On 8/29/07, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
I am thinking more along the lines of the loss of
quality of previously high
quality articles, which are already incredibly small in proportion, such as
"featured articles." Traditional content production methods asymptote in
quality, but the editing process in place at Wikipedia (which is only one
possible wiki process, and also one of the most successful, but does not
necessarily speak about wikis in general) encourages articles to gradually
increase in quality, and then again decrease. It is unknown if they will
stabilize (which brings about thoughts of a 1.0)
There are plenty of examples of this phenomenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Former_featured_articles
This could be due to changing featured article criteria, but in general, the
claim that simply starting a wiki encourages high quality content is lacking
evidence. If anything, wikis encourage the addition of noise to high quality
content. Adding noise to turing complete wiki syntax can quickly snowball,
turning into an aggregation of media that lacks coherence.
I think that monitoring featured articles is a poor metric for quality
of Wikipedia articles in general, as getting an article "featured" on
English Wikipedia is not solely a function of article quality -- some
poor work gets through and some good work will never get through
(because the subject doesn't merit a long article, for example), or in
some cases those writing articles have no desire to put them through
the featured article process.
The ratings by the individual wikiprojects, while still wildly
variable and idiosyncratic, are probably a better guide.
-Kat
--
Wikimedia needs you:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on
irc.freenode.net | email for phone