My thought is we need to be patient, let see what things look like with,
500 active contributors, with 1000, with 10,000. I don't think Wikipedia
has actually reached its takeoff point yet.
Experts will come, retired folks, occassional passersby, students. Frankly,
I don't want to see any expert (in some field) playing any important role
unless they are also expert in the give and take of wikipedia article
writing and editing.
It is in that give and take that peer review happens.
If you quit now or greatly modify the system you'll never know how what we
do now would have developed.
Fred
On Monday 02 September 2002 07:30 am, Magnus wrote:
> 5. As a result, these articles (or parts of them) can be integrated into
> the "free encyclopedia sources" from #1
How would this integration occur? Would it be automatic and thus overwrite
any modifications made the the Wikipedia version that have occurred since the
text was copied to start the Nupedia one? Or would this have to be done
manually for each article? I don't like either scenario. Under the first
scenario potentially valid edits to the Wikipedia version are lost and under
the second scenario somebody has to perform version control (I HATE version
control).
Who really would want to continue editing Wikipedia articles if their
perfectly valid edits are overwritten by a computer without notice or if they
have to perform version control after each release of Nupedia?
> What I'm trying to say is Wikipedia and Nupedia won't be a fork, because...
If version control isn't done by those taking the material to begin with
there is little chance this reintegration work will be done for most
articles Nupedia uses. Thus we have a fork -- pure and simple. The Nupedia
experts will work on their version and Wikipedia editors will work on their
own version (I do hate duplication of effort).
> they're not really competition; they could both benefit from a symbiosis.
>
> Magnus
But it is also true that the roundworm Trichuris trichiura is not in
competition with its human host -- it is in symbiosis (albeit a special case
of symbiosis called parasitism). So through an initial case of parasitism by
Nupedia the two projects would be competition in cases where reintegration
doesn't occur (for whatever reasons) and two different article versions are
being worked on at the same.
What I would like to see is some mutualistic symbiosis whereby edits to the
Wikipedia article are in effect suspended by placing a simple note at the top
of the article saying something to the effect that "This article is being
checked and possibly expanded for inclusion in the next version of Nupedia.
When that process is complete that version will replace this one. To see the
current progress of this process please visit {URL of where the Nupedia
version under development is}."
And at that location there would be some type of explanation on how the
Nupedia process works (probably by proposing suggestions to the expert
validation editor).
When Nupedia has done its thing with the article then that version would
replace the Wikipedia one by someone/computer from Nupedia (the entire
process should be short though -- no more than a week or so for any
particular article).
This is already being done to a large extent with the /Temp fad I helped
start (whereby an article that is being completely redone is copied to a
/Temp page title and worked on there). Although the /Temp page is being
replaced here by a Nupedia page where a different development methodology
prevails.
In this way Nupedia benefits from getting raw material and Wikipedia benefits
from periodically getting many of its articles reviewed, edited and expanded
by experts. I say that is a win-win scenario.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
People have been tracking the average size of articles as a measure of
content quality. The problem has been that the average size has been
dropping (or leveling off). I think there is a missing element to this
debate. Each article, as it ages, presumably tends to get longer as
people add content. New articles start small. People add facts, they
get larger. They spawn incomplete links[?] and new articles are
created, but start small.
They are like people in this respect, people are born small and grow
up. Unlike people (hopefully) they don't die. So while the average
article size may drop, that just indicates more young articles. Each
article is likely larger than before (unless it is split into multiple
articles, or slightly tightened by editing - going on a diet so to
speak).
If we could have a graph/table (from the people who have access to run
queries)
Something Like
Creation Month /Average Size/Number of Articles Created
Jan 2001 N2 150
Feb 2001 ....
....
Sep 2002
I suspect (hypothesize) that the older articles would be longer, the
younger articles would be shorter. Maybe this would resolve some of the
fears about quality.
Second, looking at some of the smaller articles (e.g. Wallace
Harrison), I suspect he warrants the size of stub he gets given the age
of the project, it is a longer article than Encarta (which is 0). The
EB article is of course longer, but they have over 200 years on us.
David Levinson
levin031(a)tc.umn.edu
Thanks, everyone, for the replies!
Let me try to clarify several points--I now see that I should have written
a number of paragraphs completely differently. I'm sorry about that,
really.
