kosebamse wrote:
>We waste our time
>trying to catch up with a steady inflow of obvious vandalism, cluelessness,
>crackpottery, editwarring etc., amassing ever more content of doubtful
>quality, while our foremost priority should be to produce quality articles.
So score some Featured Articles and brag about them on your user page.
I have four so far ;-D
(Actually getting an article through FAC is a hell of a lot of work
and you get some really *silly* objections sometimes. But I think
anyone who thinks they can write and wants quality in Wikipedia should
put a few through the process.)
- d.
> Christopher and Kelly,
>
> I know what you're saying, and I don't think anyone on the
> Foundation-L list would endorse anything like regulation or
> being on the hook legally.
>
> But this clearly should be added to the wake up calls --
> "SOFIXIT" does not cut it anymore. Wikipedia cannot enjoy the
> bragging rights of a "Top 40" web site without changing its
> quality standards to match.
>
> I'm not convinced the Article Rating feature that is waiting
> in the wings is the right or efficient way to do it. But we
> have to get closer to the "1.0" solution. It's time.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
I have long said that Quality (i.e., accurate, unbiased articles) will
be our main challenge. Not finding enough volunteers.
As we scale, our processes will have to change. Letting any anonymous
person with Internet access edit "any page, any time" is an important
egalitarian value. But it conflicts with our obligations to our readers.
At the very least, we need a smoother, more effective mechanism for the
targets of "slam biography" articles to remove misinformation. It should
not take an article in USA Today and several days of legal action.
Our own internal squabbles seem also to require massive publicity (this
list, IRC, web site notices like RFC) and lengthy quasi-legal arbcom
procedures. Even for non-libel issues, like whether evolution should be
considered an "unguided" process.
The idea that anyone's opinion is potentially as good as any one else's
is a GOOD IDEA. But the idea that everyone's opinion is always just as
good as any one else's is a BAD IDEA. Some people just don't know as
much - or as well - as others.
We need to find a way to deal with this situation. Holding a straw poll
on the talk page, and calling it a "consensus", and giving a small ad
hoc group the power to enforce their "consensus view" (merely because
they show up and vote) is a formula for failure. It lets a small group
of people act like a mob and suppress all mention of points of view held
by people who refuse to accept the "consensus".
Censorship is not the answer. Neither is suppressing dissent by main
force. So what *IS* the answer.
Ed Poor
(taking a wiki-break until he gets his head straight)
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>Meanwhile if you can compile a list of important articles that have
>not fared well under the wiki (I submit that this could be a fairly
>brief list, perhaps 1,000 or so) perhaps a team of interested
>individuals can take those articles off the main wiki and hothouse
>them for a while--or even, as you suggest, rewrite from scratch. I'd
>be interested to see if this approach produces significantly better
>articles.
While interesting, this would divert us from the real problem, because, to
compile such a list, one would need good criteria for quality and have them
transparently implemented. But we have no clue as to which articles are good
and which aren't. We have no clue how much nonsense, libel and deliberate
misinformation there is in our content. And unless we dedicate our work to
quality improvement and nothing else, we won't find out. We waste our time
trying to catch up with a steady inflow of obvious vandalism, cluelessness,
crackpottery, editwarring etc., amassing ever more content of doubtful
quality, while our foremost priority should be to produce quality articles.
Kosebamse
--
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More +++
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>Meanwhile if you can compile a list of important articles that have
>not fared well under the wiki (I submit that this could be a fairly
>brief list, perhaps 1,000 or so) perhaps a team of interested
>individuals can take those articles off the main wiki and hothouse
>them for a while--or even, as you suggest, rewrite from scratch. I'd
>be interested to see if this approach produces significantly better
>articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_articles_all_languages_shoul…
We don't even need to disrupt normal operation of the wiki - we need
people to get all those articles up to Featured quality and hopefully
actual Featured Article status.
(And the same for other languages.)
All those who talk about how we need to stop writing stuff and just
polish up what we have: there's a starter list, a bit over 0.1% of the
articles on en: . Start a WikiProject for it. It's thoroughly
worthwhile work and needs people to slog through it.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
>The problem is that we peaked way too early. The site is late-alpha or
>early beta at best, and should have big 1995-style yellow and black
>"UNDER CONSTRUCTION" GIFs with really bad aliasing on most pages.
The even more basic problem is everybody and their dog laments about article
quality, yet nobody is bold enough to tell the world that we have already
way too much garbage and can't even tell what is garbage and what is not. It
has long been obvious to the insiders, and I am actually amazed that the
rest of the world is only now beginning to realize it. Wikipedians need to
realize that no amount of mediocre-to-shitty articles can compensate for a
lack of quality content.
