Blink Grioonaute
Inscrit le: 15 Avr 2007 Messages: 5
|
Posté le: Lun 25 Juin 2007 15:29 Sujet du message: |
|
|
Zheim a écrit: | Salut,
Citation: | Ca devrait aider quelques uns même si l'on pourrait déplorer la qualité relative et la fiabilité incertaine de certains articles de Wikipedia. |
Je vois que tu as clos ton post en mettant en garde là-dessus, mais je ne sais pas si tu vois à quel point c’est vrai.
Puisqu’il est question de Wikipédia, je vais te donner un exemple bien concret :
Voilà la page Ethiopie de Wikipédia telle que je l’ai trouvée en février dernier :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89thiopie&oldid=14851378
Sur cette page tu pourra lire la section intitulée « Economie » : on y lit des choses qui sont assez récurrentes avec un lien qui après ce constat catastrophiste en conclue : évidemment avec des marchés plus ouvert ca irait mieux …
En lisant attentivement le lien et d’où sont tirés ses phrases et ses analyses, et bien tu te rends compte que la section Economie de Wikipédia n’était rien d’autre qu’un rapport officiel du sénat français qui s’intitule
Djibouti, Erythrée, Ethiopie : pour un renforcement de la présence française dans la Corne de l'Afrique
Et qu’on trouve ici
http://www.senat.fr/ga/rapport_djibouti/rapport_djibouti9.html
(les phrases qui étaient sur Wikipédia en sont des copié-collés)
je sais pas comment faire plus clair que cet exemple.
Alors voilà comment à partir d’une idée pleine de bonne volonté peut être parce qu’on ne sait pas quoi faire, mais qu’on a pas trop étudié, tu imagines à quoi on peut arriver (ici rien de moins que diffuser largement et dans toute l’Afrique les rapports basés sur les intérêts français !)
Tu imagines l’impact que peux avoir ce genre de distribution que tu proposes
Et puis il faudrait se poser la question de se demander aussi qu’est ce qu’aurait été Wikipédia à l’époque de la colonisation par exemple : à une époque où ceux qui ont accès en majorité au web, sont ceux là même qui profitent du système mondial qui leur convient très bien, Wikipédia, dans son principe même, ne peut que prôner le statu quo et l’inaction.
Par contre il serait intéressant de savoir si ce genre de choses peut être fait à partir d’autres sites, puisque ton site propose le résultat final mais pas l’outil qui a permis de le faire ?
Dernière chose, après ça on pourrait se dire qu’il reste quand même toutes les pages sur les sciences dures (maths/sciences), c’est sûrement vrai mais ces pages sont à prendre avec précaution (mauvaise expérience perso aussi), puisqu’ aucune n’est à l’abris d’un clown qui s’amuse à modifier qq formules. Du coup même là-dessus, le Wikipédia officiel ne peut pas être une référence. |
T'en fais pas, j'y avais bien sûr pensé, mais ce qui m'a semblé le plus important était la plus-value à tirer en matière d'éducation scientifique avant tout.
Et c'est malheureusement dommage que l'outil puisse être utilisé à d'autres fins que celles initialement prévues.
Un autre exemple presque similaire à celui que tu as posté est celui de la page anglophone du Cameroun qui semble-t-il présente des ressemblances troublantes avec celle d'un organisme gouvernemental U.S. (Department of State):
http://c63.be/wikigov/
Citation: |
Read the update at the bottom, old article preserved for amusement potential only!
While doing some research on the internet yesterday, I couldn't help but notice an interesting little detail. I was investigating some of the history behind Cameroon for an important write up I had to take care of. For some background knowledge, I started at one of my favorite sources, Wikipedia. User edited, up-to-date, and very accurate, it's a great place to start your research. As I delved deeper, I checked out some government websites, including the usually very precise US Department of State. What I found there suprised me quite a bit:
Let's start by reading the Wikipedia article. The history section sounds like a good place to start, it's near the top of the page and is an important part of this country's information:
The earliest inhabitants of Cameroon were probably the Baka (Pygmies). They still inhabit the forests of the south and east provinces. Bantu speakers originating in the Cameroonian highlands were among the first groups to move out before other invaders. The Mandara kingdom in the Mandara Mountains was founded around 1500 and erected magnificent fortified structures, the purpose and exact history of which is still unresolved. The Aro Confederacy of Nigeria, had presence in Western Cameroon due to migration in the 18nth and 19nth centuries. During the late 1770s and early 1800s, the Fulani, a pastoral Islamic people of the western Sahel, conquered most of what is now northern Cameroon, subjugating or displacing its largely non-Muslim inhabitants. Although the Portuguese arrived on Cameroon's coast in the 1500s, malaria prevented significant European settlement and conquest of the interior until the late 1870s, when large supplies of the malaria suppressant, quinine, became available. The early European presence in Cameroon was primarily devoted to coastal trade and the acquisition of slaves. The northern part of Cameroon was an important part of the Muslim slave trade network. The slave trade was largely suppressed by the mid-19th century. Christian missions established a presence in the late 19th century and continue to play a role in Cameroonian life.