(1) Some people seem to have thought they were defending my view (or
expanding it) and others, that were attacking my view. But (if you'll
read what I said) no part of my view is that we should change *Wikipedia*
at all.
In particular, my central suggestion (and sorry if I wasn't clear about
this) was *not* that we now try hard to design a Wikipedia-controlled
article approval system. The idea is interesting, and it's something
we've discussed a lot (especially last fall, I think). Presently, I am
pretty much neutral on the idea; in fact, I'm leaning a bit against the
notion. Nor was my suggestion that we find a new individual leader for
*Wikipedia*. (I said not long ago that I didn't think we needed one.)
In my post, I used the terms "free encyclopedia movement" several times,
to cover Wikipedia, Nupedia, and other similar projects extant and yet to
come. Wikipedia is not coextensive with the free encyclopedia movement.
(2) In saying that most people weren't highly educated, I really *didn't*
mean to insult anyone, and moreover, what I meant (but didn't express
well) wasn't anything that anyone should feel insulted by. (Some people
love to feel insulted, however. I'm one of 'em, so I understand.) What I
meant to say was something strictly factual and uncontroversial. I should
have said: "There aren't many bona fide experts, leaders in their fields,
involved in Wikipedia right now." For example, I am not a bona fide
expert about much of anything or leader in any of my "fields."
(3) My contention is that, for Wikipedia to succeed, we need experts
*guiding* the *free encyclopedia movement* (notice the key words). This
must happen sooner or later, but I think it's very plausible to think it
must happen sometime if we're to succeed. Now, in saying this, I am *not*
saying, or meaning to imply, that only experts can write credible
articles. So it misses the point to insist strenuously that nonexperts
can write and make great progress on encyclopedia articles: obviously,
they can, and I'm sure I've said (and done!) so many times.
What I *am* saying is that, in the long run, unless a lot of experts are
involved and unless there is a process that holds *some* portion of the
free encyclopedia movement (not Wikipedia) up to extremely high standards,
the overall project won't succeed in producing a credible encyclopedia.
In some cases this might be because no one but an expert would be able to
write (or rewrite) an article on a topic properly. In many more cases, it
will be because no one but an expert will be able to edit, supervise, and
otherwise whip into shape articles on subjects that many nonexperts think,
but mistakenly, they can write adequately about. There are many such
subjects, at least if we want to compare ourselves to actual reliable
encyclopedias.
(4) I should have known better than not to spend at least a couple more
paragraphs explaining that I do not have a fetish for formal
qualifications. I agree absolutely completely 100% that it is totally
possible for people who lack any sort of formal qualifications to write
(and edit and code) wonderful creative works of all sorts. I also agree
that this is at the heart of the success of the open source movement.
But that mere possibility doesn't mean that we don't need a lot of experts
*guiding* a quality control process that Wikipedia benefits from. Part of
the irony in my title was precisely this point: the open source movement
is full of all sorts of people with relatively few formal qualifications,
and no one cares. But, IN FACT, the movement in general is guided by
people who are a lot more expert in coding than the average Wikipedian is
about what he or she writes about (and that couldn't be otherwise, given
its success). There's nothing paradoxical about this--and it doesn't make
the free software movement into a cathedral rather than a bazaar. It's a
bazaar *guided* by expert coders. Kind of (but not entirely) like the
stock market, a more or less free market, being guided by Wall Street
gurus.
(5) I am not heralding the doom of Wikipedia, Daniel M., nor did I say (or
mean to imply) that what Wikipedia does is futile, and I'm sorry if I
wasn't clear about that. In fact, I think that, eventually, Wikipedia
*will* get the loose direction (by example) it needs, by becoming an
independent part of an open encyclopedia movement that includes an (also
independent) expert-staffed review board. Part of the purpose of my post
was to help move the movement in that direction.
(6) It is possible, as a few people seem to think, that by attracting many
experts *to Wikipedia* (and continuing to forget that Nupedia ever
happened) will result in the sort of excellent quality I hope we'll
achieve. If that were to happen, I'd be delighted. (I don't expect it to
happen; see (9) below. But it wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was for
Wikipedians to get behind a new or newly revitalized project (such as
Nupedia), officially independent of Wikipedia, that would be managed by
experts.
