L.S.
I am a newly registered user, but not new to wikipedia, i registered to contribute. But i have noticed something that strikes me as quite odd. Being fluent in both my mothertongue, Dutch, and English, i traverse from one wikilanguage to another. While doing so i noticed some things. When i registered in order to be able to edit pages, i read an email by Jimbo Wales in which he notified everyone that citing references was very important, and another in which he stated that (negatively) biased writing is to be dealt with harshly. With this in mind (and seeing that it works well on the English wikipedia) i went back to Hollandipedia, where i saw a different picture. For example, search for Einstein on the English wikipedia, and you'll find a nice long article with (as of now) 55 notes and a long list of references. Now, for the sake of argument, click on "Nederlands" in the other language list. It doesn't matter whether you can read it or not, just scroll down (it's also a long article, right?) to where the references and notes ought to be. You'll find none. Not one reference or note on an article about Einstein. How is that possible when keeping in mind what Jimbo has said? It is possible because wikipedia has (for lack of a better word) cultural borders. On the Dutch wikipedia it's more about quantity than about quality. For such a small language it has a huge amount of articles. The downside is that i can find a factual error of spelling/grammar mistake in just about every article. They are hastily compiled and left that way. (however, there are of course plenty of well written articles by dedicated people who try to maintain a standard, but they are not the rule in my opinion) So there's a "quantity over quality" way of doing things on the dutch wikipedia...i was sure it was unintentional. It appears though, that the gap between the Dutch and English wikipedia is a bit wider than that. The Dutch don't have a "citation needed" template, it was voted off or carried off by the admins, i haven't studied that topic too intensely. Either way, it was proposed, and it's not here now. So, instead of being able to flag unreferenced articles with "citation needed" or something similar, we are supposed to discuss it on the discussion page. Which is a pain, of course. My question is, how independent are wikicountries? If Jimbo says something, and the English wikipedia has a system for something, isn't it odd that the Dutch (or any other language) doesn't? One can see the result in the Einstein article. Overdoing it is one thing, but not one single reference? And on the discussion page they talk about a lot, but not about that. Is it desirable that a connected system like wikipedia has "autonomous zones" that make their own rules? Or is that freedom? But what about the basic rules the founder holds so dear? They don't apply to people who come from somewhere else? I would really like those questions answered by someone! There are more examples of things not overlapping when crossing a language barrier, but this struck me most. Also, as i understood, anyone can be elected to the wiki Board (if they qualify). So the country does not matter, but still the countries don't all play by the same rules?
Another strange thing, which has less to do with wikiborders, and more with real ones, according to Dutch copyright law it is apparently forbidden to display album covers on the Dutch wikipedia (as stated int he Dutch image use policy). But the English one shows them just fine. My question is, since wikipedia is hosted and founded in the US, what does it matter that a Dutch-language article wants to have an album cover. Is it forbidden just because the language is different? One click away resides a nice hi-res album cover on the English wikipedia. I'm confused about the legal framework on this one.
One last thing! On the topic of keeping a neutral perspective in any article: If a muslem writes an article about Muhammad, and he adds "Peace be upon him", which he is required to do according to his beliefs, can that article still be (perceived as) neutral? Someone reading it might wonder. Same goes for other religions and their ritual ways of writing things ("the Messiah", not naming God by his name, etc), this example is one I actually saw recently. (google search domain wikipedia.org for "peace be upon him"). If this is not a neutral view however, could someone required by faith to write that way still write about those topics that require mentioning the prophet? Especially since a muslem probably has more knowledge about these things, that would be odd.
I'm sorry if this is too lengthy or not posted to the right forum (forgive my youthful ignorance), i really do wonder about these things.
On 6/17/07, b m shoombooly@gmail.com wrote:
L.S.
I am a newly registered user, but not new to wikipedia, i registered to contribute. But i have noticed something that strikes me as quite odd. Being fluent in both my mothertongue, Dutch, and English, i traverse from one wikilanguage to another. While doing so i noticed some things. When i registered in order to be able to edit pages, i read an email by Jimbo Wales in which he notified everyone that citing references was very important, and another in which he stated that (negatively) biased writing is to be dealt with harshly. With this in mind (and seeing that it works well on the English wikipedia) i went back to Hollandipedia, where i saw a different picture. For example, search for Einstein on the English wikipedia, and you'll find a nice long article with (as of now) 55 notes and a long list of references. Now, for the sake of argument, click on "Nederlands" in the other language list. It doesn't matter whether you can read it or not, just scroll down (it's also a long article, right?) to where the references and notes ought to be. You'll find none. Not one reference or note on an article about Einstein. How is that possible when keeping in mind what Jimbo has said? It is possible because wikipedia has (for lack of a better word) cultural borders. On the Dutch wikipedia it's more about quantity than about quality. For such a small language it has a huge amount of articles. The downside is that i can find a factual error of spelling/grammar mistake in just about every article. They are hastily compiled and left that way. (however, there are of course plenty of well written articles by dedicated people who try to maintain a standard, but they are not the rule in my opinion) So there's a "quantity over quality" way of doing things on the dutch wikipedia...i was sure it was unintentional.
A couple of things going on here. First En has a lot more resources than other projects and is a fair bit older. En articles well tend to have been around for longer so have had longer to fix problems. This doesn't mean there are not a lot of low quality articles on en.
It appears though, that the gap between the Dutch and English wikipedia is a bit wider than that. The Dutch don't have a "citation needed" template, it was voted off or carried off by the admins, i haven't studied that topic too intensely. Either way, it was proposed, and it's not here now. So, instead of being able to flag unreferenced articles with "citation needed" or something similar, we are supposed to discuss it on the discussion page. Which is a pain, of course. My question is, how independent are wikicountries? If Jimbo says something, and the English wikipedia has a system for something, isn't it odd that the Dutch (or any other language) doesn't?