A helpful approach would be to stop accepting new articles, take our
content, scrutinise it and rewrite it from zero. Rewrite the encyclopedia
and let the warriors/nutters/clueless kids have their fun, but not on our
servers. Ah, the charm of radical solutions.
Kosebamse
--
Highspeed-Freiheit. Bei GMX superg�nstig, z.B. GMX DSL_Cityflat,
DSL-Flatrate f�r nur 4,99 Euro/Monat* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
Media stories about Wikipedia for your reference including an English story
about the German Wikipedia's copyright problems.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old
User: Capitalistroadster
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply(a)google.com>
Date: Nov 30, 2005 8:56 PM
Subject: Google Alert - Wikipedia
To: keithold(a)gmail.com
Google Alert for: *Wikipedia*
Web tool puts new face on
*Wikipedia*<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5975227.html>
ZDNet - USA
The popularity of *Wikipedia*, an online encyclopedia to which anyone can
contribute, is spawning a host of complementary tools and offshoots. *...*
Free Encyclopedia *Wikipedia*.de Has Copyright
Issues<http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1796407,00.html>
Deutsche Welle - Germany
The German version of free online encyclopedia *Wikipedia* has hit a glitch.
Hundreds of entries are thought to have been lifted from *...*
*Wikipedia* gets custom
interface<http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020369,39239122,00.htm>
ZDNet UK - UK
The popularity of *Wikipedia*, an online encyclopaedia to which anyone can
contribute, is spawning a host of complementary tools and offshoots. *...*
A false *Wikipedia*
'biography'<http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x…>
USA Today - USA
*...* I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious
"biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on *Wikipedia*, the
popular, online, free *...*
*Wikipedia* democratizes
information<http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/detail.asp?ID=72849&GRP=E>
China Post - Taipei,Taiwan
In recent times, searching names, places and other proper names has started
to consistently produce a common result: *Wikipedia*. *...*
------------------------------
This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
Remove <http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=9a4f2425fa5d9963&hl=en> this
alert.
Create <http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en> another alert.
Manage <http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en> your alerts.
The reasons put forward on why images must be allowed to be profited
from can be summarized thus:
(1) "Maybe you should explain WHY you have the policy of not allowing
people to "get rich" off your work first. There's nothing wrong with
commerce. In fact, in today's society commerce is pretty much required
for survival."
In answer to that; I can only say that this seems to be the very
antithesis of what I thought Wikipedia to be; people providing free
material, for a free resource. How does Wikipedia justify its policy
on not getting rich quick? I am not proposing a shutdown of western
society (although given how the planet is going as a result, dredging
sandworms for fuel, clearcutting the amazon for profit, one could go
that way); I'm arguing that there should be a space for those who wish
to contribute out of the good of their hearts, for a better, freer,
society.
I thought Wikipedia stood for this; apparently I was wrong, as also
evidenced by reason (2):
(2) "On the other hand, have you considered getting rich off ours?... I
hear that running Google ads on well-formatted copies of Wikipedia can
be quite lucrative." and "commercial re-use of Wikipedia isn't limited
to certain people, you can take part too."
My purchase price, I'm afraid, is a little higher than that.
----------------------
Having dismissed the most objectionable objections, we come to more
reasonable ones.
(3) "The goal of Wikipedia is "to create and provide a freely licensed
and high quality encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in
his or her own language....In order to achieve that goal...This
necessarily includes... for-profit ... uses"
I realize this has other implications, in terms of funding, but I'll
deal with that later. First, I wish to disabuse the notion that
"freedom" cant be gained unless and until everyone has made a buck from
something freely given. Is love only truly free when someone pays for
it? There is a perfectly acceptable, CC-nc designation, which means
that everyone - including Bill Gates - can use the material as they
wish. They are just prevented, for now, for all time, from buying out
Wikipedia and copyrighting it. I'll come back to that.
(4) "However, allowing for-profit uses can make the information even
more widely available; for example, it encourages people to make
derivative works that build on it, or to make and sell hard copies to
other people."
This becomes even more reasonable. However, at what price does
accessibility come? A quick look around the web shows whats happening;
commercial sites like About.com are encouraged to derivatize Wikipedia
by loading the page with ads, as suggested by one of our
commercially-minded contributers above. Does it REALLY help people to
have a copy available on Ebay for $5? How about someone selling links
to the site to gullible buyers at $1 a pop? I'm not convinced that any
for-profit body has materially benefitted Wikipedia by having been
derivatized, or sold as hard copies.
