Skip to main content

Why Do Definitions - Why Not Just Use Wikipedia?

Today I spoke to the New York ERwin Modeling User Group (NYEMUG) on "Creating Great Definitions".  One question came up, which was why bother crafting definitions at all - why not simply rely on Wikipedia for them?  I suppose it could be any external source, and not necessarily Wikipedia (e.g. the Enterprise Data Management's Semantics Repository).  The way it would work conceptually would be to associate a link to Wikipedia with any term.

It might be thought that Wikipedia only deals with common terms, and not specialized technical terms.  However, there are a good number of technical terms that are present in Wikipedia.

My first reaction was both "yes" and "no".  "Yes" because it is simply obvious there is considerable value in Wikipedia, but "no" because Wikipedia does not understand the enterprise I work in, which ultimately supplies an enormous amount of context that influences definitions.   

I will have to think about this topic some more before I can fully answer it.  But, I at least wanted to capture a few initial ideas.  I take it for granted that Wikipedia has value, so I need to think why this value might be so limited that we still need to do definitions.   

(a) Wikipedia cannot provide details of a concept which is defined by a common relation of the instances included in the concept to another concept (usually a special way of managing these instances) that is unique to the enterprise (or part of the enterprise).  So Wikipedia cannot tell us what a Financial Asset is for our enterprise, because what we include in "Financial Asset" depends on our business model.    

(b) Wikipedia cannot deal with definitions modified on a per-context basis.  Speech communities are contexts.  So, for instance, Wikipedia cannot tell us what our Marketing department considers a Customer to be, versus what our Accounts Receivables department considers a Customer to be.  Wikipedia does not know the speech communities in our enterprise.

(c) The structure of Wikipedia entries differs on a per page basis.  There is no consistent set of sections to a definition, nor metadata for a definition.  This might inhibit use in an enterprise.

(d) Concepts are arranged in concept systems.  A definition shows how a concept is placed in a concept system.  One concept can occur in many concept systems, and the definition is modified in each case.

(e) Wikipedia can be wrong.  I have found errors, but very few - so I am not sure how valid this objection is.

Some of the above points may or may not overlap.  They are also preliminary, so subject to revision. 

That is all for now - I will have to return to this one.  However, the question raised in the title is one that must be answered.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Create Your Own Social Networking Site

Create Your Own Social Networking Site JCOW: Ethical Hacking Top 10 reasons to choose Jcow:- 1. Handle more traffic - Clean codes and Dynamic caching can lower the CPU load and  speed up your website. 2 Make your site more interactive - Well designed Jcow applications help you members to connect and communicate with others more effectively. 3 Add questions to the Registration Form - You can add new member fields, which will be displayed to the registration form, profile form, and the member browsing form. 4 Easily share stuff - Within the AJAX sharing Box, your members can publish status,  photos, videos, and blogs. 5 Customize and Extend your Jcow Network - A Jcow network consists of core apps(like "Friends" and "Messages") and optional apps(like "Blogs" and ""Videos"). You can enable/disable optional apps. You can also develop your own apps. 6 Every profile could be Unique - Members can customize their own profile theme and  add music play...
Post a Comment
Read more

Hack WiFi Account From Phishing Attack With WifiPhisher

WiFi Phishing Attack With WifiPhisher Tool  Wifiphisher   is a security tool that mounts fast automated phishing attacks against WiFi networks in order to obtain secret passphrases and other credentials. It is a social engineering attack that unlike other methods it does not include any brute forcing. It is an easy way for obtaining credentials from captive portals and third party login pages or WPA/WPA2 secret passphrases. From the victim's perspective, the attack makes use in three phases: 1. Victim is being deauthenticated from her access point. Wifiphisher continuously jams all of the target access point's wifi devices within range by sending deauth packets to the client from the access point, to the access point from the client, and to the broadcast address as well. 2. Victim joins a rogue access point. Wifiphisher sniffs the area and copies the target access point's settings. It then creates a rogue wireless access point that is modeled on the target. It also sets up ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of Pluto: What Is being Defined?

I wanted to return to the issue of Pluto, which has already been the subject of a number of posts.  The International Astronomical Union (IAU) created a rich array of issues and problems when it undertook a definitional change that resulted in the demotion of Pluto to the class of "dwarf planets". The topic this time is what exactly did the IAU define? I was watching a PBS special on the status of Pluto a few days ago.  It included scenes from a diner where the genial Neil deGrasse Tyson was asking customers what they thought about the new status of Pluto.  The reponses varied, but the issue at hand was about whether Pluto was "a planet".  The diners all thought that they were dealing with the general concept signfied by the term "planet".  Yet there is reason to think they were mistaken. The IAU resolved (see http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/ ) concerning the following: "The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in o...
Post a Comment
Read more