In theory languages can ignore anything below the level of board resolution. In practice it would take a very determined community to push things that far. The board and Jimbo tend to interfere with en far more than they do in other projects partly because of it's profile and partly because they all speak English and thus may have at least some idea what is going on there.
For small projects below say 1K articles the stewards would hold considerable power.
One can see the result in the Einstein article. Overdoing it is one thing, but not one single reference? And on the discussion page they talk about a lot, but not about that. Is it desirable that a connected system like wikipedia has "autonomous zones" that make their own rules? Or is that freedom? But what about the basic rules the founder holds so dear? They don't apply to people who come from somewhere else? I would really like those questions answered by someone! There are more examples of things not overlapping when crossing a language barrier, but this struck me most. Also, as i understood, anyone can be elected to the wiki Board (if they qualify). So the country does not matter, but still the countries don't all play by the same rules?
The key rules are by tradition:
Neutral point of view No original research wikipedia is an encyclopedia
By board ruling:
Content shall be under a free licence except where there is an approved Exemption Doctrine Policy.
Another strange thing, which has less to do with wikiborders, and more with real ones, according to Dutch copyright law it is apparently forbidden to display album covers on the Dutch wikipedia (as stated int he Dutch image use policy). But the English one shows them just fine. My question is, since wikipedia is hosted and founded in the US, what does it matter that a Dutch-language article wants to have an album cover. Is it forbidden just because the language is different? One click away resides a nice hi-res album cover on the English wikipedia. I'm confused about the legal framework on this one.
A Wikipedia's content must be legal under the laws that apply in the U.S. State of Florida.
The full foundation policy on copyright can be found at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
One last thing! On the topic of keeping a neutral perspective in any article: If a muslem writes an article about Muhammad, and he adds "Peace be upon him", which he is required to do according to his beliefs, can that article still be (perceived as) neutral?
Not under en policy and such statements are removed.
Thanks geni
but this raises more questions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Other_Wikimedia_proj... that section states that "some projects never accept fair use" that seems contradictory to what geni just said. Is that because there has been legal trouble in the past? Or to prevent trouble in the future? It seems odd to me that on the same website/domain there are different image use policies.
As for the low quality content on NL, i agree that EN was conceived a couple of years earlier, but the Dutch wiki has over 300k articles, that's a number that suggests a large userbase, and high quality. But as i demonstrated, an article about the most famous scientist of the last 100 years cites 0 sources. I believe that is wrong. On the Dutch wiki the image use policy is enforced with vigor, but the "citing references" issue is hardly addressed. I think that is wrong. I agree that Jimbo can't interfere with every wiki in every language, -but- the Dutch wiki is in the top 10 of wikis in size. And i believe that on other large wikis the same issue applies. The German wiki is second in size, and has only 3 references in the article about Einstein. Wouldn't it be reasonable is there was something of a rapporteur to the board for the larger wikis, so that at least the top 10 wikis look generally the same? The Dutch wiki gets a fair amount of press coverage, it would be a shame if it were negative press, would't it?
As for NPOV, I have seen more examples of the sort on various articles, even about animals. Some articles echo a sort of "Greenpeace" sound, whether it be deliberate or not. The Dutch wiki also has no template for "this article is written like an advertisement". Not because they had no time to make one, but because for some reason, they have no desire for it.
My question, can, and is it desirable, that Jimbo or some other official intervenes? Or is citing references only vital in the English wiki? I tend to look at the English wiki before looking at the Dutch one, for this very reason, the quality is so low on many Dutch articles, and sometimes the facts differ substantially from the English articles, as if the author did not compare or check his facts. Do we want other language wikis to be inferior because they are not under strict regulations?
Shoombooly
On 6/17/07, b m shoombooly@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks geni
but this raises more questions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Other_Wikimedia_proj... that section states that "some projects never accept fair use" that seems contradictory to what geni just said. Is that because there has been legal trouble in the past? Or to prevent trouble in the future? It seems odd to me that on the same website/domain there are different image use policies.
Different projects have slightly different ideologies with regared to freeness.
As for the low quality content on NL, i agree that EN was conceived a couple of years earlier, but the Dutch wiki has over 300k articles, that's a number that suggests a large userbase, and high quality. But as i demonstrated, an article about the most famous scientist of the last 100 years cites 0 sources. I believe that is wrong. On the Dutch wiki the image use policy is enforced with vigor, but the "citing references" issue is hardly addressed. I think that is wrong.
Look at any en article below that level of significance
I agree that Jimbo can't interfere with every wiki in every language, -but- the Dutch wiki is in the top 10 of wikis in size. And i believe that on other large wikis the same issue applies. The German wiki is second in size, and has only 3 references in the article about Einstein. Wouldn't it be reasonable is there was something of a rapporteur to the board for the larger wikis, so that at least the top 10 wikis look generally the same?
Possible but there is the question of why any wiki would be crazy enough to want this. Foundation interference in not an unalloyed good
The Dutch wiki gets a fair amount of press coverage, it would be a shame if it were negative press, would't it?
We do not exist to keep the press happy.
As for NPOV, I have seen more examples of the sort on various articles, even about animals. Some articles echo a sort of "Greenpeace" sound, whether it be deliberate or not. The Dutch wiki also has no template for "this article is written like an advertisement". Not because they had no time to make one, but because for some reason, they have no desire for it.
So make one.
My question, can, and is it desirable, that Jimbo or some other official intervenes?
Outside some rather extream conditions no.
On 6/18/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, b m shoombooly@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks geni
but this raises more questions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Other_Wikimedia_proj...
that section states that "some projects never accept fair use" that seems contradictory to what geni just said. Is that because there
has
been legal trouble in the past? Or to prevent trouble in the future? It seems odd to me that on the same website/domain there are different
image
use policies.