Seems like a pretty interesting country so far, right? Sure, why not. So let's read on to see what the US Dept. of State has to say on this topic:
The earliest inhabitants of Cameroon were probably the Bakas (Pygmies). They still inhabit the forests of the south and east provinces. Bantu speakers originating in the Cameroonian highlands were among the first groups to move out before other invaders. During the late 1770s and early 1800s, the Fulani, a pastoral Islamic people of the western Sahel, conquered most of what is now northern Cameroon, subjugating or displacing its largely non-Muslim inhabitants. Although the Portuguese arrived on Cameroon's coast in the 1500s, malaria prevented significant European settlement and conquest of the interior until the late 1870s, when large supplies of the malaria suppressant, quinine, became available. The early European presence in Cameroon was primarily devoted to coastal trade and the acquisition of slaves. The northern part of Cameroon was an important part of the Muslim slave trade network. The slave trade was largely suppressed by the mid-19th century. Christian missions established a presence in the late 19th century and continue to play a role in Cameroonian life.
Wait wait wait...back up for a minute. Didn't I just read the same thing over again? Why, sure I did! Let's check out the differences between these two blocks of text:
The Mandara kingdom in the Mandara Mountains was founded around 1500 and erected magnificent fortified structures, the purpose and exact history of which is still unresolved. The Aro Confederacy of Nigeria, had presence in Western Cameroon due to migration in the 18nth and 19nth centuries.
That's it? Yep, besides a few grammar corrections, that's it. What's more is this document was posted to the US Dept. of State website in January, 2006. The Wikipedia revision you see above was pulled on April 27, 2006. Let's try our luck with a revision from January 2006, shall we? Here's what's changed between January 2, 2006, and April 27, 2006:
The Aro Confederacy of Nigeria, had presence in Western Cameroon due to migration in the 18nth and 19nth centuries.
Why, it's one of the sentences which has mysteriously appeared on Wikipedia sense the last US Dept. of State edit! However, the Mandara kingdom sentence is still there. The US Dept. of State didn't even bother to grab the newest version!
At this point some of you may ask just what the heck the US Dept. of State was doing, but let's take a moment to clear things up. First, it's obvious the Wikipedia page has been around for quite some time, and has evolved from that older state. What that basically means is the Wikipedia page isn't a copy of US Dept. of State material (which would be perfectly legal anyway, the US Government is not allowed to place copyrights on their material). Have a look for yourself. What's more, the US Dept. of State page doesn't even mention Wikipedia, let alone any sources at all. Check it out, or view a Google cache (you never know when they might pull this to save their necks). While your there, do a bit of your own comparing with the History of Cameroon and Cameroon article on Wikipedia. You'll find this isn't an isolated case.
So that's all cleared up, but let's ask a few important questions here. First, what buisness does the US Dept. of State have ripping information from Wikipedia? While it's publicly editable, it's in no way public domain. All content on Wikipedia is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. What's that boil down to? This passage about covers it:
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
Hrm, that's odd. I don't see this license, a copyright notice, or a notice that this license applies to the document on the US Dept. of State website. Something about that strikes me as breach of contract. But hey, anything must be legal for the government. Right? Riiiiight?
So let's leave the legal issues behind and finish on a high note. After all the recent fiasco about the quality of Wikipedia information, I can't help but feel confidence in it when my own government seems to trust it. The US Dept. of State is an awfully famous institution, and if they have faith in Wikipedia, that's surely a pretty good endorsement. (for those of you chuckling under your breath, that was the CIA that had some issues folks )
So what's next? You decide. I'm going to spread the word, but it takes more than one man to open your own government up to the world of copyright. You can start by contacting the US Dept. of State, or simply passing this page out to your friends. Give it a go!
UPDATE: Some people did some great digging and found a copy of the original US Dept. of State document. And guess what? It just barely predates the Wikipedia page. Though it closes the government issue, I can't help but think it still highlights a serious problem. With the aformentioned Wikipedia quality issues, it's disturbing to note that much of Wikipedia is still filled with robot generated content. It was a great way to fill up the database in the early days, but at what cost? Loss of accuracy as original sources are lost. Can't we just cite and avoid this whole problem?
|
De plus il y a de cela quelques mois, plusieurs modérateurs de Wikipedia se sont plaints de la trop grande présence d'éditeurs dont les IP remontaient vers des institutions gouvernementales sur le site.
Ce qui logiquement constitue un problème pour la neutralité et la crédibilité de l'encyclopédie. Ca rend les choses beaucoup plus difficiles à gérer dans le cas d'une distribution offline neutre.
Pour assurer une certaine fiabilité des articles, il faudrait obtenir une image de la base et effectuer un tri direct sur les articles. Sélectionner les plus pertinents et plus fiables. C'est probablement possible d'obtenir une image en s'adressant directement à la fondation.
Ca rajoute bien sûr une couche de travail. En supposant que les conditions de base soient réunies, l'encyclopédie pourrait se revéler un outil très bénéfique pour la vulgarisation scientifique massive. |
|