[WikiEN-l] Paper is not paper

Tue Oct 4 23:19:22 UTC 2005

> So what DOES set the limit to what an encyclopedia can include? It is
> not any physical characteristic, whether measured in quarto leaves or
> in bytes.

You don't think it has anything to do with the cost of publishing?

The limit to what an encyclopedia can include is governed basically
> by the available labor of editors to integrate, synthesize, verify,
> copy-edit, and fact-check.

I think you make an excellent point, with regard to the true limit of what
Wikipedia can include, but I disagree that that carries to what a dead-tree
encyclopedia can include.

The thing is, under the current process it takes more labor to delete an
article than it would to integrate, synthesize, verify, copy-edit, and fact
check it.

This is one reason I think something like a pure-wiki deletion system is the
best way to handle deletion. If deletion is relatively easy to undo, then we
don't have to waste so much time making sure we get it right. Even if a
deleted article were only kept around for a week, or a month, for review by
any interested party, I think we'd waste a lot less time.

Here's a plan. What if we lower the threshold for speedy deletion, but keep
speedily deleted articles viewable by all logged in users for one week?

What this tells me is that it should be possible to get some kind of
> reasonable estimate of an appropriate size for Wikipedia by
> estimating the number of work-hours WIkipedias volunteers put in, and
> comparing it with the number of work-hours available to the Britannica.

This also neglects the fact that people are more likely to spend time
working on some things than working on others. Allow people to contribute
information about pokemon, and you're going to get more people willing to
contribute (as sick as that is).

If we're putting in three times as much work, we should be able to
> cover three times as much content.
>
> If we try to cover more content than the Britannica without putting
> in more work than the Britannica, then our reach is exceeding our grasp.

Perhaps, but throwing away a large portion of that work isn't going to
resolve the problem. I think your primary premise is flawed here. Wikipedia
is not paper, and that means a lot. Besides the cost of publishing, there's
the ease of searching, and the ability to use technical tools to exclude
certain areas. Think about it this way: if we excluded all the non-notable
or unfinished articles from everyone except those specifically looking for
it, what is the harm in having them?

The only thing I can think of is that you want to force editors to edit
certain things. And I don't think that's a very good idea.

I have no idea how to even begin estimating these numbers, but I
> think it would be instructive to try.