Different projects have slightly different ideologies with regared to freeness.
As for the low quality content on NL, i agree that EN was conceived a
couple
of years earlier, but the Dutch wiki has over 300k articles, that's a
number
that suggests a large userbase, and high quality. But as i demonstrated,
an
article about the most famous scientist of the last 100 years cites 0 sources. I believe that is wrong. On the Dutch wiki the image use policy
is
enforced with vigor, but the "citing references" issue is hardly
addressed.
I think that is wrong.
Look at any en article below that level of significance
I agree that Jimbo can't interfere with every wiki in every language,
-but-
the Dutch wiki is in the top 10 of wikis in size. And i believe that on other large wikis the same issue applies. The German wiki is second in
size,
and has only 3 references in the article about Einstein. Wouldn't it be reasonable is there was something of a rapporteur to the board for the larger wikis, so that at least the top 10 wikis look
generally
the same?
Possible but there is the question of why any wiki would be crazy enough to want this. Foundation interference in not an unalloyed good
The Dutch wiki gets a fair amount of press coverage, it would be a shame if it were negative press, would't it?
We do not exist to keep the press happy.
As for NPOV, I have seen more examples of the sort on various articles,
even
about animals. Some articles echo a sort of "Greenpeace" sound, whether
it
be deliberate or not. The Dutch wiki also has no template for "this
article
is written like an advertisement". Not because they had no time to make
one,
but because for some reason, they have no desire for it.
So make one.
My question, can, and is it desirable, that Jimbo or some other official intervenes?
Outside some rather extream conditions no.
geni
I agree we don't exist to make the press happy, but if the founder of wikipedia wants references in articles, and the english wikipedia has it, it strikes me as odd that the dutch don't want it...but i get the point, every language makes its own rules, and are allowed to, even if it degrades the quality of the content to a point that people in time might no longer take it seriously. I disagree with this, but apparently it's consensus on the dutch wikipedia to do things this way. People have tried to make templates that tag articles when they have no references or sources or read like an ad, but they were all deleted by the admins. I doubt there is a point in me making new ones which then get deleted as well. The admins on the Dutch wiki do not want it, and apparently it therefor will not happen. This is why i emailed to this list int he first place, to find out IF there is a rewuirement within the foundation to encourage finding sources and references, and if there is a rule about images that applies to all wikis. I find it odd that the dutch wikipedia is bound by Florida law, but in its own policy thinks it is bound by Dutch copyright law, even when it isn't! No-one has yet explained to me why that is, and no-one has said so far whether or nbot wikimedia is trying to get fair use permission from large corporations to prevent legal trouble int he future. English articles of less significance might be less well sources, but at least most of them have some sources, the dutch almost never use sources. This has nothing to do with the age of the wiki, but all with the attitude of the leadership and writing staff. Surely, when writing about Einstein one can include references, hell, use the ones on the English wiki, a source is a source no matter the language. All i'm saying is, that there seems to be no desire to encourage sourcing, and that it is likely that people over there are purposely thwarting attempts to make it more like the EN example, for reasons of their own that boggle my mind. Furthermore i read on some userpages that people feel like "intellectuals" are being chased away in favor of the "everyone should contribute" attitude. Of course everyone should be able to contribute, but this way it is an unbalanced culture of quantity over quality. I could write dozens of articles filled with factual inaccuracies or lies without having to quote any sources. And unless someone saw it and was willing to fix it, it would stay that way. People have actually tried this and made a string of articles about a sport that didn't exist, hundreds of pages of bull, and it took a year to finally figure it out, and that only because a dedicated individual pieced it all together. The persons who pulled this prank admitted it was to test the error-finding capability of wikipedia. This was rather innocent, but it could happen with more serious topics.
Maybe it's just me, but i don't think this is a good situation.
Shoombooly schreef:
This is why i emailed to this list int he first place, to find out IF there is a rewuirement within the foundation to encourage finding sources and references, and if there is a rule about images that applies to all wikis.
There *is* a rule about images that applies to all wikipedias, and it's given in the first point of the resolution on http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy .
You may be interested to know that it is the Dutch policy that is the universal one. The English image licensing policy is only allowed as an exception (an EDP).
I find it odd that the dutch wikipedia is bound by Florida law, but in its own policy thinks it is bound by Dutch copyright law, even when it isn't!
I'm pretty sure it doesn't think that it's bound by Dutch law, but that it finds it useful to *pretend* to be bound by Dutch law. See my earlier mail.
No-one has yet explained to me why that is,
I gave 3 good reasons for the Dutch policy, see my earlier mail. As you perhaps do not remember it, you can reread it at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/075184.html
and no-one has said so far whether or nbot wikimedia is trying to get fair use permission from large corporations to prevent legal trouble int he future.
This is a misconception about fair use: you do not need permission to use an image as fair use, as long as you comply with the conditions stated in the U.S. copyright law. I think I've read arguments that seeking permission actually makes your claim weaker in one way or the other; details escape me at the moment.
If you do not comply with the fair use conditions, you do need to seek permission; but just permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not free enough, and it's not easy convincing large corporations to release their archives (which are often an important asset for them) under the GFDL or CC-SA.
English articles of less significance might be less well sources, but at least most of them have some sources, the dutch almost never use sources. This has nothing to do with the age of the wiki, but all with the attitude of the leadership and writing staff.
I don't know if you meant that, but Wikipedia does not have a writing staff. We're all volunteers. (At least, those few of us who are paid by "Wikipedia" are not writing any content, it seems.)
Furthermore i read on some userpages that people feel like "intellectuals" are being chased away in favor of the "everyone should contribute" attitude. Of course everyone should be able to contribute, but this way it is an unbalanced culture of quantity over quality.
