http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/artic...
Stable versions would help with answering some of that criticism. Plenty of what he says is fair enough, IMO, particularly the point about the loudest voices winning purely by virtue of obnoxious trolling.
C More schi
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
On 8/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/artic...
Stable versions would help with answering some of that criticism. Plenty of what he says is fair enough, IMO, particularly the point about the loudest voices winning purely by virtue of obnoxious trolling.
C More schi
"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia's culture."
Technicaly true but only because we are somewhat more interested in the knowlage you can show you have than the knowlage you may or may not claim to have.
"It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "
I'm not sure how trying to create an encyclopedia fits in with anti-intellectualism.
"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia's culture."
This is preposterous.
"It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "
Nonsense.
It is hard to know how to coherently respond to ignorant ranting which appears to make no attempt to even connect at any point with the facts of reality.
--Jimbo
On 16/08/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "
Nonsense.
It appears to be a way of saying we're a bunch of communists despite having been founded by an Objectivist. Or something. TIMES:IDONTLIKEIT.
- d.
On 8/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/08/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "
Nonsense.
It appears to be a way of saying we're a bunch of communists despite having been founded by an Objectivist. Or something. TIMES:IDONTLIKEIT.
We have a few radical communist admins and editors.
But that's roughly equivalent to saying that New York City is a communist hosbed, because some communists live there.
Some of these editorials and commentaries do show a legitimate problem, which is that we're percieved by some policy, academic, and intellectuals as being something very wierd that they just don't understand.
On 8/16/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia's culture."
This is preposterous.
The claim is made from time to time by those (inside the project and out) who point to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] and claim that we don't care if something is true, only if we can find a reference for it.
There's some truth to that; in many cases, fact checking ends with "Ok, so-and-so did say that". However, there are two problems with it:
One, we should always be referencing possibly questionable but sourced information in the form "According to xxx in (ref), blah blah...", or some variant thereof. We can report that something was said/written/reported without asserting that the statement itself was necessarily true.
Two, there are regular if not widely common investigations of deeper source info, and some sources which meet the minimal "reliable" and "verifyable" definitions are deemed inaccurate and deleted.
We have people who are lazy a lot, both in sourcing and describing information on-wiki, but those don't mean that we don't care about the underlying accuracy.
"It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "
Nonsense.
It is hard to know how to coherently respond to ignorant ranting which appears to make no attempt to even connect at any point with the facts of reality.
Aspects of the project can be described that way. We have libertarian right-wingers, anti-intellectual leftists, and people of pretty much every political and social persuasion participating.
But, I don't think he really gets it about us. We are not a subset of our parts; we're the sum of them, and then some.
George Herbert wrote:
On 8/16/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia's culture."
This is preposterous.
The claim is made from time to time by those (inside the project and out) who point to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] and claim that we don't care if something is true, only if we can find a reference for it.
That's very different from denying that a false claim to knowledge is wrong. Indeed, it is the opposite. It is saying that claims to knowledge have to be backed up.
It isn't that we don't care if something is true. It is that we need facts that can be confirmed, not opinion.
--Jimbo
On 8/16/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 8/16/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia's culture."
This is preposterous.
The claim is made from time to time by those (inside the project and out) who point to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] and claim that we don't care if something is true, only if we can find a reference for it.
That's very different from denying that a false claim to knowledge is wrong. Indeed, it is the opposite. It is saying that claims to knowledge have to be backed up.
It isn't that we don't care if something is true. It is that we need facts that can be confirmed, not opinion.
Right. This is a key distinction... one lost on that columnist, and to some degree some participants.
To some degree this plays into the push to reference everything. Though this is a legitimate need, we're likely to spend the next (couple of years?) sourcing everything in the encyclopedia much better, and then the next (couple of years?) after that dealing with finding stuff where there were inaccurate or unreliable sources used in places.
The latter problem is arguably better to have and likely far smaller than the current widespread lack of sources.
George Herbert schrieb:
One, we should always be referencing possibly questionable but sourced information in the form "According to xxx in (ref), blah blah...", or some variant thereof. We can report that something was said/written/reported without asserting that the statement itself was necessarily true.
This is already policy [[Wp:npov#A_simple_formulation]], but should be enforced much more rigidly.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, George Herbert wrote:
The claim is made from time to time by those (inside the project and out) who point to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] and claim that we don't care if something is true, only if we can find a reference for it.
I think the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" tends to suggest that.
Two, there are regular if not widely common investigations of deeper source info, and some sources which meet the minimal "reliable" and "verifyable" definitions are deemed inaccurate and deleted.
The problem with that is that any such investigation which does not itself involve a reference is original research. During the long fight for WP:Attribution, I tried to argue that we should leave out verifiable-but-false information. I was rebuffed.
On 8/16/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, George Herbert wrote:
The claim is made from time to time by those (inside the project and out) who point to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] and claim that we don't care if something is true, only if we can find a reference for it.
I think the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" tends to suggest that.
Two, there are regular if not widely common investigations of deeper source info, and some sources which meet the minimal "reliable" and "verifyable" definitions are deemed inaccurate and deleted.