Roll out the red carpet. Create a structure that will make the elite feel
welcome to be involved in a *leadership* role. Get universities involved,
and major research institutions, and even businesses--just as is the case
with the open source movement.
(This, by the way, doesn't mean that they would set the standards for
*Wikipedia*. I would strongly oppose that; Wikipedia should be
self-managing as it always has been. But Wikipedia articles are open
content. They might manage a different project that uses Wikipedia
content, as is their right. Wikipedia would hugely benefit if this
happened.)
(7) Fred Bauder was right to point out that a lot of the people who could
help *Wikipedia* most just won't put up with arguing with people who they
think should be sitting down and taking notes. A college professor who
has spent his life studying X would, at least in many cases, find it
absurd and ludicrous that he should have to argue with someone about X who
has maybe had a college course on the subject and read a few books.
There are exceptions, but they are *really* exceptions, and be grateful
for them. You might hate this attitude, but it's a fact of life. The
free stuff movement (how's that for a name) might be fantastic and
wonderful, but that doesn't mean it'll magically change this fact.
The free encyclopedia project--not Wikipedia, necessarily--needs these
people. It's frankly a little silly to expect them to help us as long as
we continue to be wide open to everyone (except "24" and Helga,
perhaps...) and to follow the editing policies and practices that we all
know and love. It's much *less* silly to expect a number of them to join
a free encyclopedia project advisory board of some sort, made up of
leaders in all fields, that would set standards and procedures for the
selection of *some free articles* (not to lead Wikipedia). It's also
quite possible many of them will want to get on board as active parts of
the writing and vetting process--but on their own terms, not on Wikipedia.
We've already seen some potential for this with Nupedia. But I think we
can do better, by getting behind the notion of a project led by, well,
*real* experts. Not me, but Jacques Barzun, or someone of his stature.
Someone, or a group of people, that the best minds of the world can look
to and say, "This is fantastic. They want to do this? I want to be part
of it."
That's how academics and scientists think, hate it or not. But it *is*
how they think. Hard-headed problem-solvers will devise ways to work with
it, as a constraint.
(8) A few people think I misunderstand the source of open source's
success.
Stephen G., did I say that Linux Torvalds set out with exactly the goals
the free software movement has come to have? If so, I apologize. I'm
sure that most people got involved in the movement because it was fun
(challenging, inspirational, etc.). I'm sure that freedom from
requirements of academic and other formal qualifications (and employer-
and client-defined standards) is an important element of what makes free
software attractive for many of its developers. Moreover, I agree with
you that there are important analogies here to the present and future
success of Wikipedia. But this doesn't contradict what I did say, which I
will refrain from reiterating.
Similarly, Karl J., I am sure the final decisions about what to officially
release are made as you say they are (by whatever experts are at hand, not
by the world's greatest expert about the thing). It so happens, though,
that as the movement has growed in stature, those people who make the
decisions really *are* software experts. If I'm wrong, please supply me
with an example. How could the leaders of kernel releases, GNOME, etc.,
fail to be experts in what they do? The success of their projects is
sufficient evidence. This doesn't contradict anything I said, moreover.
The disanalogy between software and encyclopedia article writing is simply
that software has to work. It has to do what it is supposed to do. As
software grows in sophistication, this requires huge amounts of expertise.
But encyclopedia articles do not work or fail to work; still, very many of
them *do* require the attention, at *some* point, of an expert, in order
for anyone to be able to trust them reasonably.
(9) Now to address a point that at least three people made. If Wikipedia
develops by itself, without any association with any sort of expert-
controlled approval mechanism, to the point where it is used regularly by
librarians and referred to as a good research source by college
professors, I would take that as prima facie proof that a *lot* of experts
are involved in Wikipedia. But this is precisely what I predict will not
happen. Wikipedians, in too many cases unduly confident (it seems to me)
of their project's modest successes, *need* a Nupedia.
Compare:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121
I know exactly what you guys are saying. I used to think Wikipedia
*might* succeed on its own (but the involvement of Nupedia has always
seemed important to me); I now fear otherwise. "Dreamworld" is hyperbole
--I have *never before* been given to hyperbole, though. :-)
Axel and Lee both opined that Wikipedia might be able attract experts to
lead it (hopefully not in an official capacity but due to proper respect
to their expertise in their areas of expertise) all on its own, due to the
(eventual) strength of its material. Bootstrapping, as many people have
observed.