I'm not trying to scare you away or anything, but are you familiar with Citizendium? It may be just the thing you'd like: Wikipedia, but with strict rules on contributors and articles. Personally, I think this removes exactly the thing that made Wikipedia a success: the ease of entry, the acceptance of editors from a very wide range of backgrounds with a large variety of interests. But you sound like you agree with CZ's founder on a lot of points.
I could write dozens of articles filled with factual inaccuracies or lies without having to quote any sources. And unless someone saw it and was willing to fix it, it would stay that way.
This is true. On the other hand, you could write dozens of nonsense articles while quoting a large number of (imaginary) sources. Unless someone saw it, recognized the sourcing as nonsense, and was willing to fix it...
People have actually tried this and made a string of articles about a sport that didn't exist, hundreds of pages of bull, and it took a year to finally figure it out, and that only because a dedicated individual pieced it all together. The persons who pulled this prank admitted it was to test the error-finding capability of wikipedia. This was rather innocent, but it could happen with more serious topics.
And it wouldn't have helped to have a strict sourcing requirement, as they would have made up some "hard-to-get" books as sources; if the articles weren't recognized as nonsense, the sources wouldn't have either. Unless you have a strict program of checking all references and removing content with hard to find sources...
Maybe it's just me, but i don't think this is a good situation.
Maybe it's just me, but these somewhat lax requirements for editing have made Wikipedia what it is now, and I think it's a damned good encyclopedia.
Eugene
@Eugene you make valid points, and i guess we both are right in a way, which is why Citizendium exists. But i don't believe that Citizendium will fly, they want only people with a degree, and so you'll never get an article about, say, the Teletubbies. Anyway, i've learnt a lot from these emails. I still think the image policy could be different, and i think there's ways to convince corporations that worldwide fair use isn't bad for them, especially if the images have visual watermarks which make them unsuitable for illegal use (cd-covers and such). I think there's nothing wrong with that, the images would still illustrate the story and not be infringing on the rights of the owners.
On the issue of sources: I've read a lot of abstract thinking and "what if" scenarios on this issue, but the bottom line for me remains that an article about someone like Einstein should at least have some references to stuff he did or stuff about him. A couple of sources for claims that would otherwise be questionable would be nice too. I'm absolutely not a fan of 100 sources per article, as it is too much for any article, we don't want it to read like a Law Review. Everything should be done in moderation. 0 sources on a very large article seems not right, 250 sources on a lengthy article is overkill. I do feel however that external links and references give the reader the opportunity to delve deeper beyond what wikipedia writes about something, call it a community service.
Also i still believe there should be a way of tagging articles as factually incorrect or written like an advertisement. Perhaps with a poll beforehand so not just everyone can plaster every article at random with boxes and templates. Something like "minimum 10 votes, >5 in favor" means the article gets tagged. I believe seeing a box or tag describing an article as "poor" or "unfounded" encourages people to fix it more than one lonely comment on the talk page.
Please try not to see my comments too black/white!
b m schreef:
As for the low quality content on NL, i agree that EN was conceived a couple of years earlier, but the Dutch wiki has over 300k articles, that's a number that suggests a large userbase, and high quality. But as i demonstrated, an article about the most famous scientist of the last 100 years cites 0 sources. I believe that is wrong. On the Dutch wiki the image use policy is enforced with vigor, but the "citing references" issue is hardly addressed.
AFAIK, "Citing references" is not a fundamental WP policy. WP:OR is, and "Citing references" is how the English wikipedia implements that.
I agree that Jimbo can't interfere with every wiki in every language, -but- the Dutch wiki is in the top 10 of wikis in size. And i believe that on other large wikis the same issue applies. The German wiki is second in size, and has only 3 references in the article about Einstein.
On the Dutch wikipedia, the German wiki is often viewed as the most reliable one, more so than the English one. Reliability is often uncorrelated to the number of references in the article. The only correlation comes from the fact that an article with more references likely has had more attention from more editors.
As for NPOV, I have seen more examples of the sort on various articles, even about animals. Some articles echo a sort of "Greenpeace" sound, whether it be deliberate or not. The Dutch wiki also has no template for "this article is written like an advertisement". Not because they had no time to make one, but because for some reason, they have no desire for it.
Thank god. Well, no I take that back; the English wikipedia doesn't look that bad after I've made all boxes invisible in my monobook.css.
When an article reads like an advertisement, I'll recognize that by reading the article and thinking "this looks like an advertisement". I do not need a colourful box to tell me that. Apparently, in the English wp, I'm in the minority, but it's a valid point of view.
My question, can, and is it desirable, that Jimbo or some other official intervenes?
Because you want those awful colourful boxes on every wikipedia?
Do we want other language wikis to be inferior because they are not under strict regulations?
That is something that the other language wikipedias will have to decide for themselves. The strict regulations for the English wikipedia were decided upon by the en.wp community; it is not our job to do it for the other wikipedias. And it wouldn't be appreciated by them.
You should probably make your suggestions on the Dutch wikipedia's Village Pump.
Eugene
b m wrote:
As for the low quality content on NL, i agree that EN was conceived a couple of years earlier, but the Dutch wiki has over 300k articles, that's a number that suggests a large userbase, and high quality. But as i demonstrated, an article about the most famous scientist of the last 100 years cites 0 sources. I believe that is wrong. On the Dutch wiki the image use policy is enforced with vigor, but the "citing references" issue is hardly addressed. I think that is wrong.
Then _you_ can add them.
I agree that Jimbo can't interfere with every wiki in every language, -but- the Dutch wiki is in the top 10 of wikis in size. And i believe that on other large wikis the same issue applies. The German wiki is second in size, and has only 3 references in the article about Einstein.
Maybe the German wiki is right about this. One good reference about a biography of this sort may be enough. Is anyone in German or Dutch questioning the accuracy of any specific points about the Einstein biography.