The problem with that is that any such investigation which does not itself involve a reference is original research. During the long fight for WP:Attribution, I tried to argue that we should leave out verifiable-but-false information. I was rebuffed.
Part of the reason for this is that unverifyable truth that you or I know is not something anyone else can rely on to be right.
There are, or should be, relatively few truthful things that have no references, in a field where untruthful things do have references.
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Times article (London) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:23:55 -0400
"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia's culture."
This is preposterous.
"It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "
Nonsense.
It is hard to know how to coherently respond to ignorant ranting which appears to make no attempt to even connect at any point with the facts of reality.
--Jimbo
Except it's not all ignorant ranting. He may have edited himself, and the stuff about "It is quite as conceivable that an early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there" rings very, very true - witness that massive wrangling and constant editing/reverting and addition of outright junk when [[Islam]] got on the Main Page, as does "and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices."
God, yes. Anyone who's ever tried to deal with obnoxious nationalist cranks can testify to the fact that they never bloody well shut up until you block them, and quite frequently the trolls win simply by making the most noise.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Except it's not all ignorant ranting. He may have edited himself, and the stuff about "It is quite as conceivable that an early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there" rings very, very true - witness that massive wrangling and constant editing/reverting and addition of outright junk when [[Islam]] got on the Main Page, as does "and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices."
God, yes. Anyone who's ever tried to deal with obnoxious nationalist cranks can testify to the fact that they never bloody well shut up until you block them, and quite frequently the trolls win simply by making the most noise.
It's easy to pick anecdotes either way, though. I personally more often encounter the opposite---the original version is improved substantially by later editing. It's interesting you mentioned nationalists, because I find it in those cases fairly often. Nationalists seem very prolific in creating biased articles about things or events in the countries they care about, and then later those articles usually eventually get improved. I also notice it in my own articles a lot, though hopefully they don't start out nearly as badly: I write lots of moderately decent articles on subjects in which I have no expertise but have done a little research, and it's not that uncommon that some expert in the area will later come by and correct or add a few things.
-Mark
"An early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there."
This happens very often, particularly with good and featured articles. Many outstanding pages have been eroded by anonymous know-it-alls into utter uselessness once their main contributors left the project. Unless we have content arbitration boards made up of professionals in any given field, we are likely to see an increase in complaints and a decrease in a number of knowledgable contributors.
--Ghirla
On 8/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/artic...
Stable versions would help with answering some of that criticism. Plenty of what he says is fair enough, IMO, particularly the point about the loudest voices winning purely by virtue of obnoxious trolling.
C More schi
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/17/07, Andrey yaroslavl@gmail.com wrote:
"An early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there."
This happens very often, particularly with good and featured articles. Many outstanding pages have been eroded by anonymous know-it-alls into utter uselessness once their main contributors left the project. Unless we have content arbitration boards made up of professionals in any given field, we are likely to see an increase in complaints and a decrease in a number of knowledgable contributors.
Definitely - I've written my fair share of articles (featured and non-featured - I gave up on good articles, though, once I realised that it had lost track of its original purpose), and now that I am no longer active besides making small edits or reverting vandalism every now and then, I can see that a lot of things I have written have fallen in quality - even when I was active, I had this experience (someone completely erased everything I originally wrote for [[Education in Malaysia]] and started it from scratch - since the new revision had worthwhile content, I was in no mood to revert, nor could I have bothered with attempting to merge old missing information in).
But with all that, it is important to bear in mind that on the balance, the wiki model works - nobody can say it is borked when *most* articles are improved by more editors looking at them. What's important to recognise is that the wiki model is nevertheless imperfect, and we need some mechanism to reduce the proportion of articles which are worsened by new editors over time.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 8/17/07, Andrey yaroslavl@gmail.com wrote:
"An early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there."
This happens very often, particularly with good and featured articles. Many outstanding pages have been eroded by anonymous know-it-alls into utter uselessness once their main contributors left the project. Unless we have content arbitration boards made up of professionals in any given field, we are likely to see an increase in complaints and a decrease in a number of knowledgable contributors.
Definitely - I've written my fair share of articles (featured and non-featured - I gave up on good articles, though, once I realised that it had lost track of its original purpose), and now that I am no longer active besides making small edits or reverting vandalism every now and then, I can see that a lot of things I have written have fallen in quality - even when I was active, I had this experience (someone completely erased everything I originally wrote for [[Education in Malaysia]] and started it from scratch - since the new revision had worthwhile content, I was in no mood to revert, nor could I have bothered with attempting to merge old missing information in).
But with all that, it is important to bear in mind that on the balance, the wiki model works - nobody can say it is borked when *most* articles are improved by more editors looking at them. What's important to recognise is that the wiki model is nevertheless imperfect, and we need some mechanism to reduce the proportion of articles which are worsened by new editors over time.
Using the example of your [[Education in Malaysia]] it's the kind of thing where you, as the original writer start with a vision of the article as a whole, but the deterioration comes from successive small edits which limit their focus on single phrases and sentences. Very few of us outside of Malaysia are likely to have any interest in the subject whatsoever, though I could see that the racial and religious divides in that country could be the basis for controversy. To a large extent the obsession that has developed over sourcing information has focussed attention on the minutiae of articles, and, instead of free flowing and readable articles, the result is articles full of axe marks or old socks which have been too often darned.