(5) "if there are parts that have more restrictive licences (for
example, no commercial use), a commercial redistributor would have to
go through the entire encyclopedia checking the licence of every single
illustration. "
Looking at the wonderful system that is Wikipedia, and all the coding
that went into it; it strikes me as strange that no filter can be
written, such that a user cannot simply tick a checkbox, yielding a
version of Wikipedia for his/her perusal consistent with any of the
copyright classifications available. If a user ticks "not nc", for
example, he would be able to see/download/pilfer everything which is
"not nc" in wikipedia. It doesnt seem insurmountable.
Which brings us to our last, most reasonable proposition
(6) "And our commercial mirrors bring in new business, make donations
and have helped pay wages for Wikipedia employees."
"put on DVD, and sold for ten euros(?). A large swathe of this went
back to the Foundation"
I have no objection to any use of the images, for non-profit use. That
is, if Wikipedia makes money from selling disks to people, I'm fine by
that, provided that the money is used to fund wikipedia. I *do* have a
problem if someone -say a newspaper - lifts one of my images from
Wikipedia, and uses it instead of paying for their own photography, and
makes a profit therefrom. Now I'm not the legal expert here that most
are, and I suppose "non-profit" use may not cover the generation of
money by non-profit organizations. In which case, I dare say, the same
people could find a way to write this and include it in the Wiki
License. The sole remaining objection to me appears to be that people
like me arent ponying up to donate cash to provide whats required to
run Wikipedia. And that is, I guess, true. So we need to turn to
Satan, and prostitute ourselves, so that some people will have access
to free material.
And in response to those who ask me to consider the profit enterprises
as only american-as-apple-pie patriots, Let me just respond that there
are already many for-profit encyclopedias in existence. If Wikipedia
becomes just another way for a corporation to make money, it will not
improve over the already excellent content provided by these worthy
capitalists.
Let's be clear about the danger of consorting with the enemy (because
like it or hate it, those who would fence in the commons are always at
odds with those who would free resources to all); that Danger is seen
in how Bill Gates has bought the rights to the digitial reproduction of
huge amounts of Art that is (or should be) public domain. Bill Gates
has seen to it that Java has become a little part of Windows. Private
enterprises now own the right to use turmeric as a medicine; and are
patenting life forms. Yes, it is unfortunately true that anywhere one
CAN make a buck, someone WILL be trying to capture it. "I hear that
running Google ads on well-formatted copies of Wikipedia can be quite
lucrative." What happens when Bill Gates, or Larry Ellison, or
someone else builds a new and better gizmo, which makes the Internet
obsolete? Or whatever; just say that the experience of Wikipedia
becomes a thousand times better on it, than as it is at present. But
the new format is proprietary. Sure the CONTENT is free - but the
licensing of the new technology is not. And say that this fictitious
company adds new material, such that wikipedia-old becomes obsolete?
Who will use the free version anymore? What if Google generates a
superpedia; in which it uses Wikipedia as a base, but adds on vast new
access to its own-sourced info? Who will use Wikipedia then? Embrace
and Extend has killed off more than one open-source before. One of the
most significant protections against this is the prohibition against
for-profit use.
I would encourage people to consider other possibilities, other than
engaging in or with the for-profiteers. One suggestion would be to
sell and widely distribute DVDs, by some of the wikipedia wage-earners,
all profits going back to pay for the system. Make it $20 for all I
care. I dont even mind policies whereby other non-profits can use the
free material.
But embracing embrace and extend, is a dangerous gamble.
postscript. I may contribute some images, I'll have to consider the
matter more deeply now. Perhaps some images that no commercial company
would want to use; or perhaps a resolution unsuited to commercial
useage. I'll continue to contribute information; but the idea that
someday some Mogul might squeeze Wikipedia out of existence, and
incorporate its assets, just as surely as Netscape was lost to
AOL-Time-Warner, will probably have an affect on my desire to help
create something new. A world asset which was never saleable to the
highest bidder.
The good news: Wikipedia is more popular than ever. The bad news:
we're getting buried in mail! Looking for clueful and friendly people
to staff the help desk once more. (Also, if you indicated you were
interested before, please reply to me again so I know if you're still
interested.)
I don't think I can improve upon sannse's original description, so:
> We are looking for a long-standing contributor with a good knowledge of
> the English Wikipedia and its policies and procedures. You should also
> have a working knowledge of other projects. You need to have infinite
> patience to reply to the same newbie questions time after time, and a
> friendly and helpful style of writing. Most important is the ability
> not to laugh at people who write to tell us we have a massive security
> hole - an edit link on each page!!!11!.
