-------- Messaggio originale --------
Oggetto: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Gap
Data: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:39:44 -0500
Mittente: Dennis During
English Wiktionary has made a modest step toward ameliorating the FUll Text
On the Net bias by reducing for "less-attested languages" the requirement
for three citations of a word in use to just one. The result is more
coverage at somewhat greater risk of making a mistake in the entry
(misspelling, wrong definition, etc). Similar tradeoffs must exist for
other wikis. En.wikt tends to be more tolerant, if not exactly welcoming,
of contributors of entries in underrepresented languages, many of which do
not have their own wikis, than it is of would-be contributors of English
As I see it, What en.wikt has done seems reasonable within the scope of
what volunteers can do and are willing to do. A dictionary with trained
linguists contributing has an offsetting bias toward preserving smaller
languages, which serve as data for linguistic theory.
In my opinion, we also have other biases. We have a subject matter bias
toward computer, mathematics, chemistry, and linguistics jargon and against
jargon from other fields. Our coverage of Afro-American Vernacular English
lags and is incomplete even for older terms. Our definitions are often
worded for graduate students or at least college students. We have an
antiquarian and literary bias as well. I am certain that I am blind to
many other biases.
We would welcome constructive ideas about further steps or ideas on how
en.wikt could be a better resource.
> In terms of specific articles to create, there is also
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_ > encyclopedic_articles
> That project collects articles that exist in wide range of other
> encyclopedias, but don't yet exist on Wikipedia. However that's not
> covering quite the same concerns as the systemic-bias discussion, since
> many of those encyclopedias themselves have similar biases. Nonetheless
> this kind of comparison can be useful to find specific gaps in coverage
> that, equally importantly, are "actionable" in the sense that at least one
> source to base an article on exists.
> On 12/9/13, 9:07 PM, Peter Coombe wrote:
>> The English Wikipedia has attempted a (non-exhaustive) list at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias >>
>> On 9 December 2013 07:35, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In various research and media articles is written that in several subject
>>> groups Wikipedia is missing a lot of articles and those groups are
>>> relatively unrepresented.
>>> How can we as Wikipedia get clear which subject groups are missing?
>>> How can we get lists of less represented subject groups and the articles
>>> in those groups?
>>> Let us get practical, ow can we fill the gap?