http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/18/wikiped...
My answer (currently in the mod queue):
"The trouble is Wikipedia's aim to Neutral Point of View. It achieves this with great imperfection, but it is what we're aiming for. The trouble is that editors quickly gain an allergic reaction to any subjective phrasing at all.
"Particularly problematic are popular culture articles about living people. These attract (a) fans, who make them into hagiographies (b) obnoxious obsessives who confuse an encyclopedia with a platform for investigative reporting. Rubbish articles ensue.
"A reasonably reliable way around this is to quote the opinions of prominent critics (preferably noteworthy ones in themselves), noteworthy books on art/music, etc. This is of course more work and not easily remedied with a quick Google. Better hit that bookshelf after all!"
- d.
2008/9/18 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/18/wikiped...
I think the problem is a simple one: The writer is looking for an art reference book and is reading an encyclopaedia. They are different things.
2008/9/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2008/9/18 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/18/wikiped...
I think the problem is a simple one: The writer is looking for an art reference book and is reading an encyclopaedia. They are different things.
There is that. However, our coverage of arts-related topics is rather greyer and more washed-out than it could be. We need to digest more arts reference books.
- d.
There is that. However, our coverage of arts-related topics is rather greyer and more washed-out than it could be. We need to digest more arts reference books.
It's not just arts - a lot of articles are rather dry (I guess people expect that from a mathematics article more than from an arts article, though, which is why arts stands out as a problem). I think it comes of them being written by a large group of people a bit at a time - our articles lack a consistent flow. We're good at keeping the facts well structured, but we could do with improving the prose. I think it's something that will come with time, it's not a serious problem that impedes usefulness.
2008/9/18 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/sep/18/wikiped...
Culture clash. "Art is not science. That is, the "facts" about art don't take you very far." we are not interested in taking people anywhere we are interested in informing them.
"What I mean to say is, any decent art reference book, however serious, will offer an argument to explain why it is imparting facts about Goya."
Wikipedia on the other hand take the view that the person chose to read the article and we can safely assume they have their reasons for doing so. We do not judge between someone trying to increase their cultural understanding and a school pupil looking to throw together an essay.
Wikipedia articles are aiming to tell you about the subject not provide a narrative. Most of the ah flair in the english language exists to argue points and often to paper over a lack of actually facts. Wikipedia is meant to reject both of these approaches.
Wikipedia does not lead you on a winding trail where you pick flowers of information along the way. Wikipedia instead takes information concentrates it and fires it at you at high speed. What happens to you afterwards is not really our concern.
On top of that wikipedia prose has to be constructed in a way that is robust enough that it can withstand further information being inserted just about anywhere which reduces the amount of use beautiful but delicate prose you are likely to see.
Wikipedia takes this further with infoboxes.
So does wikipedia writing tend to be rather flat compared to other sources? yes. Is this really a problem? no.