I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong; I don't have a crystal ball.
But, looking at Wikipedia's contents now and comparing it to what I recall
from times past, I do have to say that I'm worried. I don't think that in
terms of quality, overall, it's getting that much better. But I also
admit the project is still very young and no trends can be reliably
predicted. That doesn't stop me from being worried, and I think you
should be too. There's nothing utterly magical about the Wikipedia
formula that *necessitates* that articles *on the whole* will not reach a
level of mediocrity they never excel *on the whole*.
Moreover, there's a reason to think far too many experts won't ever give
Wikipedia the attention it needs: it's just not a "form of life" that
they're interested in and used to. It's important that we properly come
to grips with this fact.
My experience with Nupedia makes me strongly suspect that the ablest
possible contributors to the open encyclopedia project need their own
project with their own rules, and that it's unwise to expect most
academics and professionals anyway (I dealt with many dozens on Nupedia)
to be interested in joining a wiki and contributing in that fashion.
If Wikipedia gets behind the notion, it'll happen!
Larry
>It's Quercusrobur's talk page. The characters changed to question marks are
>neither standard nor pasted from MS Word. They are the output of the
>following Forth code:
>
>: box 160 128 do i emit loop ; ok
>cr box
>???????????????????????????????? ok
>
>phma
Now I'm completely lost. If I did it, I'm sorry. I don't know what to change to avoid doing it again though.
kq
I didn't change anything to question marks on purpose, though my browser may have changed them when I edited whatever page it was--and what page /was/ it we're talking about, anyway?
If *standard, correctly coded* characters were changed to question marks, I need to know about it. If it's the result of some paste from MS Word it's everyone else's problem too. :-)
kq
>They were changed by Koyaanis Qatsi at 14:57 Aug 31, 2002. What program did
>he use that changed them into question marks?
>
>phma
Sorry, all, I've said my piece, but I've got unsubscribe and to get back
to work. I'll have to hope that I've clarified my position adequately,
although I suspect from recent posts I still haven't--people continue to
make objections based on incorrect interpretations of my views. Oh well.
As I have always said, I still expect Wikipedia to go on to be a hugely
interesting and useful reference, or at least, I expect that *I* will find
it to be such.
Good luck, all the best in whatever you decide to do and support!
Larry
I noticed that Quercusrobur was writing articles with lots of boxes in them,
and changed them to apostrophes. So I wrote him a note on his talk page
including a row of box characters (which I generated with "160 128 do i emit
loop"; I have no way to type them). I just checked the page and all the boxes
have been turned into question marks! So I have three questions:
1. How do people write articles with boxes?
2. The people who write articles with boxes don't see them as boxes. They see
them as apostrophes, dashes, ellipses, etc. How do we explain to them how to
avoid writing boxes?
3. What changed the boxes to question marks?
phma
A simpler solution is to open that document *in the program that created it* and choose "save as" and select "text." This converts the characters to unadorned text (quotes are simply " and apostraphes are simply ' ); it works for PageMaker, MS Word, etc.
kq
>I left Quercus a note about finding boxes with a hex editor. I use khexedit
>on Linux, but he's obviously not using Linux. Can you recommend a hex editor
>for him?
>
>phma
I agree with the assessment that the average level of expertise among
Wikipedia contributors is lower than that among Linux contributors or
Encyclopedia Britannica contributors.
However, I also think that an intelligent person with good writing
skills and no specific expertise can write an average quality (call it
"mediocre" if you want) encyclopedia article about pretty much
anything. So by following the current path, we have a good chance of
producing an average quality encyclopedia.
(In a certain sense, that "mediocre" encyclopedia will already be
"great", since it will be the only one you can burn on CD for free and
mail to a highschool in Tanzania.)
Now, producing the greatest encyclopedia in the world is a different
story. Maybe experts will show up in greater numbers as the project
approaches "mediocrity". Or maybe many of them will be put off by
constantly having to defend their writings against incoming idiots,
and we will need some sort of quality assurance process. Maybe we will
need a charismatic expert leader, or one will emerge.
But I think those are questions for the distant future. Right now, we
should focus on moving Wikipedia from crappyness to mediocrity.
AXel