>
> Being active on IRC is an advantage - it makes a real difference to be
> able to talk over the tricky ones sometimes.
>
> Pay is at the usual Wikipedia rate of lots of good feeling and all the
> cookies you can eat.
>
> Hopefully there will be a big rush of applicants for this wonderful job,
> and I will ask those volunteering to answer a few mails to see if you
> have the style we are looking for. Jimbo will have the final say though.
>
> Please mail me directly rather than replying to the list if you are
> interested.
-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]
p.s. We're lying about the cookies.
--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
Thanks Chip;
At last some constructive comments. I'll bear these in mind. The
issue for me though isnt really protection of my work,
its about the future of Wikipedia, and what it stands for. To me its
not about creating freedom for corporations, or making profits by
selling google ads or whatever, and it certainly isnt about producing
some printed encyclopedia.
To me the venture seemed to be about creating a location where private
citizens could create a resource, instead of the commercial model of
exploiting a resource. Reseeding the forest as it were, in a world
where every word is copyrighted, every click of a mouse (thanks amazon)
has a patent. Where McDonalds sues Mr MacDonald who runs a fish and
chip van in glasgow, and dares to put his name on the top.
By creating free images, and free text, I saw a way to break the grip
of corporatocracy on the culture of our civilization; where indigenous
knowledge is patented along with the plants they use.
But there seems to be a strong belief among the wikiers that freedom
isnt really freedom unless Bill Gates is allowed to take a cut.
There isnt really any point in me putting up copyright images, unless
they are free for all non-profit uses, "the copyright holder has
granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This
permission does not extend to third parties."
And as long as corporations like about.com are allowed to continue
making profits, I still see a threat in this to the very idea of
Wikipedia.
I know its all hunky-dory now, with About.com subsidizing Wiki; but not
all sharks will be as friendly. I see Google, for example, as the
ten-billion dollar Gorilla hiding in the wings. As a biophysicist,
aware of how things work generally, I have a nasty hunch that this
dream will end up like so many before it. As long as predators sniff a
free lunch, there's a threat.
I see ways around this; by Wikipediers themselves distributing disks,
or by themselves setting up a foundation to market copies, all profits
going back to Wikipedia. By installing filters that different users
are allowed to see different versions (commercial users are allowed
only to use a weaker version, where some articles/photos are nc and not
available to them. This means that Wiki remains the prime source.
But if one day Wikipedia stabilizes into the final form some dream of
(thankfully mythical in my opinion, as knowledge is never static); then
on that day, or as reasonably practical, then someone like Google can
step in, double the content, and create a proprietary front end, or
something else. The content will remain technically free, but
effectively users will migrate to the new platform, and Wiki will fade
away as just another experiment.
I need a place where I can provide my stuff somewhere where its
available to everyone for free, but commercial companies have to pay to
license its use. This money could go to support the project, or to
save the rain forest, I dont care. But it removes the blood from the
water, and sends the sharks elsewhere.
I have seen how copyright law works in the modern world; and it usually
doesnt favor civilization. Corporations rule the lawmakers.
I hope I'm proved wrong; sincerely. But my instinct tells me that
where there's a profit motive for corporations, another resource will
end up destroyed.
Where are CU-SeeMe? Netscape? Java? Fetch?
At the risk of pointing out the obvious...
Expertise in a particular subject area does not make someone an expert on
whether a particular topic in that subject area belongs in Wikipedia.
Expertise does not give anyone the right to dictate Wikipedia content.
What it _can_ do is make a person a facile researcher capable of quickly
marshalling evidence on whether a topic meets criteria for inclusion--
criteria that have been established by the _non_-expert Wikipedian community.
If someone were to contribute an article on the Roadshow barbershop quartet,
http://www.roadshowquartet.com/ , it would properly be deleted as not meeting
WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. The world's greatest expert on barbershop quartets
testifying to their notability in the barbershop community would not matter,
and ignoring his testimony would not constitute bias against expertise.
On the other hand, if someone contributed a scrappy substub on the Buffalo
Bills that failed to mention, say, their Broadway appearance... someone
unfamiliar with them might well nominate the article for deletion.
An expert saying "that's ridiculous, they're notable because I'm an expert
and I say so and anyone who doesn't agree is an ignoramus" would properly be
ignored.
An expert could, however, quickly point out half-a-dozen ways in which they
do meet WP:MUSIC and my guess such a presentation would garner quick support
the article would be kept--because the expert _used_ his expertise, rather
than _asserting_ it.