The Dangers of Open Content 240
gihan_ripper writes "Recently released open movie Elephants Dream found itself in hot water with Catalonians after accidentally using an offensive word instead of 'Català' in the subtitle menu. The cause? Designer Matt Ebb had used Wikipedia to look up the Catalan word for Catalan on a day when the entry had been vandalized. He writes about this experience on the Elephant Dream blog.
We may have scoffed at John Seigenthaler over his criticisms of Wikipedia, but it gives us pause for thought when we to heavily on Wikipedia."
Dangers of international content? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, this is more about the troubles with doing international work - its hard to understand the sensitivities & languages of multiple (over 30!) cultures. Companies as large as Microsoft [com.com] have made mistakes [theregister.co.uk] like this before, withlout using open content.
As the (google cache) blog author says: [64.233.183.104]
*shrug* - not that big a deal, and an internationalisation, not open content problem.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
To elaborate a bit - there's large and thriving translator communities out there for many of the worlds languages. I'd go out on a limb and say that any open project can quite easily rustle up competent (and sometimes truly expert) help for any language or localization issue.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think this is an issue. I mean, Elephant's Dream sucked in English and even properly translated would have issues. I think that, if rather than the dialog in the flick they said profane words... it would have been much more watchable.
Proves we could do CGI... and we should figure out scriptwriting.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would I trust it as a starting point if I can't trust it as a source?
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:5, Insightful)
You shouldn't trust any single source.
Wikipedia is a useful starting point as it will contain pointers (or at least useful search terms) to begin looking for other items to reference. It's no different to any other encyclopedia in that respect.
Surely you don't use a single soruce for information for an important project?
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:4, Insightful)
I routinely do. But then the source in question is unimpeachable and has stood the test of time and criticism. In fact, in the real world it's very common to rely on single sources, handbooks, references, etc...
When writing a program, you don't look up the meaning of a command in three sources do you? When wiring a house, you don't check three different copies of the electrical code. When working on your car, all you need is your Chilton's. Examples abound of routine daily use of single sources.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2, Informative)
You don't want to know how many times I've needed to do something that WASN'T in a Chiltons. Substitute "Factory Service Manual" for "Chiltons" and I'll agree.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Sure, but that's not the problem we see here: to make the analogy correct, have you ever looked up procedure in Chiltons and found it, only to find out later that its instructions were completely (or even maliciously) wrong?
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regularly. And only then do I get a complete description, if not find an error in one.
When wiring a house, you don't check three different copies of the electrical code.
If one, even. Really, if there were multiple versions (not copies) released at the same time, of course I would look at all of them.
When working on your car, all you need is your Chilton's.
And that's exactly why my interior door panel on my old 1993 Grand Am held on for dear life by three screws. Sure it was my fault for not being gentle; but the factory shop manual, I discovered, had a full blown illustration and much more detailed procedure. Chiltons and Haynes both throw five models over ten years into one book, making it useless for anything but drivetrain work. They may as well cut the interior and body work out of their manuals entirely, along with much of the electrical and vacuum system stuff.
Again, if Pontiac made several publications with varying but similar information, I'd want all of them, and I did own both the Haynes and Chiltons manuals, occasionally referring to all of them.
The point is, you really can't trust any source of information unless you've personally witnessed the accuracy of the information (i.e. it's your research, etc.) Information comes from imperfect humans, and you simply can't trust that 100% (if 10% in some cases). That's fundamental, not practical; if it turns out most of the info you research is accurate enough for your needs, which happens most of the time, you'll be okay for the most part.
Wikipedia is ultimately more helpful than it is harmful, but if you choose to use it for a single source of information where it's critical that the information be accurate, you HAVE to double check the info at least, if not simply use it to acquire other sources. Reason: There's no blaming Wikipedia and holding them responsible for your embarassing and possibly consequential mistake in your work.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:3, Insightful)
No - I don't use an encyclopedia for any of them, I would use a specialised source, perhaps using wikipedia/other encyclopedia to find out what that specialised source was. That was the mistake the guy we're discussing made
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Your analogy is flawed.