I don't think that content arbitration boards are the solution. If that were a winning technique Nupedia would have been more successful.
Ec
On 03/01/80, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Using the example of your [[Education in Malaysia]] it's the kind of thing where you, as the original writer start with a vision of the article as a whole, but the deterioration comes from successive small edits which limit their focus on single phrases and sentences.
It's a cycle articles go through. A good writer (and good writers are a rarer commodity than people who happen to know something on a subject) goes through the article, cleans it up, gets it into really good and balanced shape. Then people come along and add more info and tweak sentences and so forth, and the article gets lumps and bumps and bulges and warts - but it does have more and better information than it did before. So it then needs the good writer to come back and do the difficult work of rebalancing it without removing the details. Which is work, but good writing is work.
I don't think that content arbitration boards are the solution. If that were a winning technique Nupedia would have been more successful.
I just can't see how they'd scale well. Though Citizendium is approaching this by subject-area fiefdoms for groups of editors. (On CZ, an "editor" has some editorial power; the people just writing stuff are "authors.") Maybe they can make it work for them. On Wikipedia, any area really needing content arbitration would I suspect be too embattled for it to do much lasting good.
- d.
on 8/17/07 4:52 AM, Andrey at yaroslavl@gmail.com wrote:
"An early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there."
This happens very often, particularly with good and featured articles. Many outstanding pages have been eroded by anonymous know-it-alls into utter uselessness once their main contributors left the project. Unless we have content arbitration boards made up of professionals in any given field, we are likely to see an increase in complaints and a decrease in a number of knowledgable contributors.
--Ghirla
This is an issue that has been touched upon several times, and in several different ways, in the past. But each time the discussion has spiraled off into battles about what constitutes a "professional" and the definition of "expert".
Well over six months ago I personally persuaded several top-notch writers in their field to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In each and every case they finally gave up in frustration after their work was reverted or challenged on grounds that were pure bullshit. These are persons who write for professional journals all of the time, and frequently engage in arguments over their writings with others that they know. The reality of the matter is they, and persons like them, have neither the time nor inclination to argue their work with persons they have no clue about.
I really don't know what the answer is. But I do know that part of the problem is the fact that the Project is still very much in need of a firm, coherent direction, and an equally strong identity.
Marc Riddell
On 8/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/artic... e2267665.ece
Stable versions would help with answering some of that criticism. Plenty of what he says is fair enough, IMO, particularly the point about the loudest voices winning purely by virtue of obnoxious trolling.
C More schi
Well over six months ago I personally persuaded several top-notch writers in their field to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In each and every case they finally gave up in frustration after their work was reverted or challenged on grounds that were pure bullshit.
Were the grounds really pure bullshit? In my experience, experts struggle with NOR and citing sources, since original research is what they do for a living. If an expert comes along and changes something on a page and just cites their own expertise as the source, then it is going to be challenged, and so it should be. Writing encyclopedia articles is very different to writing journal articles. Being good at one doesn't make you good at the other.
While encouraging experts to edit Wikipedia is great, they shouldn't be doing it as experts, they should just be doing it as people interested in the subject, the same as everyone else. What experts should do as experts is review articles and put their stamp on them as being correct. Such a system would greatly improve Wikipedia's reliability and make people trust us far more. Of course, this system has been proposed dozens of times, and it's very hard to implement due to the difficulty is defining and verifying experts. Perhaps we should start on a small scale with just a few fields where it is easier (eg. academic fields where we can simply require being a lecturer at a reputable university).
On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience, experts struggle with NOR and citing sources, since original research is what they do for a living. If an expert comes along and changes something on a page and just cites their own expertise as the source, then it is going to be challenged, and so it should be. Writing encyclopedia articles is very different to writing journal articles.
Shouldn't that say writing *Wikipedia* articles is very different to writing journal articles? When I look at a traditional encyclopedia, I see lots of unsourced statements from experts.
NOR is a rule for Wikipedia, which is needed because there is no one in charge of content arbitration. It's not a necessary rule for a traditional encyclopedia, which has editors to decide what to include and what not to include, and to decide what experts are really experts. IIRC the NOR policy was created largely to quell fringe theories. In a traditional encyclopedia this is the job of the editors.
While encouraging experts to edit Wikipedia is great, they shouldn't be doing it as experts, they should just be doing it as people interested in the subject, the same as everyone else.
I would venture a guess that most experts aren't interested in doing that.
What experts should do as experts is review articles and put their stamp on them as being correct.
And/or put their comments as to what is wrong. If we could convince them to do that, and then keep a copy of those comments handy somewhere (you might say the talk page, but a separate namespace would be better), it might just help things. I'm not sure if it would or not, but it'd be interesting to try.
Now, how do you convince experts to come in and review Wikipedia articles? There's nothing stopping them from doing this right now. But right now there's not much in the way of incentive, either.
Such a system would greatly improve Wikipedia's reliability and make people trust us far more. Of course, this system has been proposed dozens of times, and it's very hard to implement due to the difficulty is defining and verifying experts.