Wouldn't it be reasonable is there was something of a rapporteur to the board for the larger wikis, so that at least the top 10 wikis look generally the same? The Dutch wiki gets a fair amount of press coverage, it would be a shame if it were negative press, would't it?
The fact then is that you are getting the press coverage that you are. Your speculation suggests that at least it is not yet bad. Why is nl:wp getting so much good press coverage when it is as bad as you say?
As for NPOV, I have seen more examples of the sort on various articles, even about animals. Some articles echo a sort of "Greenpeace" sound, whether it be deliberate or not.
Maybe the "Greenpeace" sound is the Dutch NPOV on the matter. It could just as easily happen that the NPOV on another wiki is quite different.
The Dutch wiki also has no template for "this article is written like an advertisement". Not because they had no time to make one, but because for some reason, they have no desire for it.
If the Dutch participants have no desire for it, and are satisfied by the situation, then that's their choice. If you think that that is wrong then they are the one whom you must convince to change.
My question, can, and is it desirable, that Jimbo or some other official intervenes?
It's not at all desirable. To me project autonomy is a paramount value, and interference from higher authority needs to be limited to an absolute minimum. There will still be a few areas where this is unavoidably needed, but they need to be well thought out.
Oddly enough, it seems that most of the support for greater Board interference is not coming from the Board. Some of the things that people do or the rules that they adopt on any project are absolutely maddening. English is no exception. Having some kind of superior body decide everything for us would make certain aspects of life much easier, but do we really want easier. Easier comes with a cost.
Or is citing references only vital in the English wiki? I tend to look at the English wiki before looking at the Dutch one, for this very reason, the quality is so low on many Dutch articles, and sometimes the facts differ substantially from the English articles, as if the author did not compare or check his facts. Do we want other language wikis to be inferior because they are not under strict regulations?
Different does not imply inferior. Is anyone stopping you from adding references to the Dutch Wikipedia or otherwise improving its quality? That project needs to develop in its own way, and at its own rate.
Ec
I know i COULD add all the references and notes, but my point wasn't about my ability, it was about me hoping to encourage an attitude for everyone to do so. It's easy to write a piece, but hard to write a good piece. As someone said earlier, maybe we shouldn't want easy? The dutch admins and their fellows seem to prefer just articles, over good articles. But that's just my view...
I would not remove them, just as I would not remove the St. in St. John the Baptist. It's essentially a courtesy title. Any religious believer wants all to be blessed, and what harm is it to the others. ?
On 6/17/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, b m shoombooly@gmail.com wrote:
L.S.
I am a newly registered user, but not new to wikipedia, i registered to contribute. But i have noticed something that strikes me as quite odd. Being fluent in both my mothertongue, Dutch, and English, i traverse from one wikilanguage to another. While doing so i noticed some things. When i registered in order to be able to edit pages, i read an email by Jimbo Wales in which he notified everyone that citing references was very important, and another in which he stated that (negatively) biased writing is to be dealt with harshly. With this in mind (and seeing that it works well on the English wikipedia) i went back to Hollandipedia, where i saw a different picture. For example, search for Einstein on the English wikipedia, and you'll find a nice long article with (as of now) 55 notes and a long list of references. Now, for the sake of argument, click on "Nederlands" in the other language list. It doesn't matter whether you can read it or not, just scroll down (it's also a long article, right?) to where the references and notes ought to be. You'll find none. Not one reference or note on an article about Einstein. How is that possible when keeping in mind what Jimbo has said? It is possible because wikipedia has (for lack of a better word) cultural borders. On the Dutch wikipedia it's more about quantity than about quality. For such a small language it has a huge amount of articles. The downside is that i can find a factual error of spelling/grammar mistake in just about every article. They are hastily compiled and left that way. (however, there are of course plenty of well written articles by dedicated people who try to maintain a standard, but they are not the rule in my opinion) So there's a "quantity over quality" way of doing things on the dutch wikipedia...i was sure it was unintentional.
A couple of things going on here. First En has a lot more resources than other projects and is a fair bit older. En articles well tend to have been around for longer so have had longer to fix problems. This doesn't mean there are not a lot of low quality articles on en.
It appears though, that the gap between the Dutch and English wikipedia is a bit wider than that. The Dutch don't have a "citation needed" template, it was voted off or carried off by the admins, i haven't studied that topic too intensely. Either way, it was proposed, and it's not here now. So, instead of being able to flag unreferenced articles with "citation needed" or something similar, we are supposed to discuss it on the discussion page. Which is a pain, of course. My question is, how independent are wikicountries? If Jimbo says something, and the English wikipedia has a system for something, isn't it odd that the Dutch (or any other language) doesn't?
In theory languages can ignore anything below the level of board resolution. In practice it would take a very determined community to push things that far. The board and Jimbo tend to interfere with en far more than they do in other projects partly because of it's profile and partly because they all speak English and thus may have at least some idea what is going on there.
For small projects below say 1K articles the stewards would hold considerable power.
One can see the result in the Einstein article. Overdoing it is one thing, but not one single reference? And on the discussion page they talk about a lot, but not about that. Is it desirable that a connected system like wikipedia has "autonomous zones" that make their own rules? Or is that freedom? But what about the basic rules the founder holds so dear? They don't apply to people who come from somewhere else? I would really like those questions answered by someone! There are more examples of things not overlapping when crossing a language barrier, but this struck me most. Also, as i understood, anyone can be elected to the wiki Board (if they qualify). So the country does not matter, but still the countries don't all play by the same rules?
The key rules are by tradition:
Neutral point of view No original research wikipedia is an encyclopedia
By board ruling:
Content shall be under a free licence except where there is an approved Exemption Doctrine Policy.
Another strange thing, which has less to do with wikiborders, and more with real ones, according to Dutch copyright law it is apparently forbidden to display album covers on the Dutch wikipedia (as stated int he Dutch image use policy). But the English one shows them just fine. My question is, since wikipedia is hosted and founded in the US, what does it matter that a Dutch-language article wants to have an album cover. Is it forbidden just because the language is different? One click away resides a nice hi-res album cover on the English wikipedia. I'm confused about the legal framework on this one.
