[Wikipedia-l] A parallel World Wide Web?

Fri Jun 4 18:15:45 UTC 2004

This thread seems to have gotten stuck on what is appropriate and what 
isn't appropriate for Wikipedia content.  There is _no way_ everyone 
will ever agree on that and it seems sort of a pointless argument.  We 
might as well try to determine "what is art?".

The argument that was initially stated was that "superfluous trivia" 
repels qualified people from participating in the creation of 
Wikipedia's content.  I'd be interested in people's opinion of this 
statement.  When you first started on Wikipedia, did content that 
didn't interest you, or you found to be "superfluous trivia" discourage 
your participation.  Do you think it discourages other people's 
participation?

In my experience, it had no effect.  If there is content on wikipedia 
that I'm not interested in or think is superfluous, it has absolutely 
no effect on me. I never see it and doesn't consume any of my time.  If 
someone else thinks it is interesting or important then they can spend 
their time on it.

The only argument that I can come up with that a prospective 
contributor would be put off by superfluous trivia, is that their 
initial introduction portrays the project as unprofessional. This is a 
real possibility, and is in fact the reason I lost interest in 
Everything2 years ago.  However, compare the front page of Everything2 
with Wikipedia and you immediately get a different feeling about the 
two projects.  The front page is the most likely first introduction 
users will get, and I think Wikipedia's front page comes off as very 
serious and professional.  The best articles are featured, serious news 
is covered, and truly interesting anniversaries and "did you know" 
facts are selected.

The greatest thing preventing me from contributing to Wikipedia was the 
fear of doing something wrong.  There are so many standards to follow 
and a new syntax to learn. While the Community Portal certainly helps, 
information is still scattered everywhere.

If people are worried about prospective contributors not participating 
I think making it clearer how to do contribute would be much more 
effective than telling them their expertise in some esoteric field is 
superfluous trivia.

Thanks,
-jared

On Jun 2, 2004, at 3:34 PM, Ulrich Fuchs wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2004 18:51 schrieb Fred Bauder:
>> An interesting quote from this blog:
>>
>> Basically, what is happening here is the building of a parallel World 
>> Wide
>> Web inside the wikipedia.org domain
>
> And actually he is perfectly right: That *is* our biggest problem. Not 
> the
> copying, not errors, not the missing editors, not the enthusiasts he
> mentions. But the "superfluous trivia". Our problem is noise, in en: 
> even
> more as in de:.  The noise repells qualified authors and editors. This 
> is the
> reason why the article quality does not increase the way that should be
> expected given the idea behind wikipedia and the popularity and it 
> already
> has.
>
> As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating 
> noise by
> accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing that
> noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years now - that outsiders
> statement is very interesting.
>
> Uli