So long as all these experts are doing is writing critical reviews, the need to strictly limit who can and can't write such reviews is overrated. If, on the other hand, you want to give these experts the power to enforce their suggested changes, then you're fundamentally changing the structure of Wikipedia and you might as well fork off a new project to do so.
Perhaps we should start on a small scale with just a few fields where it is easier (eg. academic fields where we can simply require being a lecturer at a reputable university).
Start anywhere with anyone. If you can find an expert who'd be willing to review one or more Wikipedia articles, a lot of people would love to hear from them.
So long as all these experts are doing is writing critical reviews, the need to strictly limit who can and can't write such reviews is overrated. If, on the other hand, you want to give these experts the power to enforce their suggested changes, then you're fundamentally changing the structure of Wikipedia and you might as well fork off a new project to do so.
I wasn't thinking of critical reviews or suggesting changes, I was thinking of them vouching for the accuracy of the article. It's not for our benefit, it's for the benefit of readers. If the readers can't be sure the expert is really an expert, then there is no benefit.
On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So long as all these experts are doing is writing critical reviews, the need to strictly limit who can and can't write such reviews is overrated. If, on the other hand, you want to give these experts the power to enforce their suggested changes, then you're fundamentally changing the structure of Wikipedia and you might as well fork off a new project to do so.
I wasn't thinking of critical reviews or suggesting changes, I was thinking of them vouching for the accuracy of the article. It's not for our benefit, it's for the benefit of readers. If the readers can't be sure the expert is really an expert, then there is no benefit.
The way I see it, as a reader mind you, is that so long as the person's name is out there I can decide for myself whether or not to consider the person an expert.
But yeah, I guess I misread your suggestion. "What experts should do as experts is review articles and put their stamp on them as being correct." I guess the problem with that is that the articles have to be correct first.
The way I see it, as a reader mind you, is that so long as the person's name is out there I can decide for myself whether or not to consider the person an expert.
Well, yes, that works as far as determining what counts as an expert. It doesn't work as far as verifying someone's qualifications. We can't expect readers to phone the university and confirm someone is really a lecturer there for each article they read, whereas we could do that ourselves if we deem it necessary. Also, there are ways we can confirm the person we're talking to really is Professor Joe Bloggs (email from official address, putting a note of official website, etc), a reader can't do that.
But yeah, I guess I misread your suggestion. "What experts should do as experts is review articles and put their stamp on them as being correct." I guess the problem with that is that the articles have to be correct first.
You're right, some system for experts to correct or suggest corrections to an article would also be required.
On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The way I see it, as a reader mind you, is that so long as the person's name is out there I can decide for myself whether or not to consider the person an expert.
Well, yes, that works as far as determining what counts as an expert. It doesn't work as far as verifying someone's qualifications. We can't expect readers to phone the university and confirm someone is really a lecturer there for each article they read, whereas we could do that ourselves if we deem it necessary. Also, there are ways we can confirm the person we're talking to really is Professor Joe Bloggs (email from official address, putting a note of official website, etc), a reader can't do that.
Sure, I wouldn't have a problem with that. And it's not without precedent. I've seen the accounts of people blocked until they verified their identity (at least one instance I remember was in the case of a university professor), so it's already something that's being done.
"We can't expect readers to phone the university and confirm someone is really a lecturer there for each article they read" No, but a reader who actually cares about such things could easily check the website of the professor's school. Or they could check the Wikipedia article on the person. University professors are generally considered notable, aren't they?
But yeah, I guess I misread your suggestion. "What experts should do as experts is review articles and put their stamp on them as being correct." I guess the problem with that is that the articles have to be correct first.
You're right, some system for experts to correct or suggest corrections to an article would also be required.
Right now all of this can already be done on the talk pages (corrections, suggestions, stamps of approval). But there isn't much of it being done.
Right now all of this can already be done on the talk pages (corrections, suggestions, stamps of approval). But there isn't much of it being done.
Unless it's fairly widespread, it's not going to be very useful, so nobody really wants to start it. Once it gets going, it should speed up quite quickly. I'm a university student, so when term starts again I'll have a word with some of my Maths lecturers and see if I can persuade any of them to review some of the maths articles. Hopefully others will then follow suit and we can turn it into a more official system.
Right now all of this can already be done on the talk pages (corrections, suggestions, stamps of approval). But there isn't much of it being done.
on 8/18/07 4:00 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Unless it's fairly widespread, it's not going to be very useful, so nobody really wants to start it. Once it gets going, it should speed up quite quickly. I'm a university student, so when term starts again I'll have a word with some of my Maths lecturers and see if I can persuade any of them to review some of the maths articles. Hopefully others will then follow suit and we can turn it into a more official system.
Thomas,
Tell me again how this would work. Someone would review the article for accuracy, and then put what on the Talk Page?
Marc
on 8/18/07 4:55 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Tell me again how this would work. Someone would review the article for accuracy, and then put what on the Talk Page?
A template at the top saying "I, Professor Joe Bloggs of XYZ University, verify that this article is factually accurate.", or words to that effect.
What happens if, after it is certified by this person, someone comes along and edits (changes) the article?