A Wikipedia's content must be legal under the laws that apply in the U.S. State of Florida.
The full foundation policy on copyright can be found at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
One last thing! On the topic of keeping a neutral perspective in any article: If a muslem writes an article about Muhammad, and he adds "Peace be upon him", which he is required to do according to his beliefs, can that article still be (perceived as) neutral?
Not under en policy and such statements are removed.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
b m schreef:
Another strange thing, which has less to do with wikiborders, and more with real ones, according to Dutch copyright law it is apparently forbidden to display album covers on the Dutch wikipedia (as stated int he Dutch image use policy). But the English one shows them just fine. My question is, since wikipedia is hosted and founded in the US, what does it matter that a Dutch-language article wants to have an album cover. Is it forbidden just because the language is different? One click away resides a nice hi-res album cover on the English wikipedia. I'm confused about the legal framework on this one.
There are three reasons for this:
* Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of copyrighted works do not follow the law: they are more strict. We want to be a *free* encyclopedia, which is why we do not accept certain images which we would be legally allowed to (for example, those with a non-commercial license). Each wikipedia makes its own inclusion policies, so it's not strange that the nl.rules difffer from the en.rules.
* We want our content to be re-used. The English wikipedia will only be reused by Americans[*], but the Dutch wikipedia will mainly be re-used by people in the Netherlands and Belgium. Including images that are not allowed in EU law would make it impossible/more difficult for their main audience to re-publish our content.
* Wikipedia is not responsible for the individual edits; the contributors are. Which means that Dutch and Belgian editors are not allowed to put those album covers into nl.wikipedia. Since 99% of the contributors are not Americans, it makes sense for nl to include this in the policy.
Eugene
[*] This argument may be flawed, but I'm not sure.
On 6/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
[*] This argument may be flawed, but I'm not sure.
It is. In particular en has been takeing steps to make sure it is fairly easy to stip out all the non-free images.
geni schreef:
On 6/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
[*] This argument may be flawed, but I'm not sure.
It is. In particular en has been takeing steps to make sure it is fairly easy to stip out all the non-free images.
You are, of course, correct. It's easy to strip them out, but only because an immense amount of work has been spent, and is being spent, on license-tagging all images.
I can imagine why other wikipedias wouldn't be prepared to do that.
Eugene
On 6/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
- We want our content to be re-used. The English wikipedia will only
be reused by Americans[*],
*cough*
[*] This argument may be flawed, but I'm not sure.
Yes. America didn't invent the language. :)
"Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote on 18-06-2007 10:12:18:
On 6/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
- We want our content to be re-used. The English wikipedia will only
be reused by Americans[*],
*cough*
[*] This argument may be flawed, but I'm not sure.
Yes. America didn't invent the language. :)
Perhaps, but we did improve it greatly ;)
Please, don't let this turn into a BrE vs AmE debate, or I'll probably join in and we'll get completely offtopic, I can assure you. Cheers (or thanks, if you're American;)) in advance.
-Salaskan
2007/6/20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Yes. America didn't invent the language. :)
Perhaps, but we did improve it greatly ;)
American English is far closer to English as it was spoken by those that colonised the continent than British English is. You can't improve something by keeping it the same...
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 6/18/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. America didn't invent the language. :)
While this may be case a complete copy of en.wikipedia would only be ok under US copyright law.
The Dutch Wikipedia is much younger than the English. If you could see the English Wikipedia when it was the same age as the Dutch is now, it would also be lacking in references and full of mistakes. The drive to add references is quite recent on en, a similar drive will start on dutch in time, I'm sure.
In the mean time, just do what you can to add refs and make corrections - hopefully people will follow your lead.
Thomas Dalton schreef:
The Dutch Wikipedia is much younger than the English. If you could see the English Wikipedia when it was the same age as the Dutch is now,
That would be this January.
In the mean time, just do what you can to add refs and make corrections - hopefully people will follow your lead.
Two months ago, a translation of an English article was nominated as Featured Article on the Dutch wikipedia. It nearly failed; the main objection was "too many refs". ([[nl:Wikipedia:Etalage/Archief_Aanmelding_kandidaten_(nieuwe_stijl)#George_Washington_.28uitvinder.29]])
Eugene
The Dutch Wikipedia is much younger than the English. If you could see the English Wikipedia when it was the same age as the Dutch is now,
That would be this January.
How do you mean? You mean last January? The Dutch Wikipedia is only 5 months younger than the English? That sounds unlikely.
In the mean time, just do what you can to add refs and make corrections - hopefully people will follow your lead.
Two months ago, a translation of an English article was nominated as Featured Article on the Dutch wikipedia. It nearly failed; the main objection was "too many refs". ([[nl:Wikipedia:Etalage/Archief_Aanmelding_kandidaten_(nieuwe_stijl)#George_Washington_.28uitvinder.29]])
In their defence, a large number of refs can be a sign of OR. Bringing things together from lots of places and drawing your own conclusions (whether explicitly or implicitly) is OR. It is best to get everything from one ref where possible.
Thomas Dalton schreef:
The Dutch Wikipedia is much younger than the English. If you could see the English Wikipedia when it was the same age as the Dutch is now,
That would be this January.
How do you mean? You mean last January? The Dutch Wikipedia is only 5 months younger than the English? That sounds unlikely.
[[Dutch Wikipedia]]: "Started on 19 June 2001..."
In their defence, a large number of refs can be a sign of OR. Bringing things together from lots of places and drawing your own conclusions (whether explicitly or implicitly) is OR. It is best to get everything
from one ref where possible.
A large number of citations from one source is often a sign of non-NPOV.
