Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues.

Michael Snow-3
Peter Damian wrote:
> You take exception, in
> a thread which is explicitly about content issues in Wikipedia, with a post
> that makes unfavourable comparison between Wikipedia and one of its
> competitors. Why is this?
>  
The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
speculation about what Wikipedia *might* have. If your intent is to
discuss content issues in Wikipedia, then you need to actually
explicitly discuss them. (Although I might suggest that you should
familiarize yourself with some of our other mailing lists and consider
whether another list, like wikien-l, is better suited to have this
conversation, since foundation-l exists for issues related to the
Wikimedia Foundation and the overall movement surrounding its projects,
not just Wikipedia.)

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:55 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>..
>> Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
>> and our processes have not always been victorious over it.  Simply
>> put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
>> suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that,
>> proportionally speaking, Wikipedia pollutes the interweb more than CZ.
>
>
> Wikipedia has the help of LOTS of people to get closer to NPOV. CZ
> artificially limited its contributor pool in important ways.

Wikipedia has artificially increased its 'editor' base, structuring it
so that Randy Boise is on equal footing with the experts, and
resulting in lots of help in violating publishing ethics.

>> Compare the rationalwiki page for CZ and WP.  I wonder how large their
>> WP page would be if a similar level of critical analysis was applied.
>
>
> The WP article is about dealing with an imperfect successful thing,
> not analysing a failure. Your point is unclear.

You, and the RW article about WP, start from the assertion that
Wikipedia is successful.  Successful at what?  Success at Google
rankings/pageviews/popular culture?  Is that the only appropriate
measure of an encyclopedia; an encyclopedia which is putting other
encyclopedia's out of business?  What is it unsuccessful at?  The RW
article about WP does little to demonstrate a rational persons
observation of WP.  It reads like the writer(s) are drunk on coolaid.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

David Gerard-2
On 1 September 2010 00:27, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You, and the RW article about WP, start from the assertion that
> Wikipedia is successful.  Successful at what?  Success at Google
> rankings/pageviews/popular culture?  Is that the only appropriate
> measure of an encyclopedia; an encyclopedia which is putting other
> encyclopedia's out of business?  What is it unsuccessful at?  The RW
> article about WP does little to demonstrate a rational persons
> observation of WP.  It reads like the writer(s) are drunk on coolaid.


This appears to be a very inefficacious way for you to edit the wiki
page you're talking about.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues.

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Peter Damian
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Peter Damian
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Vandenberg" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
> issues.
>
>
>>Irony.  David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence.
>
> Actually David wrote the page.  I thought it was interesting ...

I agree it was interesting, and does include some valuable
observations which highlight problems facing the CZ project.
Credentialism is one of them, but David's assertion that it is a
"pseudoscience haven" appears to be selective observation, or maybe
selective writing in light of the CZ article about WP, which makes no
mentions of the long history of pseudo-<x> problems on Wikipedia.

>>Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
>>and our processes have not always been victorious over it.  Simply
>>put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
>>suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that,
>>proportionally speaking, Wikipedia pollutes the interweb more than CZ.
>>Compare the rationalwiki page for CZ and WP.  I wonder how large their
>>WP page would be if a similar level of critical analysis was applied.
>
> ... but as you say, byte for byte, there may be a similar level of
> 'pollution'.  I wonder if it was 'credentialism' that was the problem, or
> just the lack of editors.  I joined CZ when it was formed, with one other
> philosophy editor http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Peter_J._King who had
> defected from Wikipedia.  He was a good philosopher but had some kind of
> stupid row with Larry and left. I found it difficult to edit in a vacuum so
> I left also.  And that was the end of "credentialled" philosophy on CZ.
> Larry is not a bad philosopher himself and has credentials but he was in a
> management role. He has this naive faith that academic philosophers would
> come flocking to CZ and fill the gap but they didn't. So in the end he
> lowered the entry barrier and the rest is history.
>
> In summary, the evidence as far as my discipline is concerned is that Sanger
> wrongly expected the project to attract credentialled academics. It didn't.
> He allowed a number of uncredentialled or 'less credentialled' editors in,
> and the results are much as David Gerard describes them.