Marc
Damn, I went and designed a system like this in my head and never got around to implementing it. (My mom's a research scientist, so I know how they think, and why they don't edit.)
Wikiverify (or whatever you want to call it) would work like this:
1. Do the tooth-and-nails work of contacting universities (maybe just one or two to start out) and verifying faculty in a given field.
2. Write paper letters to a bunch of professors (well, a few to start out) saying we have identified them as leading experts in their field (this always works. flattery is how conferences draw big names). Explain that millions of students around the world, many in poor countries who don't have access to other resources, use wikipedia. Explain that wikipedia text is free for re-use and therefore enriches the knowledge store of the whole world. Invite them to donate their rare expertise by...
3. Reviewing a copy of this wikipedia article (enclosed, on paper). Don't ask them to fill out a questionnaire of any sort. Let them know that they can review in whatever detail they want -- from a one-line analysis ("this article is acceptable" / "this article is not very accurate") to a detailed summary of possible flaws. Give them the option of conveying their response by paper, email, or telephone.
4. If they opt in, set up a Wikiverify profile for them with their picture, their reviews (and maybe the article texts alongside). Ideally, the professors would be competing for status -- "I reviewed more than you!" -- though maybe that's wishful thinking. Possibly include a way for people to send thank-you notes to the professors.
5. Put a template on the article page saying "Dr. Such and Such, professor of whatever at university of ___, has reviewed/verified/vetted a version of this article (link to the version)". If the community doesn't want that sort of thing, whoever runs Wikiverify could drop a note on the talk page instead. Visibility doesn't matter all that much; people are absolutely crying out for this sort of service and will track it down through word-of-mouth if nothing else.
You'd have to do the template thing on a per-professor basis -- professors will disagree about accuracy; sometimes one will say an article's ok and another will say it's not.
6. ???
7. Profit!
Actually, though, there is a problem with trying to do this sort of thing as a for-profit enterprise -- the professors would want to be paid, and they'd want more money than advertising on the wikiverify pages could deliver. Whoever does this (wikipedia or no) probably has to be nonprofit.
On 8/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What happens if, after it is certified by this person, someone comes along and edits (changes) the article?
Good point, it needs to specify a date and time (linking to the revision in question).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well over six months ago I personally persuaded several top-notch writers in their field to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In each and every case they finally gave up in frustration after their work was reverted or challenged on grounds that were pure bullshit.
on 8/18/07 8:09 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Were the grounds really pure bullshit?
In their opinions, and, in some of the cases, mine - yes the grounds were bullshit. Because, the grounds for disagreement by the disputing editors were based on popular notions of the subject and self-help nonsense.
In all cases here we are talking about the subjects of human behavior and other very basic psychosocial concepts. I will not be more specific about the Articles in question so as not to single-out any specific editor. But, in each case, the objections they had were based upon "that's not what I learned" and other pop-psych nonsense. How do you deal with that without running into the 3RR?
In my experience, experts struggle with NOR and citing sources, since original research is what they do for a living. If an expert comes along and changes something on a page and just cites their own expertise as the source, then it is going to be challenged, and so it should be.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
Writing encyclopedia articles is very different to writing journal articles. Being good at one doesn't make you good at the other.
Quite so!
While encouraging experts to edit Wikipedia is great, they shouldn't be doing it as experts, they should just be doing it as people interested in the subject, the same as everyone else.
But the reality is, when it comes to certain subjects, they are not like everyone else. How do you turn expertise on & off?
What experts should do as experts is review articles and put their stamp on them as being correct. Such a system would greatly improve Wikipedia's reliability and make people trust us far more. Of course, this system has been proposed dozens of times, and it's very hard to implement due to the difficulty is defining and verifying experts. Perhaps we should start on a small scale with just a few fields where it is easier (eg. academic fields where we can simply require being a lecturer at a reputable university).
I see positives as well as pitfalls with this well worth serious discussion.
Personal note: After several frustrating attempts at editing articles in my field, and not having the time nor knowledge of the WP system to argue about it, I was ready to bow out. Then, a funny thing happened - I discovered the Project's people. They, and a genuine desire to help them build a healthy culture, is why I'm still here.
Marc
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
If they are citing published, peer reviewed texts then that's what matters, who wrote them is irrelevant. If they cite just the fact that they are an expert, that is not acceptable.
On 18/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/18/07 8:09 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Were the grounds really pure bullshit?
In their opinions, and, in some of the cases, mine - yes the grounds were bullshit. Because, the grounds for disagreement by the disputing editors were based on popular notions of the subject and self-help nonsense.
If the grounds were bullshit then the articles should be reverted back to the experts version. If the experts had a valid cite then there's no excuse. If they didn't then it's much more arguable.
In all cases here we are talking about the subjects of human behavior and other very basic psychosocial concepts. I will not be more specific about the Articles in question so as not to single-out any specific editor. But, in each case, the objections they had were based upon "that's not what I learned" and other pop-psych nonsense. How do you deal with that without running into the 3RR?
I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and then reference it ;-)
Marc
on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.
There's a seed here; something to be seriously considered.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and then reference it ;-)
Einstein was the only person capable of giving Einstein an argument. Can you imagine reverting him! :-)
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things could be a lot better.