Eugene
[[Dutch Wikipedia]]: "Started on 19 June 2001..."
The site was created then. When did people actually start contributing in significant numbers?
A large number of citations from one source is often a sign of non-NPOV.
That depends on the source. The solution, however, is to cite multiple sources for each fact, not to cite a different source for each fact.
Thomas Dalton schreef:
[[Dutch Wikipedia]]: "Started on 19 June 2001..."
The site was created then. When did people actually start contributing in significant numbers?
Don't know exactly, probably 2 years later.
A large number of citations from one source is often a sign of non-NPOV.
That depends on the source. The solution, however, is to cite multiple sources for each fact, not to cite a different source for each fact.
Multiple sources for each fact is an even better sign of non-NPOV. It means someone is trying too hard to include some fact.
Eugene
On 6/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Multiple sources for each fact is an even better sign of non-NPOV. It means someone is trying too hard to include some fact.
That's a bit of a leap. What it generally does mean is that inclusion of a fact was at some point contested. Whether the person or persons doing the contesting was reasonable to do so cannot be thus determined.
-Matt
(lagging behind because im new and being moderated)...anyway, the reference issue IS being discussed on the Dutch wikipedia, but it just doesn't catch on apparently.
As for copyrighted images...did wikimedia ever contact the 5 largest media conglomerates and as nicely if they could use their copyrighted images (album covers, movie posters) in wikipedia? If necessary watermarked to prevent them being used as illegal covers? Most media are controlled by few companies, surely it could be done to get permission, it's in their interest too to have more exposure and info about their artists and such.
I mean, what's an article about "Abbey Road" or "Dark Side of the Moon" without the album cover....? We Dutch read articles about music without seeing album covers or other copyrighted media, that's a bit of a shame, because describing it and seeing it are two different things altogether!
b m wrote:
(lagging behind because im new and being moderated)...anyway, the reference issue IS being discussed on the Dutch wikipedia, but it just doesn't catch on apparently.
I'm glad to hear it's being discussed. If it doesn't catch on, that's the way things are.
As for copyrighted images...did wikimedia ever contact the 5 largest media conglomerates and as nicely if they could use their copyrighted images (album covers, movie posters) in wikipedia? If necessary watermarked to prevent them being used as illegal covers? Most media are controlled by few companies, surely it could be done to get permission, it's in their interest too to have more exposure and info about their artists and such.
I can't say for sure that anyone has tried such contact, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that some have done this on their own. The interest of the company is probably best served by stonewalling and refusing to answer such questions at all, even when the answer is obvious. They, or their legal advisers, know that anything that they say could be embarrassingly brought into evidence in some future case that may have nothing to do with the current request. Someone who is refused could argue, "But you allowed this for Wikipedia." These companies do not want to put loose canons on the deck
I mean, what's an article about "Abbey Road" or "Dark Side of the Moon" without the album cover....? We Dutch read articles about music without seeing album covers or other copyrighted media, that's a bit of a shame, because describing it and seeing it are two different things altogether!
English does this through fair use policy. Dutch Wikipedians could do this, but that's their decision. In many respects the media conglomerates can be seen as satisfied by the application of fair use to achieve the exposure that you mentioned. As long as the usage of material, such as album covers, comes within what they accept as fair use, they can sit back and do nothing without committing themselves. This leaves open the option for them to act when _they_ feel that the fair use claims have gone too far. They are not likely to complain about most low resolution reproductions of album covers. Even with the more rigid fair dealing rules of the European Union, I can't see them taking any action. It only gets tricky when the government feels it has a right to prosecute with or without the support of the copyright owner. To repeat it's really up to the Dutch to decide what sort of risk management policy should be followed there.
Ec
On 18/06/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
b m wrote:
(lagging behind because im new and being moderated)...anyway, the reference issue IS being discussed on the Dutch wikipedia, but it just doesn't catch on apparently.
I'm glad to hear it's being discussed. If it doesn't catch on, that's the way things are.
It took a couple of years to catch on on en:wp. I proposed an {{unreferenced}} tag in 2004 and the idea was shot down. I tried again in 2005 and it met with better acceptance, and I started tagging articles with it. Now you have people seriously proposing to kill off all as yet unreferenced articles o_0
- d.
Just a note... On the Dutch Wikipedia, fair use is not permitted, but in the album template there is a parameter which one can use to link to the album cover on the English wiki. http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N.E.W.S_%28Prince-album%29&old... version of the page). I personally agree that Fair Use is inappropriate for a "free" encyclopaedia when it says it permits people to reuse it, but that doesn't really matter in this case. I can understand that most people who read the Dutch Wikipedia are Dutch or Flemish and thus are even less likely to be able to reuse the content than visitors of the English Wikipedia are, but still, it's quite weird. The servers are hosted in Florida and technically the wiki has nothing to with the Netherlands except being Dutch-language.
Salaskan
2007/6/18, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
b m wrote:
(lagging behind because im new and being moderated)...anyway, the
reference
issue IS being discussed on the Dutch wikipedia, but it just doesn't
catch
on apparently.
I'm glad to hear it's being discussed. If it doesn't catch on, that's the way things are.
As for copyrighted images...did wikimedia ever contact the 5 largest
media
conglomerates and as nicely if they could use their copyrighted images (album covers, movie posters) in wikipedia? If necessary watermarked to prevent them being used as illegal covers? Most media are controlled by
few
companies, surely it could be done to get permission, it's in their
interest
too to have more exposure and info about their artists and such.
I can't say for sure that anyone has tried such contact, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that some have done this on their own. The interest of the company is probably best served by stonewalling and refusing to answer such questions at all, even when the answer is obvious. They, or their legal advisers, know that anything that they say could be embarrassingly brought into evidence in some future case that may have nothing to do with the current request. Someone who is refused could argue, "But you allowed this for Wikipedia." These companies do not want to put loose canons on the deck
I mean, what's an article about "Abbey Road" or "Dark Side of the Moon" without the album cover....? We Dutch read articles about music without seeing album covers or other copyrighted media, that's a bit of a shame, because describing it and
seeing
it are two different things altogether!