When I program in three different languages, I will have to look up the meaning of a command in at least three sources.
When I wire a house in two different countries, I will have to check at least two different copies of the electrical code.
When I work on
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Furthermore, you don't want to know how many mistakes or misconceptions (often for the sake of simplicity) there can be in handb
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
You're right. You won't find a Catalan linguistic mistake in Brittanica. I wouldn't be so confidant about Dogon, Kwa, Gbe, Belarusian or Kalenjin though. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
You should.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
However, it hardly shows the Nature study to be particularly false; mostly I see Britannica complaining about Nature being unfair, and/or expecting too much of an encyclopedia.
I mean, comments like "we are not a botanical encyclopedia, and dont pretend to be"? That's an excuse, not a valid objection. And, in the case of an Britannica Vs. Wikipedia accuracy evaluation, a completely irrelevant excuse; the same standards of c
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the next time you're arrested, the police don't bother showing the evidence that you've committed a crime. After all you're just a vested interest.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
As for the neutrality of your comment, let's just hope you don't work for Britannica.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Standards like accuracy not being one of them.
They've managed to list some 60 errors in Britannica. Jeebus knows how many factual errors are in Wikipedia - and no it isn't my responsibility to fix them.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
So, because you don't know and are unwilling to find evidence to compare Britannica to Wikipedia, and disregard evidence that was provided by a peer-reviewed journal, clearly Wikipedia is full of errors? Nonsense.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
WTF?? So, the only way you can win an argument is by turning it into another argument? We were talking about factual accuracy and neutrality. But, I showed your argument was bullshit. So, you decided to switch over to "offensive words". I don't have any data on that, as nobody has looked into it, so I can't help you. If you want to assume one way or t
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
The same error? It would be especially alarming as we're talking about the effects of a vandal.
But an error? Any error? That's a given.
I'm not saying that the difference in reliability between Britannica and Wikipedia is as small as one study has shown, just that there is a big difference between "reliable" and "error free". Quoting either the Britannica or Wikipedia in book or paper is a sin of lazy researchers. They're encyclopedias. Their purpose is to offer a general overview of many subjects. Everyth
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Surely you don't use a single soruce for information for an important project?
How do I know its a useful starting point if I don't know whether anything its telling me is correct AND the publisher disavows all errors, vandalism, falsehoods and any responsibility?
Whoever wrote that its a "faith-based" ency
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
> You shouldn't trust any single source.
This is just crap. If I ask a cop for directions, should I ask another one, even if the first one seemed sure? Do you carry two companies maps of the same area in your car? Do slashdotters advise other slashdotters to consult two lawyers independently for legal advice? How many households own multiple dictionaries? How many people have the time to read two daily newspapers, or watch
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
because it is convenient and mostly correct. Very few sources are 100% accurate. Especially something as large and comprehensive and open as Wikipedia.
The shame is that the DVD was already pressed before the translator who found the problem was able to see it. He should have sent out tapes or burned DVD's to the translators before pressing the batch for the wide release.
I do hope that this isn't the only thing we discuss about this
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
because it is convenient and mostly correct.
But any propaganda from any extremist group is "mostly correct". It's the bits that aren't correct that bother me.
Very few sources are 100% accurate. Especially something as large and comprehensive and open as Wikipedia.
Maybe you should lookup the word "open" in a dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Also while you're looking, look up "scholarship". You won't find that on Wiki
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
I take it you've never been to a neonazi website.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Suddenly, a lot more of your research paper has been done for you.
