[WikiEN-l]@doctors.net.uk Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia

[J.F. de Wolff]

Geoff mentions "cranks, kooks & partisans". Apart from being a 
nuisance, these also destabilise perfectly fine articles. Number five 
of Raul654's laws of Wikipedia 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws) is that 
articles with a strong consensus base are crashed into by 
agenda-pushers. While the edit warring takes place, and the new 
contributors are taught the importance of NPOV, original research and 
verifiability, the articles look like a shambles and often remain 
pockmarked by the attempts to accomodate fringe views.

While I have no immediate solution for this problem, this is 
important issue that will need to be addressed. It is certainly a 
massive waste of time for long-term dedicated contributors to be 
warring with anons/newbies who think their pet theory should really 
be mentioned, or that a featured article is {{totallydisputed}}. This 
process does not bring quality to encyclopedia articles, it brings 
mayhem. And the dispute resolution process is not geared for dealing 
with it. For one thing, if I were to RFC every difficult POV-pusher 
(let alone RFM or RFA), there would be no more time left to actually 
work constructively on articles. Is this what we want?

User:Jfdwolff

PS I share Mav's observation that Wikipedia has grown in quantity and 
certainly in quality over a surprisingly short period of time.


>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:05:56 -0800 (PST)
>From: Geoff Burling <geoff at agora.rdrop.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0511221943510.1413-100000 at joan.burling.com>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> > --- Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > For those of you who were around when it kicked off... when it
> > > went live, was it intended to become a reference tool *on the
> > > web* like it has now, or was the web process intended to be
> > > somewhat less obvious than it became (a top-40 site, eek)?
> > > Open, yes, freely editable, yes, but a live "proper"
> > > encyclopedia from Year One?
> >
> > My first edit was on 2 January 2002. Boy was the place a mess 
> (have you seen
> > UseMod ; ugly ; en.wikipedia had less than 20,000 articles and 
> Larry Sanger was
> > still around). But I loved it since there was so much to do. Almost every
> > article I saw was obviously a work in progress. We were still 
> working out basic
> > rules and conventions. WikiProjects were just getting underway. Just about
> > anybody could have a major influence on policy formation and the 
> direction of
> > WikiProjects.
> >
> > At the time we thought it would take us 5 years to to reach our 
> initial goal of
> > 100,000 articles. All the focus I saw was on development, not use 
> in the near
> > to mid term. I don't think anybody, except maybe Jimbo, could 
> have dreamed we
> > would get so popular so fast, or so useful.
> >
> > Now when I look around, most articles that cover subjects 
> encyclopedias should
> > cover look fairly complete. Articles on technology, popular culture, and
> > current events are even better on average.
> >
> > Wikipedia becoming useful; well, that is something that kinda 
> snuck up on me
> > while I was helping make it useful. I'm sure it also surprised 
> many other old
> > timers as well. The idea seemed too far in the future to even think about.
> >
>I haven't been around as long as Mav (I still kinda consider him one of the
>"authentic original Wikipedians"), but much of what he says above
>could be my words.
>
>But if I could build on what he wrote, one thing worth noting is the speed
>of change in this project. I've mentioned in the past the problem that some
>important policies are proposed & adopted before some of us who have been
>on Wikipedia for a while notice. Usually there is no problem: give me a
>little time to understand & adjust, & I will accept any new proposal that
>is based on common sense.
>
>Another point is that I feel compelled to defend the quality of Wikipedia
>because, in part, it is my baby, but also because I know that the
>professional experts are guilty of more acts of botched analyses & bad
>writing than they want to admit to. Wikipedia is not only reinventing
>the idea of an encyclopedia but also the (excuse me) paradigm of academia:
>while our structure makes it easy for cranks, kooks & partisans to push
>their own agendas here, it also frees us from the abuse of authorities
>who expect us to accept their biasses as profound new discoveries or
>insights.
>
>Perhaps most of these changes will have worked their way out in the ten
>years that Andrew mentions above. I can only hope that, unlike Moses,
>I will be permitted to enter that Promised Land when they have finished,
>& see what this experiment has led to.
>
>Geoff


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/178 - Release Date: 22/11/2005