I love this! Thanks.
Marc
On 8/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.
There's a seed here; something to be seriously considered.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and then reference it ;-)
Einstein was the only person capable of giving Einstein an argument. Can you imagine reverting him! :-)
In fact, Arthur Eddington is the standard source on relativity, not Einstein himself. Arguably also the Feynman Lectures would be a good place to use.
And far from people not being able to argue with Einstein, in fact Albert held various correspondences with people who espoused rival theories (some of them even producing very nearly identical results to those of the relativity theory). Not to mention the long and very tight argument he had against "god playing with dice".
It is a popular fiction that Einstein had no peer within physics.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 8/19/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.
There's a seed here; something to be seriously considered.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and then reference it ;-)
Einstein was the only person capable of giving Einstein an argument. Can you imagine reverting him! :-)
In fact, Arthur Eddington is the standard source on relativity, not Einstein himself. Arguably also the Feynman Lectures would be a good place to use.
And far from people not being able to argue with Einstein, in fact Albert held various correspondences with people who espoused rival theories (some of them even producing very nearly identical results to those of the relativity theory). Not to mention the long and very tight argument he had against "god playing with dice".
It is a popular fiction that Einstein had no peer within physics.
Anyone have a copy of the 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica? Einstein wrote the "Space-Time" article <ref>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page</ref>. I'd be interested in seeing how many references he gave. "Who would Einstein have cited?" No need to speculate. Let's find out.
On 8/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/19/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.
There's a seed here; something to be seriously considered.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and then reference it ;-)
Einstein was the only person capable of giving Einstein an argument. Can you imagine reverting him! :-)
In fact, Arthur Eddington is the standard source on relativity, not Einstein himself. Arguably also the Feynman Lectures would be a good place to use.
And far from people not being able to argue with Einstein, in fact Albert held various correspondences with people who espoused rival theories (some of them even producing very nearly identical results to those of the relativity theory). Not to mention the long and very tight argument he had against "god playing with dice".
It is a popular fiction that Einstein had no peer within physics.
Anyone have a copy of the 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica? Einstein wrote the "Space-Time" article <ref>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page</ref>. I'd be interested in seeing how many references he gave. "Who would Einstein have cited?" No need to speculate. Let's find out.
It appears in volume 25, page 525-6
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SOU_STE/SPACE_AND_TIME.html
Distributed Proofreaders doesnt appear to have volume 25, however Tim Starling has all of EB1911 on Wikisource as TIFF images (a TIFF plugin such as AlternaTIFF is required) at
http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling
http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de... http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de...
The jrank.org page looks pretty good; the three refs at the bottom are the only ones at the bottom of the original entry.
-- John
On 8/19/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Anyone have a copy of the 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica? Einstein wrote the "Space-Time" article <ref>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page</ref>. I'd be interested in seeing how many references he gave. "Who would Einstein have cited?" No need to speculate. Let's find out.
It appears in volume 25, page 525-6
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SOU_STE/SPACE_AND_TIME.html
Distributed Proofreaders doesnt appear to have volume 25, however Tim Starling has all of EB1911 on Wikisource as TIFF images (a TIFF plugin such as AlternaTIFF is required) at
http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling
http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de... http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de...
The jrank.org page looks pretty good; the three refs at the bottom are the only ones at the bottom of the original entry.
That article is signed by "H. St." (Henry Sturt). See the credits page: http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de...
I guess EB didn't buy into the whole spacetime thing until a few years later. So much for the 11th edition being the greatest ever. (I skimmed the article, and it doesn't seem to even mention spacetime).
On 8/19/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
That article is signed by "H. St." (Henry Sturt). See the credits page: http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de...
I guess EB didn't buy into the whole spacetime thing until a few years later. So much for the 11th edition being the greatest ever. (I skimmed the article, and it doesn't seem to even mention spacetime).
LOL, I can't help but picture Henry Sturt reverting Einstein's rewrite of [[Space and Time]]. He'd probably write something like "rv - no consensus for these changes".
On 8/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/19/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Anyone have a copy of the 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica? Einstein wrote the "Space-Time" article <ref>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page</ref>. I'd be interested in seeing how many references he gave. "Who would Einstein have cited?" No need to speculate. Let's find out.
It appears in volume 25, page 525-6
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SOU_STE/SPACE_AND_TIME.html
Distributed Proofreaders doesnt appear to have volume 25, however Tim Starling has all of EB1911 on Wikisource as TIFF images (a TIFF plugin such as AlternaTIFF is required) at
http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling
http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de... http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de...
The jrank.org page looks pretty good; the three refs at the bottom are the only ones at the bottom of the original entry.
That article is signed by "H. St." (Henry Sturt). See the credits page: http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de...
I guess EB didn't buy into the whole spacetime thing until a few years later. So much for the 11th edition being the greatest ever. (I skimmed the article, and it doesn't seem to even mention spacetime).
Interestingly neither does the 15th edition have a discrete article on spacetime, but it is discussed under the title "Time", And the reference I suspect is used for the section on space-time is likely Problems of Space and Time, 1964, J.J.C Smart (ed.).
