William Pietri schrieb:
I agree that the serious articles should be better,
but in
these comparisons there seems to be an implicit theory that the fan
topics are somehow sucking the life out of the serious ones.
That's not my reading of it. Pop culture articles should be just as
well-referenced and consistently written as all other articles. Why not
compare pop culture articles with *better* pop culture articles? There's
always room for improvement, and maybe a bit more of that for some
specimen of the pop culture article.
But really, do we want somebody obsessed about
[[Optimus Prime]] to
spend a lot of time on [[Prime number]]? And even if we wanted them to,
would they do it and do it well? I don't think so.
No, but we wouldn't want them to spend time on [[Optimus Prime]] either
if they -for all their undoubtedly good intentions- can't curb their fan
enthusiasm for the sake of actually improving the article and thereby
Wikipedia.
First is that the more editors we have involved in
Wikipedia, the
better.
I respect that as your opinion. I'd say the *better* editors we have
involved in Wikipedia, the better.
all sorts of positive effects, including less
vandalism, more
donations, more person-to-person promotion, and more public support.
I wouldn't necessarily agree on any of that.
And second, people look this stuff up. Your average
Joe's impression of
the value of Wikipedia is going to depend directly on how frequently and
how well we answer the questions they are wondering about. Maybe they
*should* be wondering about tau neutrinos, but a lot of people are going
to start out wondering about Scrappy Doo, and will be delighted to learn
that the character was based on the chickenhawk in the Foghorn Leghorn
cartoons. Maybe that's not as good as them learning about neutrinos, but
I think each little success like that is still a win for Wikipedia.
William (Mr. Pietri?), yes they do look this stuff up and I believe it
is not only an advantage to have articles on pop culture topics, but
Wikipedia has them as a matter of course. But how about encouraging
users interested in a certain topic *to improve on their improvements*
of their favourite articles? Yes, many are doing a decent job or die
trying, but there's always room and also the willingness --eagerness,
ideally-- to learn something more, at least for someone I'd want as an
editor.
I wouldn't e.g. want a mature Star Wars fan --hard to believe, but there
are those-- reading all those unreferenced articles lacking any real
world perspective. So why not improve our structures of giving helpful
advice to editors, and yes, forcing the concept some? We need a culture
of mutual teaching and learning, of improving not only the articles
according to one's pwn ideads, but also one's own contributions -- a
culture of welcoming criticism by others as a chance of learning
something new. And you don't get that by simply letting everything slide
because it's "just" (not my opinion!) pop culture articles.
We shouldn't shy away from raising a well-meaning educational finger
where it's necessary and potentially useful. Much better than either
using said finger to klick the block button or living with lesser articles.
The assumpton that the majority of editors are mature people and willing
to go out of their way to improve Wikipedia not according to their own
private ideas and preconceptons, but according to Wikipedia's standards
is, well, possibly true but I wouldn't take a bet.