[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and content

Wed Nov 17 11:53:28 UTC 2004

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:21:42 +1100, David Gerard
<fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer (maveric149 at yahoo.com) [041117 10:43]:
> > --- Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
> > > 'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.
> 
> > But the goal of the project is to create the largest free resource of knowledge
> > that has ever existed. Wiki is a means to that end. So if some aspects of that
> > process start to result in a drive toward mediocre content, then we *must* make
> > some changes to put us back on track.
> 
> 
> We went through this (you and I) on this very list just recently. You're
> still reasoning along the lines of:
> 
> 1. We must do something.
> 2. This is something.
> 3. Therefore, we must do this.
> 
> Not only is this logically fallacious, you haven't really proven 1. as yet.
> Note that de: Wikipedia recently beat two commercial encyclopedias in blind
> testing without imposing review boards.
> 
> 
> > Adding some type of article review system that could scale to cover a large
> > part of our content would be a massive improvement. Experts should have seats
> > on those review boards, but so should non-experts. Neither the views of experts
> > or non-experts would carry more weight - both would be equal (the consensus
> > view of the board itself is what would count).
> 
> 
> I suspect review boards will not scale. What is the processing rate of a
> review board likely to be? How many articles are there again? How many
> being created each day?
> 
> While reviewing content sounds like a good ide (to me too), there should be
> a way to do it wihtout seeming to repudiate the concept of the wiki. I'm
> not actually wedded to the idea myself, but repudiating it as you describe
> would be extremely jarring culturally and - and this is the important point
> - demotivating for the volunteers.
> 
> If it can at all be done within the wiki process, it should be. de: is
> solid evidence it can be achieved within the wiki process; neither your
> assertions nor those of the Britannica editor are solid evidence it can't.
> 
> (And I'm still seeking details of what de: did to get to that standard!
> Could someone on de: please tell us? cc'd to wikipedia-l for this purpose)
> 
> 
> - d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 

I have seen some articles degrade. In my opinion, some aspects of
[[European Union]] have degraded through the wiki process during my
time here. And yes, there's the old wiki mantra - "if it's broken, fix
it" - well hey, I don't know where to begin, it seems /less/ coherent
than in the past, despite new content. And European Union is
supposedly a featured article (I haven't nominated it for removal from
that, because it's not top priority for me right now. Perhaps it
should be.)

I am reasonably certain that some other articles, not even necessarily
contentious, have suffered due to people adding content in a
disorganised fashion.

I mean, the only reason the Irish content on en: is becoming somewhat
more coherent, is that a small group of us (a workable size of no more
than half a dozen core editors) are keeping a tight rein on things,
and looking for holes, and needed parent/daughter articles.
Personally, I think more small collaborative groups on particular
areas would go a long way towards keeping things organised. To
organise a subject area, one has to manage a plethora of
heirarchically organised articles. With EU subjects for example, that
isn't happening at present.

There are failings in the wiki system, and it does us no harm to
recognise them, rather than cry foul at our detractors. I feel there
are many ways that content can be kept more organised / reviewed, and
there's ample prospects of getting past any problems we have. But they
shouldn't be ignored.

No doubt I have ranted a tad here, or missed the topic of the
discussion, or come across as preachy. Please just take what you can
from my comments above, as the immediate reaction of one wiki editor!

Zoney

-- 
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...