'community-ish-ness.' Yall are closer to the real way they operate than the generally accepted CW. They're probably more heirarchical than you (or DO) are.
http://www.roughtype.com/
Anonymous
3 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal