My Thoughts on Comments

Wikipedia - Discussion on Reliability and Falsehood

On a discussion thread for an article called "Can We Trust Wikipedia On Controversial Scientific Topics?" there were over 45 comments arguing about controversial topics on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia itself.

Credible comment.
Included with Jonathan Wallace's comment is the previous comment, to contextualize his response.

• Jonathan Wallace seems to express a fear, namely a fear over what user "rickflick" proposed as a solution for Wikipedia's disputed reliability as a source. Rickflick posed a question for a solution to combating counterproductive edits made on Wikipedia pages about controversial topics. However, Wallace voiced an apparent apprehension over assigning experts to monitor edits to those pages for "balance" because balance may be arbitrary, and experts may not see it how others would. Wallace seems slightly afraid of the solution because he points out the flaws and potential downfalls of that solution and poses a real-world example to illustrate his point. He also used the word "worrying" in direct response to Rickflick's idea, clearly indicating his stance on it.

• I believe Jonathan Wallace is pro-science based on his response, because he does not attack Rickflick's idea to have experts defend scientific and controversial topic pages on Wikipedia, and instead only focuses on the politics of "balance" in representation of groups of varying beliefs on such issues.

• Jonathan Wallace comes across as a credible commenter for a number of reasons. Firstly, his user account has a full name, and in contrast to the preceding "rickflick," Wallace seems to command a basic level of authority and credibility simply due to his having a real name. Additionally, Wallace does an excellent job of using politically correct terms in his example that justifies his stance against Rickflick's solution, such as "encyclopedia discussion on evolution" and "creationist arguments." Finally, he uses proper structure and punctuation for his comment, which allows him to convey his example in an understandable way.

Credible comment.

• If anything, JonLynnHarvey seems to be expressing a wish. While not a wish for something about Wikipedia to be different, I think he is expressing a desire for people speaking and commenting on the subject to be aware that Wikipedia is more reliable than it is made out to be. This desire is indicated by Harvey's listing of evidence of Wikipedia admins actively combating counterproductive editing on articles by prohibiting anonymous edits on certain pages, such as those about living persons, to avoid slander lawsuits.

• I think that JonLynnHarvey is a firm believer in Wikipedia's viability as a legitimate resource, in other words, he is pro-Wikipedia. He defends its legitimacy in the face of counterproductive and obscene edits by citing specific instances where admins for the site work against such edits, and then downplays the instances where admins are more relaxed by explaining the reasoning behind the less defensive stances on those pages.

• This commenter proved to have high credibility due to primarily to his ample amounts of evidence and reasoning. He cited living persons' biography pages, such as that of President Obama, as evidence that Wikipedia's staff effectively prevents counterproductive editing of entries. In addition, he cited an instance in 2011 involving a movie, "Anonymous," and how Wikipedia admins prevented edits to pages related to Shakespeare's work until facts could be verified. Finally, JonLynnHarvey's proper diction and organization of his post, including the somewhat unrelated bit about Scientology, lent credibility to his comment as a whole.

Comment that lacks credibility. And also is creepy.
Preceding comment included to provide context to Mr. Merveilleux's probing.

• Mr. Merveilleux is undoubtedly expressing a specific fantasy in his comment that responds - only tangentially - to Diana MacPherson's. That fantasy is for him to have a chance at learning more about MacPherson's appearance and dating availability. This is evidenced by his complete ignorance of the topic's subject and direct inquiry into MacPherson as an individual, including her romantic life.

• It's impossible to deduce Merveilleux's stance on the issue of Wikipedia's reliability as a source or destination for accurate information, as he does not indicate his beliefs on the topic in any way. However, it is reasonable to assume Merveilleux believes in internet dating and finding romantic adventures online.

• Merveilleux comes across as untrustworthy and lacking credibility because he completely ignores the topic of the comment thread and instead only asks MacPherson a direct, frank, and invasive personal question. In addition, Merveilleux uses an emote (the smiley face sticking its tongue out), which fails to lend him credibility as well.

Comment lacking credibility. Not in direct response to any other comment.

• This commenter, Robert Seidel, seems to have a wish to add to the discussion over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, and for others to acknowledge and become aware of instances where Wikipedia has been mistaken or overly decisive in the face of controversy. This is evidenced by Seidel's inclusion of a specific time when Wikipedia possibly classified a building in Vienna incorrectly.

• I think it is fair to conclude that Seidel doesn't completely trust Wikipedia, and believes it is not infrequently mistaken in its statements made on entries across a variety of topics. As the article was about scientific topic pages on Wikipedia, the fact that Seidel brought a less science-related example forward may indicate that he believes Wikipedia's questionable accuracy is not limited to scientific controversies over theories or new developments with the world's environment.

• While Seidel's inclusion of an example with proper citation did lend him some credibility, he still seems lacking in credibility. His poor grammar, overuse of capital letters, and misspelling of words and improper use of tenses ("wether," "build") detracted from credibility. Additionally, his anecdote had no real argument or point to make; it was purely an anecdote about a time when he remembered a controversy involving Wikipedia, which lent him no credibility since it made him seems disorganized or lacking in understanding for relevant argument, 

Reflection

I learned from reading Nick's and Tobin's reviews of comments on Chinese-Japanese diplomacy over WWII and the University of Oklahoma's SAE fraternity chanting a racist song, respectively, was that one of the primary factors in a commenter's credibility is the relevance of their comment to the subject at hand. In Nick's analyses, credible commenters stayed focused on the political status of China-Japan relations today, while non-credible commenters had relatively unrelated comments about China's leaders. Similarly, Tobin's selected comments exhibited a similar quality, and as he pointed out, the credible comments stayed on-topic and refrained from attacking the students at Oklahoma and instead voiced their concerns over their actions, as opposed to how the comments lacking credibility just attacked "the conservatives."

Additionally, from reading those posts, I realized that most credible commenters have success in voicing their fears or hopes by refraining from personal attack and overall, just being civil about voicing their opinions. I have to say that I agree with how Nick and Tobin determined credibility of comments by primarily focusing on each's relevance.