The title of this thread is a false dichotomy. There is not necessarily any loss in "quality" in making something more comprehensive. What you get rather is a bell-curve where the tailings have few, perhaps only one editor.
However if that one editor is moderately good at being a Wikipedian, they may be generating top-notch articles. Just ones with few other interested parties.
The idea that we need to stick to a smaller set of core articles in order to maintain quality has no evidence. Some of the articles with many editors are in sad shape.
Will Johnson
************** Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
on 7/29/08 5:37 PM, WJhonson@aol.com at WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The title of this thread is a false dichotomy. There is not necessarily any loss in "quality" in making something more comprehensive. What you get rather is a bell-curve where the tailings have few, perhaps only one editor.
However if that one editor is moderately good at being a Wikipedian, they may be generating top-notch articles. Just ones with few other interested parties.
The idea that we need to stick to a smaller set of core articles in order to maintain quality has no evidence. Some of the articles with many editors are in sad shape.
Will Johnson
Will,
You're playing fast & loose with the word "comprehensive" here :-). This thread was meant to call attention to Wikipedia's seeming obsession with size as a measure of quality in a work. Most articles - most edits - most posts - -! The companies cited in the beginning of the thread are finally learning that bigger can mean thinner. And the thinner in their case means their bottom line.
Marc
2008/7/29 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
You're playing fast & loose with the word "comprehensive" here :-). This thread was meant to call attention to Wikipedia's seeming obsession with size as a measure of quality in a work. Most articles - most edits - most posts - -! The companies cited in the beginning of the thread are finally learning that bigger can mean thinner. And the thinner in their case means their bottom line.
And what exactly is our bottom line? In any case I can find examples where the oposite is the case (Amazon would be the classic example).
Numbers may be crude measures but if people enjoy counting them why stop them? If people like creating large numbers of stubs why stop them? If people like doing large numbers of micro edits why stop them? They are rather useful for things like spelling and formatting. Not everyone is good at adding content. Not everyone is good at research and those that are and enjoy doing it are unlikely to be concerned by talk about numbers because they are intelligent enough to realize that it isn't a good measure for them. Equally when you want to concentrate on improving one article wikipedia's size comes in very handy. You really realise this when you discover it isn't big enough. I was expanding our [[canal]] article today and I wanted to mention back pumping. I don't however want to stop and explain what it is so I rely on us having an article on the subject except we don't so either I've got to go and write an article on that subject or I've got to include a digression in the canal article to explain just what I'm talking about. Wikipedia being larger would facilitate the writing of a core article in this case.
And for those who don't want to measure by articles or edits. We have featured articles various article grading systems DYK or a selection of barnstars.
Our featured content is given a much higher profile than our lists of editors by edit count.
For those who work on images we have featured images, quality images and valued images (or you can count how many other projects your image has been used on)
For refs there are at the moment I think only barnstars
You claim of obsession with posts is highly questionable. Appearing at the top of the monthly list is mostly a hint to reduce your post rate.
The claim that wikipedia is obsessed with quantity over quality doesn't really hold up under close examination.
geni wrote:
Our featured content is given a much higher profile than our lists of
editors by edit count.
Indeed. And rightly so - star articles matter more to the project than putative "star editors". Which is why I regret attempts to leverage FA and DYK into a surrogate for a star system. One of the nice things about Wikipedia editing is that there are many ways to be a "star" measured by self-esteem. One can be a star merger of articles and know it, without having to have that on any list.
By the way, "bigger" is fundamentally good. It's a point about databases I learned elsewere : "you can look stuff up here" is a bit dull, but a database generous enough that you start searching it in ways new to you becomes a friend.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
geni wrote:
Our featured content is given a much higher profile than our lists of
editors by edit count.
Indeed. And rightly so - star articles matter more to the project than putative "star editors". Which is why I regret attempts to leverage FA and DYK into a surrogate for a star system. One of the nice things about Wikipedia editing is that there are many ways to be a "star" measured by self-esteem. One can be a star merger of articles and know it, without having to have that on any list.
Heh, that strikes a chord.
Not that I feel a star in any way, but one of the proudest acheivements in terms of mainspace content, which I will treasure to my heart as long as the page is not deleted, is the "rescue" of the article that started life as an hatchet-job by the title of [[The Bush Dynasty]] or something very close to that ilk, but was (not solely by my offices) transformed into a comprehensive list of families who have had an extended political life, where-ever around the globe they may have lived.
I think the parable of the mustard seed is well remembered.
And as I have said (in other fora), I am clearly saddened that the articles rescue could never have happened under the current fervent and edged editing happening on the English Wikipedia project. A fact that I both deplore and am saddened deeply by.
By the way, "bigger" is fundamentally good. It's a point about databases I learned elsewere : "you can look stuff up here" is a bit dull, but a database generous enough that you start searching it in ways new to you becomes a friend.
Charles
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
This thread was meant to call attention to Wikipedia's seeming obsession with size as a measure of quality in a work. Most articles - most edits - most posts
OK, you have our attention. Now offer us a better measure - one that is objective and not based on anecdotes.