An important distinction remains.  CZ requires real names, and as I
understand it, the credentials of the contributors are a known
quantity, which adds a dimension in 'patrolling' process.  This
obviously reduces the quantity of willing contributors, and
contributions.  I'm surprised you found the quietness of CZ (the
vacuum) to be a problem, as your content on MyWikiBiz is usually
written solely by yourself, and many of your WP pages have mostly been
written by yourself.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues.

Peter Damian
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-3
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snow" <[hidden email]>

> The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
> Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
> an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
> speculation about what Wikipedia *might* have.

It was explicitly contrasting how Wikipedia actually is, or tends to be
like, as compared with the corresponding CZ article.  I think the
observations were accurate and reflect pretty well what controversial
Wikipedia articles are like, namely festooned with supposedly reliable
citations, and bearing obvious battlescars from years of edit-warring.  The
contrast was specifically prompted by a claim by Gerard that Wikipedia's
relaxed attitude to 'expertise' leads to better articles.  I don't think it
does.

> If your intent is to
> discuss content issues in Wikipedia, then you need to actually
> explicitly discuss them.

I don't want to discuss content as such.  I want to discuss generic and
systematic problems with the way Wikipedia is organised that lead to poor
quality articles.  There needs first to be some recognition there is a
quality problem and that it is serious - I think there is an element of
denial that is evident from some of the replies here, as well as elsewhere.
Once the problem is recognised, there needs to be a careful examination of
possible causes for this.  And then a further examination of how policy and
governance could be changed to address some or all of these causes.  Does
that sound reasonable?

> I might suggest that you should
> familiarize yourself with some of our other mailing lists and consider
> whether another list, like wikien-l, is better suited to have this
> conversation, since foundation-l exists for issues related to the
> Wikimedia Foundation and the overall movement surrounding its projects,
> not just Wikipedia.)

I consider this is the best mailing list for the purpose.  What do people
here think?

Peter


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues.

Yann Forget-3
Hello,

I generally agree with Peter here.
I think that there is a general problem of quality on Wikipedia articles,
especially on articles about humanities, social sciences, etc.

I also agree that letting the usual process to care about articles quality
is not sufficient. In nearly ten years, there was enough time to fix the issue,
if it the current policies would be appropriate for dealing with this problem.

This also does not affect the English Wikipedia alone.
For what I know, it also affects the French Wikipedia.
So this list is appropriate to discuss this issue.

Regards,

Yann

2010/9/1 Peter Damian <[hidden email]>:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Snow" <[hidden email]>
>
>> The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
>> Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
>> an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
>> speculation about what Wikipedia *might* have.
>
> It was explicitly contrasting how Wikipedia actually is, or tends to be
> like, as compared with the corresponding CZ article.  I think the
> observations were accurate and reflect pretty well what controversial
> Wikipedia articles are like, namely festooned with supposedly reliable
> citations, and bearing obvious battlescars from years of edit-warring.  The
> contrast was specifically prompted by a claim by Gerard that Wikipedia's
> relaxed attitude to 'expertise' leads to better articles.  I don't think it
> does.
>
>> If your intent is to
>> discuss content issues in Wikipedia, then you need to actually
>> explicitly discuss them.
>
> I don't want to discuss content as such.  I want to discuss generic and
> systematic problems with the way Wikipedia is organised that lead to poor
> quality articles.  There needs first to be some recognition there is a
> quality problem and that it is serious - I think there is an element of
> denial that is evident from some of the replies here, as well as elsewhere.
> Once the problem is recognised, there needs to be a careful examination of
> possible causes for this.  And then a further examination of how policy and
> governance could be changed to address some or all of these causes.  Does
> that sound reasonable?
>
>> I might suggest that you should
>> familiarize yourself with some of our other mailing lists and consider
>> whether another list, like wikien-l, is better suited to have this
>> conversation, since foundation-l exists for issues related to the
>> Wikimedia Foundation and the overall movement surrounding its projects,
>> not just Wikipedia.)
>
> I consider this is the best mailing list for the purpose.  What do people
> here think?
>
> Peter

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123