I just found a very long and interesting article about Wikipedia on the "New Yorker" website ("KNOW IT ALL: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?"). Seems pretty fair, overall, lots of quotes including from Jimbo, Essjay, William Connolley...
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
On 24/07/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
I just found a very long and interesting article about Wikipedia on the "New Yorker" website ("KNOW IT ALL: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?"). Seems pretty fair, overall, lots of quotes including from Jimbo, Essjay, William Connolley...
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
Just to note, someone has already started a discussion on this over at Wikipedia-l:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-July/044836.html
I'm glad I still subscribe to EN-l despite having left the project. It is an interesting read, especially how they covered Wiki-politics. Full credit to them, I think that sums up Wikipedia quite well. Quite shocked at Essjay putting FOURTEEN hours a day in though, heh. Good read.
--NSLE
On 7/24/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
I just found a very long and interesting article about Wikipedia on the "New Yorker" website ("KNOW IT ALL: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?"). Seems pretty fair, overall, lots of quotes including from Jimbo, Essjay, William Connolley...
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
-- Arwel Parry http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
I'm glad I still subscribe to EN-l despite having left the project. It is an interesting read, especially how they covered Wiki-politics. Full credit to them, I think that sums up Wikipedia quite well. Quite shocked at Essjay putting FOURTEEN hours a day in though, heh. Good read.
Interesting article. I was taken aback by "To his knowledge, he [Essjay] has never met another Wikipedian, and he will not be attending Wikimania, the second international gathering of the encyclopedia’s contributors, which will take place in early August in Boston." Was he putting the guy on. :-D
The most important observation: "Peer review, the mainstream media, and government agencies have landed us in a ditch. Not only are we impatient with the authorities but we are in a mood to talk back."
Ec
On 7/24/06, Arwel Parry arwel@cartref.demon.co.uk wrote:
I just found a very long and interesting article about Wikipedia on the "New Yorker" website ("KNOW IT ALL: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?"). Seems pretty fair, overall, lots of quotes including from Jimbo, Essjay, William Connolley...
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
Damn, posting about the same article twice makes me read it twice. This time I made it all the way through though.
One thing I noticed is the downside of our "Lamest edit wars" page, which was clearly the source of a number of disputes. Whereas in reality these are actually really rare exceptions, the fact that the journalist can easily pull out a list of the more bizarre ones (apple pie, cheese, Ann Coulter's birthdate...) makes them sound more common than they really are.
The points about most edits being simple additions/deletions rather than reshaping articles are well made. It's a very difficult problem to solve.
Steve
On 7/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The points about most edits being simple additions/deletions rather than reshaping articles are well made. It's a very difficult problem to solve.
Indeed, and in a similar vein, there was the cogent observation that the first person to an article has the greatest opportunity to shape its tone, form and structure.
On Jul 25, 2006, at 7:10 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
On 7/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The points about most edits being simple additions/deletions rather than reshaping articles are well made. It's a very difficult problem to solve.
Indeed, and in a similar vein, there was the cogent observation that the first person to an article has the greatest opportunity to shape its tone, form and structure.
Yes, once done, often the only alternative is a complete rewrite.
Fred
On 7/25/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, and in a similar vein, there was the cogent observation that the first person to an article has the greatest opportunity to shape its tone, form and structure.
I didn't agree with that. Maybe he meant the first "major contributor" or something. I write a lot of stubs, and I doubt the two lines I contribute have a big effect on much down the track.
Oh, I even have an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Long_%28climber%29
My original contribution was "John Long is a rock climber and author. His best known books are the "How to climb" series."
Now, the first sentence has become "John Long (Born 1953) is a well-known American rock climber and author." There are then two paragraphs before "A prolific author, Long's best known books are the "How to Climb" series."
I also note that a specific book by his I mentioned has been removed.
Have I shaped it much? I'm not sure - I'd intended for a complete list of his books to make part of the article, and that idea has been killed. In fact, I was really intending the article to be about him as an author. Instead, the bulk of the article is now about his rock climbing feats. And hey, it's even picked up some references.
YMMV.
Steve
Indeed, and in a similar vein, there was the cogent observation that the first person to an article has the greatest opportunity to shape its tone, form and structure.
I completely agree with this observation, and I think it's a major problem with many of the articles taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. See, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Purcell&direction=next&a... which has not changed significantly in form (barring big headings) since that first hunk of encyclopedia text. I've attempted to remove the most glaring factual errors and POV, however there can be POV simply in the structure of an article. For instance, there is a lot of emphasis placed on Purcell's religious music, despite him being most influential in theatre music and opera. I think a lot of work needs to be done de-POV-ing the old Brittanica articles, and I think more attention needs to be paid to POV inherent in certain structures, as well as in phrases.
User:Makemi
On 7/25/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, and in a similar vein, there was the cogent observation that the first person to an article has the greatest opportunity to shape its tone, form and structure.
I completely agree with this observation, and I think it's a major problem with many of the articles taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. See, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Purcell&direction=next&a... which has not changed significantly in form (barring big headings) since that first hunk of encyclopedia text. I've attempted to remove the most
As a general rule, I think this has more to do with the amount of effort expended on the original writing compared to subsequent effort. If one contributor puts in 100 hours on an article, and subsequent contributors total 1 hour, it would hardly surprising that their impact is minimal.
Certainly, our articles borrowed from 1911, Cyclopaedia, or the Catholic Encyclopedia do have certain leanings, and focuses which do not match our normal standards. But they're a good starting point, and a hell of a lot better than a redlink.
Steve