On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
topics
for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia
is
healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather than enforcing a Platonic model of the perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing with is a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I think Wikipedia should.
Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I think the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does grossly exacerbate that conflict.
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] On Completeness and Restrictiveness (was Re: GNAADeleted!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:58:37 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
>From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com >Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org >To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500 >
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in
the
Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
topics
for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think.
Wikipedia
is
healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather than enforcing a Platonic model of the perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll
lay
off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier
without
sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing
with
is a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm
comfortable
looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way
I
think Wikipedia should.
Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I think the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does grossly exacerbate that conflict.
Clearly, they're not direct opposites, and I hope I didn't come across as saying they were. However, if one raises the quality bar, more things get left out, and if one includes certain material, the bar will necessarily go down. It's in that give-and-take that the conflict arises.
GTB
_________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk...
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote: > > >From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org > >To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted! > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500 > >
I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in
the
Age Before Required Sourcing.
You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
topics
for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think.
Wikipedia
is
healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather than enforcing a Platonic model of the perfect Wikipedian.
You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll
lay
off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier
without
sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing
with
is a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher
quality
coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm
comfortable
looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the
way
I
think Wikipedia should.
Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I think the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does
grossly
exacerbate that conflict.
Clearly, they're not direct opposites, and I hope I didn't come across as saying they were. However, if one raises the quality bar, more things get left out, and if one includes certain material, the bar will necessarily go down. It's in that give-and-take that the conflict arises.
My take is that you can define the quality of Wikipedia to be a function of both the depth of coverage (using that as shorthand for the whole specific/accurate/verifiable/sourced class of concepts) and the breadth of coverage (i.e. not missing information).
In fact, I would think that one *should* define the quality of Wikipedia as a function of both.
Then the "quality" of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily go down when you add more material -- though the average "depth" will go down. Similarly quality doesn't necessarily go up when you make content rules more restrictive, since every day the amount of potential information to be included in Wikipedia increases by some completely unreasonable amount (thus the average breadth goes down).
If our goal is to consistently have the overall quality of Wikipedia to go up (or at least stay stable) then that allows us to recognize that we should have standards for new material, but not to the degree that they overly restrict the inflow of new material. Where that inflection point exists is of course a matter of debate, but we can break down the relevant factors: * what is the average initial depth of included material * what percentage of the current universe of outside knowledge is represented on Wikipedia * at what rate does the depth of included material increase over time (i.e. how fast does unsourced material get sourced, grammar improved, copyright of images checked, specificity increase, etc.) * at what rate does the universe of outside knowledge increase over time (how much news is there every day?)
Again, these are all pretty damn subjective but it gives us a guide for understanding how to consider policies or the wisdom of spending energy and time deleting GNAA from Wikipedia or merging [[franked mail]] into [[franking]] or [[concept mining]] into [[taxonomic classification]] or [[Captaincy General of the Philippines]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captaincy_General_of_the_Philippinesinto [[Spanish East Indies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_East_Indies]].
On 30/11/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My take is that you can define the quality of Wikipedia to be a function of both the depth of coverage (using that as shorthand for the whole specific/accurate/verifiable/sourced class of concepts) and the breadth of coverage (i.e. not missing information).
Yes. The *breadth* of en:wp's coverage is actually a reason I've heard from many who speak another language natively for preferring en:wp as a reference - there's more likely to be something, anything, on a given subject here than anywhere else, and a better something than you'd get from a Google search.
Our breadth is a strength, not a weakness. We don't have to have a 30,000-byte article on something to be a useful source on it.
- d.
On 12/1/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The *breadth* of en:wp's coverage is actually a reason I've heard from many who speak another language natively for preferring en:wp as a reference - there's more likely to be something, anything, on a given subject here than anywhere else, and a better something than you'd get from a Google search.
Our breadth is a strength, not a weakness. We don't have to have a 30,000-byte article on something to be a useful source on it.
Are you willing to stick your neck out and say whether a two-sentence stub on GNAA is a good thing or a bad thing?
Steve
On 12/1/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The *breadth* of en:wp's coverage is actually a reason I've heard from many who speak another language natively for preferring en:wp as a reference - there's more likely to be something, anything, on a given subject here than anywhere else, and a better something than you'd get from a Google search.
Our breadth is a strength, not a weakness. We don't have to have a 30,000-byte article on something to be a useful source on it.
Are you willing to stick your neck out and say whether a two-sentence stub on GNAA is a good thing or a bad thing?
It is a good thing or a bad thing.
On 01/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The *breadth* of en:wp's coverage is actually a reason I've heard from many who speak another language natively for preferring en:wp as a reference - there's more likely to be something, anything, on a given subject here than anywhere else, and a better something than you'd get from a Google search. Our breadth is a strength, not a weakness. We don't have to have a 30,000-byte article on something to be a useful source on it.
Are you willing to stick your neck out and say whether a two-sentence stub on GNAA is a good thing or a bad thing?
I never particularly objected to the article's existence and voted "keep" each time it came up, particularly as there were quite a few people keeping an eye on it.
- d.
On 12/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I never particularly objected to the article's existence and voted "keep" each time it came up, particularly as there were quite a few people keeping an eye on it.
So the "verifiability" problem is not so much about the article's existence, but rather, all the unverifiable material that migrates towards it. Wouldn't a protected two-sentence stub be the way to go? Or, hell, even one sentence...
If you look at any other encyclopaedia, they're full of "stubs" - very short articles that give a bare minimum of information, for less important subjects. We should have no shame in having these.
Steve
On 12/1/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I never particularly objected to the article's existence and voted "keep" each time it came up, particularly as there were quite a few people keeping an eye on it.
So the "verifiability" problem is not so much about the article's existence, but rather, all the unverifiable material that migrates towards it. Wouldn't a protected two-sentence stub be the way to go? Or, hell, even one sentence...
If you look at any other encyclopaedia, they're full of "stubs" - very short articles that give a bare minimum of information, for less important subjects. We should have no shame in having these.
You rabble-rousing radical.