The article on time itself is signed by someone who goes by the initials J.J.C.S, coincidence, you be the judge....
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 8/19/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly neither does the 15th edition have a discrete article on spacetime, but it is discussed under the title "Time", And the reference I suspect is used for the section on space-time is likely Problems of Space and Time, 1964, J.J.C Smart (ed.).
The article on time itself is signed by someone who goes by the initials J.J.C.S, coincidence, you be the judge....
I found the content of the 13th edition article "space-time", which actually is used as a reference in Wikipedia's [[Spacetime]]. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117889/space-time
I couldn't find any cites, but it's possible they were left out of the online edition, or that I missed them.
Anthony wrote:
That article is signed by "H. St." (Henry Sturt). See the credits page: http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de...
I guess EB didn't buy into the whole spacetime thing until a few years later. So much for the 11th edition being the greatest ever. (I skimmed the article, and it doesn't seem to even mention spacetime).
Anything in the 12th edition? It was really a repeat of the 11th with added supplementary volumes that are now also PD.
Ec
On 8/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
That article is signed by "H. St." (Henry Sturt). See the credits page: http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_de...
I guess EB didn't buy into the whole spacetime thing until a few years later. So much for the 11th edition being the greatest ever. (I skimmed the article, and it doesn't seem to even mention spacetime).
Anything in the 12th edition? It was really a repeat of the 11th with added supplementary volumes that are now also PD.
Nope, wasn't added 'til the 13th: "The revolution of modern physics began to be reflected in the Encyclopædia Britannica in the Twelfth Edition (1922), with James (later Sir James) H. Jeans' article on "Relativity." In the Thirteenth Edition (1926) a wholly new topic, "Space-Time," was discussed by the person most qualified in all the world to do so, Albert Einstein. The article is challenging but rewarding." http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117889/space-time
Now here's the weird thing. I read that article yesterday, for free and without a subscription, but today it says I have to log in. I have a copy saved at home, which I'll email to anyone who sends me a private message asking for it and promising only to use it for fair use educational purposes (1926 means it's still copyrighted, I think).
I found it fairly interesting, actually. One part that sticks out is that he asserted that we never use the concept of time without also using the concept of space, and vice-versa. That's probably a horrible paraphase, though.
on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
I think that domain experts should be paired with wikiexperts; that way the wikiexperts can hand-hold the domain experts around the wikirules, and help revert unreasonable edits by others.
On 8/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
There's a seed here; something to be seriously considered.
I ask this with my tongue partially planted in my cheek: If a person, recognized as especially knowledgeable in a field, makes an edit to a article in that field, then cites their own texts as sources, would this be acceptable to the Project? Do you see what I¹m getting at? Who would Einstein have cited?
on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and then reference it ;-)
On 8/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Einstein was the only person capable of giving Einstein an argument. Can you imagine reverting him! :-)
on 8/19/07 6:21 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen at cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, Arthur Eddington is the standard source on relativity, not Einstein himself. Arguably also the Feynman Lectures would be a good place to use.
And far from people not being able to argue with Einstein, in fact Albert held various correspondences with people who espoused rival theories (some of them even producing very nearly identical results to those of the relativity theory). Not to mention the long and very tight argument he had against "god playing with dice".
It is a popular fiction that Einstein had no peer within physics.
Thanks for this, Jussi-Ville. I'm just glad Einstein was able to stand his ground; otherwise who knows what E would equal :-).
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/19/07 4:22 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Lorentz; or other people that have studied Einstein. Push came to shove he could ask somebody notable to write something about it and then reference it ;-)
Einstein was the only person capable of giving Einstein an argument. Can you imagine reverting him! :-)
Based on what I know of Wikipedians - Yes. :-)
Ec
The system of stable versions is long overdue, if we are willing to face the mounting wave of criticism of Wikipedia as a free-for-all project aiming at prolific mediocrity rather than excellence.
--Ghirla
On 8/18/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/17/07 4:52 AM, Andrey at yaroslavl@gmail.com wrote:
This is an issue that has been touched upon several times, and in several different ways, in the past. But each time the discussion has spiraled off into battles about what constitutes a "professional" and the definition of "expert".
Well over six months ago I personally persuaded several top-notch writers in their field to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In each and every case they finally gave up in frustration after their work was reverted or challenged on grounds that were pure bullshit. These are persons who write for professional journals all of the time, and frequently engage in arguments over their writings with others that they know. The reality of the matter is they, and persons like them, have neither the time nor inclination to argue their work with persons they have no clue about.
I really don't know what the answer is. But I do know that part of the problem is the fact that the Project is still very much in need of a firm, coherent direction, and an equally strong identity.
Marc Riddell
on 8/18/07 8:17 AM, Andrey at yaroslavl@gmail.com wrote:
The system of stable versions is long overdue, if we are willing to face the mounting wave of criticism of Wikipedia as a free-for-all project aiming at prolific mediocrity rather than excellence.
--Ghirla
Excellent point, Ghirla. Once again, who and what are we? That decision is long overdue. And the longer we wait, the harder it will be to turn around those images others are making for us now.