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Trust it about as much as you'd trust the internet as whole. Be realistic; if you're mildly curious about something new to you and you want a quick overview, don't you plug the term into Google and do some quick reading? The results could come from anywhere: hoaxers, someone with a strongly biased agenda, or someone who did bad research (including possibly using Wikipedia). And yet most of the time it's Good Enough. Wikipedia on av
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Because, according to Wikipedia rules, each article is supposed to contain a collection of links to authoritative sources that contain all of the information in the article[1]. Hopefully, you know enough to be able to assess when a source is trustworthy and therefore you are able to verify that the information is, if not correct, at least as likely to be correct as it would be if you had found it in (e.g.) Britannica.
OK, in order to d
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
More of this sort of thing, I say!
I suspect that if this kind of thing happened to Sony or Univeral Studios or another Holywood outfit that this incedent would be a half-assed lawsuit before you could say 'wiki', probably featuring some
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
I doubt very much that defacing Wikipedia would make you responsible for the embarrasment or monetary losses suffered by people who took that information at face value and didn't bother to check it, even in Legalistic America.
But, just to be safe: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. And, since I felt the need to say that, one might wonder if I believe in my own advice
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Re:Dangers of international content? (Score:2)
Wikipedia grammar? (Score:5, Funny)
Nuff said.
Taco's grammar? (Score:2)
Re:Wikipedia grammar? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wikipedia grammar? (Score:2)
You are right. The grammar is better than usual, so we should assume the vandals improved it.
It's naval slang (Score:2)
Oops. (Score:2, Funny)
If you have an open mind, people will throw a lot of garbage into it.
Slashdot is good for something (Score:2)
And to stay remotely on topic - don't publish ANYTHING that you've obtained from ANYWHERE as a single source bit of information. Research. Research and re search again.
well... (Score:2)
All this really does (Score:5, Informative)
Re:All this really does (Score:2)
Remember "All the President's Men"? Bernstein and Woodward did what CBS forgot to do w/ the supposed Bush service records -- validate with independent sources. When you don't you get burned, sooner or later.
Re:All this really does (Score:2)
Native speakers needed (Score:2)
If you are going to devote so much effort to producing a product (closed or open source), then why the hell do you piss around with half arsed guesses as to how to translate text?
On the other hand I did have an interesting time with a russian girl once. We
Re:Native speakers needed (Score:2)
While Engrish can be pretty amusing, English/English can be just as bad. By that, I mean that documentation and words written by native English speakers are often atrocious. For an example simply read the last sentence of the story submission.
Re:Native speakers needed (Score:2)
Fact-checking and Wikipedia (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fact-checking and Wikipedia (Score:2)
is open content the real problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
WikiMapia and the potential for spying/stalking (Score:2)
I decided to take solace in the fact anyone that serious would have already mapped it themselves rather than depend on an open-source map ganked from Google in the first place.
De-vandalized (Score:3, Interesting)
A_10_es: si et plau, dóna-li una ullada quan puguis, a veure si m'he deixat alguna cosa. Gràcies.
[A_10_es: please, give it an eyeball when you have a moment, to see if I forgot something. Thank you.]
That was a sample of Catalan language; will somebody give me a +1=Informative?
Re:De-vandalized (Score:5, Interesting)
You edited a version from April 7th and therefore you overwrote all the edits people have made over the last three months. You also managed to miss about 10 stray "Polacos" scattered through your old starting version of the article. The article was reverted and had no "Polacos" at all, but it now seems to have been reverted to your version again.
I hope you will have a long and happy relationship with Wikipedia, and get an account there
Proofreading? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I found the real problem.
Re:Proofreading? (Score:2)
Obligatory comment (Score:2)
Been there, done that... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do they say - nothing is as permanent as that which was deemed temporary? Not uncommon for stuff like this to not get checked by QA.
Amateur mistake. (Score:3, Funny)
danger of careless people (Score:3, Insightful)
All of this can be easily solved by fact checking before the distribution of a static content.
I do understand the problem. I can be careless. But when I am I do not blame my carelessness on someone else.
Vandalism isn't just one day (Score:2, Troll)
For example, the FSLN [wikipedia.org] article has an introduction, and then begins "The FSLN was formally organised in 1961 by recent KGB recruits Carlos Fonseca Amador, Tomás Borge Martínez and Silvio Mayorga." The rest of the article goes on in that sort of tone. I don't know how many people in the world thin
Re:Vandalism isn't just one day (Score:2)
Theory tells us that the length of time a vandalised article will remain depends on how many people are looking at it, in a roughly linear fashion. Therefore we can work on the basis that for each case of vandalism, approximately the same number of people will see it vandalised.
In this case, the article is q
Re:Vandalism isn't just one day (Score:2)
Huh?
The only mention of Texas in the article is in this sentence (previous sentence quoted for context):
Scoff at Seigenthaler? (Score:4, Informative)
It's worth noting that Seigenthaler DID eventually track down the malicious poster. Seigenthaler's an adamant free-speech advocate (and a head-honcho muckety-muck at the First Amendment Center), with an extreme distaste for libel and slander laws - he'd rather see lies and mischaracterizations flushed out through the marketplace of ideas. So he didn't sue, but he did go on TV and demand an apology from the malicious poster. That seems like a reasonable thing to me; the poster embarrassed Seigenthaler through his lies, and Seigenthaler embarrassed the poster through a demand for truth.
Seigenthaler also told me that when the poster's boss threatened to fire the poster, Seigenthaler called and asked the boss not to; he said the matter was settled was the truth was on the record.
He said the incident pushed and strained his belief in the marketplace of ideas, and that he was awfully tempted to go ahead with a libel suit. I'm glad ultimately he stayed true to his core values.
Re:Scoff at Seigenthaler? (Score:3, Insightful)
But the overall message is right - that Seigenthaler had a very reasonable concern, and addressed it reasonably. And unlike many who've been wronged, he didn't push for the heavy-handed solution of government regulation; on the contrary, he worried that similar abuses might eventually lead to it, and he saw that as detrimental to the idea of free speech.
Authors and Authority (Score:4, Insightful)
This has also been the problem with "authoritative" sources, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, NY Times or White House Spokesman. Those sources are highly managed, consciously or unconsciously, so they don't usually go as obviously haywire. Instead they mislead to usually workable misconceptions. In the service of the writer/speaker or the organization that produces/publishes them.
Now that the world is finally filling with lots of smalltime publishers, as publishing has become so cheap, easy and scaleable, we're all seeing the limits of sources. So we all must learn what the past publishers learn: power of the press belongs to people with presses, and power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only way to handle the corruption is to match power against power, cross-reference information from independent (of each other) sources.
Wikipedia will be even better when it includes an independent "fact checking" feature, like automated Google/Yahoo/MSN searching of citations. Until then, its superior power to managed press is just raw power that requires users to do that for ourselves.
Quickie Mart (Score:2, Insightful)
apologize, repair, move on (Score:3, Insightful)
So apologise, repair the mistake, and move on. Just because some jerk doesn't understand the usefullness of an open source public resource doesn't change the utility of that resource. And anyone who is 'offended' by the prank needs to understand this. This is like sueing the streetcar company for racism because some pissant spray-painted a racist remark on a streetcar. The correct response is to find the person responsible if possible, and if not, then to teach your own children why civilized people don't do such things.
Use more than one source (Score:2)
If someone uses only one source for their information they deserve what they get!
The fact the page was vandalized on one day doesn't mean Wikipedia is inferior either, it would have been corrected. One error doesn't mean the end of the World.
Re:Use more than one source (Score:2)
It will only take one last error.
Be more careful (Score:2)
From what I've seen, Wikipedia vandalism is almost alwa
Oh no! Don't rely on it! (Score:2)
Alas, I see Wikipaedia as the strange case of the mediocre being the enemy of the good. It (
great design for *starting* an encyclopedia (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good example of a more general problem with WP, which is that the design was optimized for getting an encyclopedia off the ground initially, not for maintaining it in the long-term. It's analogous to an internet startup company that kludges up their software real quick using Visual Basic code, lots of gotos, and no comments; what they care about is getting it working initially, so they can make their IPO.
A lot of people don't realize that WP's design emerged after an initial period of uncertainty and experimentation over what model to use. There were alternative models, like Nupedia's [wikipedia.org], but they failed mainly because they were too cumbersome for new writers to get involved in.
My experience as a WP editor over the last few years has been that in the early stages, both the number and quality of the articles improved rapidly, but that within the last year or so, there have started to be severe quality problems. In the early stages, the problems came from not having enough users. For instance, the early versions of the article on astrology were ridiculously credulous, and when I tried to make it more balanced, I couldn't make any progress, because there were only roughly three of us working on the article, and the other two were true believers. I gave up on the article, but when I came back and looked at it again in a couple of years, the problem had been pretty well corrected, presumably because the continuing influx of new users made it impossible for a couple of fanatical true believers to continue using the article to push their POV.
But recently, there's the opposite problem. There are so many people editing WP that it's become virtually impossible to keep a good article good. It's an interesting exercise to look at an article that became a featured article, say, a year ago, and compare its quality then with its quality now. In most cases, you'll find that it's gotten worse because of lots of random, uncoordinated edits by people who may have a POV to push, or who may just not be very knowledgeable.
WP's design is an exteme design, going about as far as it's possible to go toward openness and ease of use. I don't think that design is working at this stage in WP's evolution, which is why I've mostly stopped editing on WP.
Wikipedia is too open (Score:2)
Wikipedia is too open. I think it would discourage the vandalism a bit more if it first required logging in as a registered username to make changes. And maybe in addition to that some kind of moderation system could apply to changes made to controversial articles. And a new idea to add would be "rebuttal articles", different than a talk/discussion article, parallels each controversial article where differing points of view can be placed with less limitations.
It's totally worthless. (Score:3, Interesting)
No different than any other encylopedia (Score:2)
Professionalism (Score:4, Insightful)
growing pains (Score:3, Interesting)
as it remained cultish and unknown, this was not a problem, both from the random vandalisation and trust of unfamiliar users standpoints. now, there are multiple issues as people think of it as the equivalent of britannica.
another is this -- it is very difficult, in certain circumstances, for objectivity to survive. i, for example, work in politics. information about a candidate for office in my city is erroneous and biased intentionally. however, i lack the clout within wikipedia to have my corrections upheld by editors -- the candidate's opponent's supporters are merciless about arguing and re-subjectifying the content. there's no recourse.
we've developed a new AOL (new users not understanding the internet and causing and experiencing challenges) -- from the standpoint that wikipedia has grown to the point that users don't know it's not perfect and can be harmful, and there are going to be a number of growing pains as a result.
Other Catalan resources (Score:2)
Leaving aside the general issue of Wikipedia accuracy, Wikipedia isn't the best source of linguistic information, something for which there are specialized resources. In the case of Catalan, there is DACCO (Diccionari Anglès-Català de Codi Obert) [catalandictionary.org], an open source bilingual dictionary project. DACCO allows users to contribute, but via a more controlled process than just letting anybody edit. This approach, of starting with a few experts, having them admit others whom they recognize as responsible a
Why not use your translators? (Score:2)
Re:Is Wikipedia really wrong on this? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Is Wikipedia really wrong on this? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That "offensive" again.... (Score:2)
Re:That "offensive" again.... (Score:2)
Not to rain on your erudite discussion on the nature of humanity, but sub-atomic particles (in their hadronic nature) neither desire anything nor have the ability to "consume" or to "multiply".
The "bald monkey" level of your taxonomy is the lowest level at which a desire might be meaningfully expressed. As this very mild correction does not interfere with your conclusive statement, please continue with the already established
Re:What's in a name? (Score:2)
One source makes a rumor, two sources make a theory. Fact, on the other hand, is more often than not a matter of perspective.