English does this through fair use policy. Dutch Wikipedians could do this, but that's their decision. In many respects the media conglomerates can be seen as satisfied by the application of fair use to achieve the exposure that you mentioned. As long as the usage of material, such as album covers, comes within what they accept as fair use, they can sit back and do nothing without committing themselves. This leaves open the option for them to act when _they_ feel that the fair use claims have gone too far. They are not likely to complain about most low resolution reproductions of album covers. Even with the more rigid fair dealing rules of the European Union, I can't see them taking any action. It only gets tricky when the government feels it has a right to prosecute with or without the support of the copyright owner. To repeat it's really up to the Dutch to decide what sort of risk management policy should be followed there.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
glad to see i'm not the only one who thinks it's weird! by the way, if someone reuses the content for a dvd of wikipedia and sells it, it stops being fair use and becomes commercial use....but what does that have to do with us? The commercial user should check the content he uses, just like we do, he's responsible if his use is inappropriate.
On 6/17/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Multiple sources for each fact is an even better sign of non-NPOV. It means someone is trying too hard to include some fact.
That's a bit of a leap. What it generally does mean is that inclusion of a fact was at some point contested. Whether the person or persons doing the contesting was reasonable to do so cannot be thus determined.
-Matt
I have to go with Eugene on this one--it doesn't have to mean this, but is in fact often done like this on Wikipedia. I call it steaming pile of facts.
KP
Multiple sources for each fact is an even better sign of non-NPOV. It means someone is trying too hard to include some fact.
There's no pleasing some people, is there? ;) As long as they are sufficiently different sources, it's generally ok - including lots of sources that are very similar is generally a bad sign, I agree.
I think it is important to note that while all these things may be signs they aren't definitive proofs. Each case should be judged on its own merits. There are plenty of cases where multiple citations for each fact, or completely different citations for every sentence are perfectly acceptable.
Can we also agree that having no sources is likely to be worse than having too many?
On 6/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Multiple sources for each fact is an even better sign of non-NPOV. It means someone is trying too hard to include some fact.
There's no pleasing some people, is there? ;) As long as they are sufficiently different sources, it's generally ok - including lots of sources that are very similar is generally a bad sign, I agree.
I think it is important to note that while all these things may be signs they aren't definitive proofs. Each case should be judged on its own merits. There are plenty of cases where multiple citations for each fact, or completely different citations for every sentence are perfectly acceptable.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can we also agree that having no sources is likely to be worse than having too many?
Absolutely no sources is definitely the worst situation to be in with respect to references - I can't think of any exceptions. Well... I say that... If the sources don't actually support the article, then it is worse than no sources, since the sources lend false authority to the article. So other than outright lying, any source is better than no source.
On 6/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The Dutch Wikipedia is much younger than the English. If you could see the English Wikipedia when it was the same age as the Dutch is now,
That would be this January.
How do you mean? You mean last January? The Dutch Wikipedia is only 5 months younger than the English? That sounds unlikely.
The Dutch Wikipedia was started on June 19th 2001n according to http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandstalige_Wikipedia.
In their defence, a large number of refs can be a sign of OR. Bringing
things together from lots of places and drawing your own conclusions (whether explicitly or implicitly) is OR. It is best to get everything from one ref where possible.
The main argument against was readibility, not OR.
Michel
The main argument against was readibility, not OR.
So it's not really the number of references as the number of times those references are referenced. Perhaps you should introduce a policy of putting all citations at the end of the paragraph if there are more than 3 or something. Having lots of inline references can harm readability, it's true, but the solution is not to remove the refs, it's to change how they are referenced.
On 6/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The main argument against was readibility, not OR.
So it's not really the number of references as the number of times those references are referenced. Perhaps you should introduce a policy of putting all citations at the end of the paragraph if there are more than 3 or something. Having lots of inline references can harm readability, it's true, but the solution is not to remove the refs, it's to change how they are referenced.
Problem is that you have trigger-happy {{fact}} fanboys who love to tag any sentence which they think is unreferenced - sometimes without even reading the online source (if there is one). I generally avoid doing this for this reason, even though stylistically I would prefer it.
Johnleemk
Problem is that you have trigger-happy {{fact}} fanboys who love to tag any sentence which they think is unreferenced - sometimes without even reading the online source (if there is one). I generally avoid doing this for this reason, even though stylistically I would prefer it.
You can just remove {{fact}} tags in such cases. However, didn't someone say earlier in this thread that the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have a fact tag? So it's not an issue...
On 6/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
didn't someone say earlier in this thread that the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have a fact tag? So it's not an issue...
There has been some discussion about a "fact" or "citation needed" tag -- amongst other places here, where a template was rather swiftly (15/5/1) deleted: http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_sjablonen...
The consensus seemed to be to contact the editor on the talk page for clarification if needed.
An overview can be found at the bottom of http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_Wikipedia:Bronvermelding
Michel
The consensus seemed to be to contact the editor on the talk page for clarification if needed.
well, that's the problem, isn't it? i mean, how can an article about
Einstein have no sources, unless the general attitude is that having no sources is not an issue, or at least not one the casual reader can see. It harms credibility of the whole dutch wikipedia to have so few sources in almost any article. The talk page is nice, but does not invite people to change stuff fast, whereas a tag on the article itself makes it clear that there need to be sources! Now people reading the Einstein article have no clue there's a source issue unless they bother to click on the talk page, which 99% of all readers probably don't.
Triggerhappy taggers are a nuisance, but tags can be removed if they are silly. Having pages about important people and things without any sources, imho, is just plain silly.
S.