Marc
On 8/18/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/17/07 4:52 AM, Andrey at yaroslavl@gmail.com wrote:
This is an issue that has been touched upon several times, and in several different ways, in the past. But each time the discussion has spiraled off into battles about what constitutes a "professional" and the definition of "expert".
Well over six months ago I personally persuaded several top-notch writers in their field to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In each and every case they finally gave up in frustration after their work was reverted or challenged on grounds that were pure bullshit. These are persons who write for professional journals all of the time, and frequently engage in arguments over their writings with others that they know. The reality of the matter is they, and persons like them, have neither the time nor inclination to argue their work with persons they have no clue about.
I really don't know what the answer is. But I do know that part of the problem is the fact that the Project is still very much in need of a firm, coherent direction, and an equally strong identity.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices".
Everyone who is engaged in everyday editing rather than idle discussions may recall plenty of incidents that confirm the validity of this assessment. There is no mechanism capable of stopping a group of people based in the same country and probably keeping in touch outside Wikipedia from pushing certain agenda into our articles. It is useless to argue and mediate because these folks know why they came to Wikipedia at almost the same time and what they want from the project. It is useless to complain, because ten to twenty like-minded one-purpose accounts may bomb any ANI discussion or AfD. You may neutralize a troll or two or three, but not a group of determined users who share the same real-life background and exhibit divergent patterns of behaviour.
A fresh example is the activity of Tartu-based accounts on WWII- and Holocaust-related subjects. We are told, to quote one of them, "there were two sides in the war, but it is erroneous to believe that, since SU won, only the Soviet opinion on the war is relevant and the others should just shut up". One or two editors interested in the subject are expected to stand up to a legion of people advocating in concert Neo-Nazi flavoured revisionism bordering on the heroization of Fascism. No, thank you. If the community at large is not willing to tackle certain unsavoury ideologies and such views are allowed to pester mainspace, it brings the entire project into disrepute. I'm not going to waste my day arguing that, in respect to the Holocaust, the Soviet side was right and the Nazi side was wrong.
No amount of "consensus" will change the reality. Wikipedia may either reflect that reality or may not. In order to prevent the process from being gamed by tendentious bigmouths, we need a system of content arbitration on history, linguistics, mathematics, physics, etc. The existing ArbCom does not arbitrate content. People seek (and invent) behavioural issues in order to get a hearing, hoping that their POV will be sanctioned at last. When they fail in this ambition, they leave the project in frustration, while newly registered accounts continue rehashing unresolved issues for years, ad infinitum. There are some long-standing disputes that just need to be solved once and for all, because the possibility of reaching consensus on them is nil.
--Ghirla
On 8/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/artic...
Stable versions would help with answering some of that criticism. Plenty of what he says is fair enough, IMO, particularly the point about the loudest voices winning purely by virtue of obnoxious trolling.
C More schi
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Andrey yaroslavl@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Times article (London) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:45:16 +0400
"Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices".
Everyone who is engaged in everyday editing rather than idle discussions may recall plenty of incidents that confirm the validity of this assessment. There is no mechanism capable of stopping a group of people based in the same country and probably keeping in touch outside Wikipedia from pushing certain agenda into our articles. It is useless to argue and mediate because these folks know why they came to Wikipedia at almost the same time and what they want from the project. It is useless to complain, because ten to twenty like-minded one-purpose accounts may bomb any ANI discussion or AfD. You may neutralize a troll or two or three, but not a group of determined users who share the same real-life background and exhibit divergent patterns of behaviour.
A fresh example is the activity of Tartu-based accounts on WWII- and Holocaust-related subjects. We are told, to quote one of them, "there were two sides in the war, but it is erroneous to believe that, since SU won, only the Soviet opinion on the war is relevant and the others should just shut up". One or two editors interested in the subject are expected to stand up to a legion of people advocating in concert Neo-Nazi flavoured revisionism bordering on the heroization of Fascism. No, thank you. If the community at large is not willing to tackle certain unsavoury ideologies and such views are allowed to pester mainspace, it brings the entire project into disrepute. I'm not going to waste my day arguing that, in respect to the Holocaust, the Soviet side was right and the Nazi side was wrong.
No amount of "consensus" will change the reality. Wikipedia may either reflect that reality or may not. In order to prevent the process from being gamed by tendentious bigmouths, we need a system of content arbitration on history, linguistics, mathematics, physics, etc. The existing ArbCom does not arbitrate content. People seek (and invent) behavioural issues in order to get a hearing, hoping that their POV will be sanctioned at last. When they fail in this ambition, they leave the project in frustration, while newly registered accounts continue rehashing unresolved issues for years, ad infinitum. There are some long-standing disputes that just need to be solved once and for all, because the possibility of reaching consensus on them is nil.
--Ghirla
I agree in principle with the idea of content arbitration, though putting it into practice will not be easy. But it's something we need to think about seriously.
Also, stable versions. Islam being on the main page would not have been quite such the nightmare it became if one version of the article could not have been fought over. The fight would have been at a lower pitch. In the end it only calmed down when I threatened to block anyone who violated 1RR. Such measures should not have been necessary. Stable versions would have prevented a situation where we came to within a whisker of having to go to the backup main page.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk