http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2400/
(our direct personal and individual responsibility for the global financial crisis notwithstanding)
- d.
2008/10/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2400/
(our direct personal and individual responsibility for the global financial crisis notwithstanding)
Really interesting article - thanks! A couple of quites that leapt out, for those who don't want to read 40pp of epistemiology over lunch:
"In other words, rather than simply determining exactly how reliable an information source is, we should really determine how reliable it is compared to the available alternatives ... if the reliability of Wikipedia is comparable to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias, then the reliability of Wikipedia presumably compares even more favorably to the reliability of randomly chosen websites."
"That is, we are also concerned with how much knowledge can be acquired from an information source, how fast that knowledge can be acquired, and how many people can acquire that knowledge ... Wikipedia, thus, provides a nice example of how epistemic values can come into conflict. In particular, while Wikipedia may be slightly less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica, it is arguably much more powerful, speedy, and fecund ... Hence, despite legitimate concerns about its reliability, it probably is epistemically better (i.e., in terms of all of our epistemic values) that people have access to this information source."
In other words, we're a net good thing even if we're not perfect. Which is, you know, pleasant to hear :-)
I note that both Citizendium and Veropedia get a mention, which is cheering - two different solutions to the same overall problem - and that there's a very sensible suggestion right at the end on how to improve -
"People can be misled by incomplete information as well as inaccurate information (cf. Frické and Fallis 2004, 240). Even if Wikipedia includes only accurate information, if its omissions tend to mislead people, it may not be a reliable information source ... Hence, important omissions should be flagged as well as inaccuracies."
Do we have an easy way of doing that just now? A few articles have a plethora of empty framework headers, but this isn't all that common (or all that effective) - the problem is it really needs a competent and informed overview to know what important part is missing in the first place.
"People can be misled by incomplete information as well as inaccurate information (cf. Frické and Fallis 2004, 240). Even if Wikipedia includes only accurate information, if its omissions tend to mislead people, it may not be a reliable information source ... Hence, important omissions should be flagged as well as inaccuracies."
Do we have an easy way of doing that just now? A few articles have a plethora of empty framework headers, but this isn't all that common (or all that effective) - the problem is it really needs a competent and informed overview to know what important part is missing in the first place.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Template:Incomplete adds "This article or section is incomplete and may require expansion and/or cleanup. Please improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page." It adds articles to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_clarificati...
"This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced editors."
Fred
On 10/7/08, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Template:Incomplete adds "This article or section is incomplete and may require expansion and/or cleanup. Please improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page." It adds articles to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification
Odd, any chance somebody pasted the wrong category into the template code? I thought lack of completeness and lack of clarity were distinct issues.
—C.W.
Odd, any chance somebody pasted the wrong category into the template code? I thought lack of completeness and lack of clarity were distinct issues.
Lack of clarity is usually caused by a lack of information, but the converse isn't necessarily true. I don't think that category is correct, either.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Odd, any chance somebody pasted the wrong category into the template code? I thought lack of completeness and lack of clarity were distinct issues.
Lack of clarity is usually caused by a lack of information, but the converse isn't necessarily true. I don't think that category is correct, either.
I call bullshit. Amphiboly and obfuscation are both based and predicated on a requirement and expectation of asymmetry of information.
Usually when people have a lack of information, their principles and motivations are often painfully clear.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2008/10/7 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Odd, any chance somebody pasted the wrong category into the template code? I thought lack of completeness and lack of clarity were distinct issues.
Lack of clarity is usually caused by a lack of information, but the converse isn't necessarily true. I don't think that category is correct, either.
I call bullshit. Amphiboly and obfuscation are both based and predicated on a requirement and expectation of asymmetry of information.
Usually when people have a lack of information, their principles and motivations are often painfully clear.
I don't understand... what does that have to do with the difference between an article being unclear and an article being incomplete? It seems to just be a sequence of long words (one of which I'll admit to having had to look up).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/10/7 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Odd, any chance somebody pasted the wrong category into the template code? I thought lack of completeness and lack of clarity were distinct issues.
Lack of clarity is usually caused by a lack of information, but the converse isn't necessarily true. I don't think that category is correct, either.
I call bullshit. Amphiboly and obfuscation are both based and predicated on a requirement and expectation of asymmetry of information.
Usually when people have a lack of information, their principles and motivations are often painfully clear.
I don't understand... what does that have to do with the difference between an article being unclear and an article being incomplete? It seems to just be a sequence of long words (one of which I'll admit to having had to look up).
Perhaps if you had been talking about difference rather than causation, your point would have been better made.
Unclear articles often omit details. But lack of details can not be a *cause* of unclarity, any more than a lack of decorations can be a cause for a lack of cake. The cake may have less decorations, but still have lots of cake.
An article may omit any amount of facts and still be quite clear on the heart of the matter, and often articles are clearer without embellishments, sideissues and blind alleys added into the mix, no matter how informative they may be in the absolute.
Omitting details can be an *instrument* for reducing clarity. When facts are missing through not being available to the one writing the copy, what is clear is that much remains unknown, but that is hardly lack of clarity. There is a good deal of clarity in circumscribing that which is not yet known.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Perhaps if you had been talking about difference rather than causation, your point would have been better made.
Unclear articles often omit details. But lack of details can not be a *cause* of unclarity, any more than a lack of decorations can be a cause for a lack of cake. The cake may have less decorations, but still have lots of cake.
I disagree, if you miss out a key piece of information it can make what remains unclear. For example, an article on a mathematical concept that doesn't include a definition will likely be very unclear. I would argue that such omissions are the primary cause of a lack of clarity.
An article may omit any amount of facts and still be quite clear on the heart of the matter
Indeed, as I said, the converse isn't true. Lack of clarity implies lack of information (in many cases at least, sometimes the information is there, just badly presented), lack of information does not imply lack of clarity.
Odd, any chance somebody pasted the wrong category into the template code? I thought lack of completeness and lack of clarity were distinct issues.
Lack of clarity is usually caused by a lack of information, but the converse isn't necessarily true. I don't think that category is correct, either.
So fix it. I'm not sure what we actually need or how it should work.
Fred
2008/10/7 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Template:Incomplete adds "This article or section is incomplete and may require expansion and/or cleanup. Please improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page." It adds articles to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification
Something like that should be fine. Readers seem to like that we have quality warnings where appropriate.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/10/7 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Template:Incomplete adds "This article or section is incomplete and may require expansion and/or cleanup. Please improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page." It adds articles to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification
Something like that should be fine. Readers seem to like that we have quality warnings where appropriate.
- d.
Whoa, when did you sell out?
Is this the same David Gerard that not only spearheaded the drive but even personally removed spoiler warnings...
You want us to be in the business of telling people when precisely they should be on guard (and by the omission be lulled into not thinking critically) for the article not being all that can be said about a subject. Where the heck are all those warnings in the EB Micropaedia articles?
"The readers like.." Eh? Since when is "The readers like..." a valid argument for anything. And no, don't tell me. I know full well when it was, and it won't serve anyone to rehash it.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2008/10/7 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
David Gerard wrote:
2008/10/7 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Template:Incomplete adds "This article or section is incomplete and may require expansion and/or cleanup. Please improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page." It adds articles to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification
Something like that should be fine. Readers seem to like that we have quality warnings where appropriate.
- d.
Whoa, when did you sell out?
Is this the same David Gerard that not only spearheaded the drive but even personally removed spoiler warnings...
There is a big difference between a quality warning and a spoiler warning.
You want us to be in the business of telling people when precisely they should be on guard (and by the omission be lulled into not thinking critically) for the article not being all that can be said about a subject. Where the heck are all those warnings in the EB Micropaedia articles?
Suddenly we're not allowed to improve upon EB?
"The readers like.." Eh? Since when is "The readers like..." a valid argument for anything. And no, don't tell me. I know full well when it was, and it won't serve anyone to rehash it.
Ok, change "like" to "get something out of". The point still stands.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is this the same David Gerard that not only spearheaded the drive but even personally removed spoiler warnings...
There is a big difference between a quality warning and a spoiler warning.
Yeah, spoiler warnings are easy to delete by not-technically-but-pretty-much- automated methods.
Wasn't one of the rationales for taking out spoiler warnings that it was original research to decide that something is a spoiler? Wouldn't it be original research to determine something's quality too?
2008/10/7 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is this the same David Gerard that not only spearheaded the drive but even personally removed spoiler warnings...
There is a big difference between a quality warning and a spoiler warning.
Yeah, spoiler warnings are easy to delete by not-technically-but-pretty-much- automated methods.
Wasn't one of the rationales for taking out spoiler warnings that it was original research to decide that something is a spoiler? Wouldn't it be original research to determine something's quality too?
That's not a rationale I heard. Most people seemed to be arguing in terms of it being unencyclopaedic. I think the key difference is that a spoiler warning is permanent, a quality warning is temporary and just shows that an article is a work-in-progress.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is this the same David Gerard that not only spearheaded the drive but even personally removed spoiler warnings...
There is a big difference between a quality warning and a spoiler warning.
Wasn't one of the rationales for taking out spoiler warnings that it was original research to decide that something is a spoiler? Wouldn't it be original research to determine something's quality too?
That's not a rationale I heard.
It is, however, a rationale heard from David Gerard.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-December/087538.html
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is this the same David Gerard that not only spearheaded the drive but even personally removed spoiler warnings...
There is a big difference between a quality warning and a spoiler warning.
Wasn't one of the rationales for taking out spoiler warnings that it was original research to decide that something is a spoiler? Wouldn't it be original research to determine something's quality too?
That's not a rationale I heard.
It is, however, a rationale heard from David Gerard.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-December/087538.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We already do have in a way quality warnings, all the editorial warnings at the top of articles in a way say this article is still in progress. (those that say more sources needed, copyedit needed, etc).
We also rank articles by "quality" when wikiprojects do their article classes. In theory an "A" class article is better then a "B" class article, etc.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
We already do have in a way quality warnings, all the editorial warnings at the top of articles in a way say this article is still in progress. (those that say more sources needed, copyedit needed, etc).
We also rank articles by "quality" when wikiprojects do their article classes. In theory an "A" class article is better then a "B" class article, etc.
By the same reasoning used for spoilers, we don't have a source which states that an article needs copyediting or that it is class B. (Remember that Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source.) Making that decision ourselves is original research.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
We already do have in a way quality warnings, all the editorial warnings at the top of articles in a way say this article is still in progress. (those that say more sources needed, copyedit needed, etc).
We also rank articles by "quality" when wikiprojects do their article classes. In theory an "A" class article is better then a "B" class article, etc.
By the same reasoning used for spoilers, we don't have a source which states that an article needs copyediting or that it is class B. (Remember that Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source.) Making that decision ourselves is original research.
Get over yourself, Ken.
-Phil
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
We already do have in a way quality warnings, all the editorial warnings at the top of articles in a way say this article is still in progress. (those that say more sources needed, copyedit needed, etc).
We also rank articles by "quality" when wikiprojects do their article classes. In theory an "A" class article is better then a "B" class article, etc.
By the same reasoning used for spoilers, we don't have a source which states that an article needs copyediting or that it is class B. (Remember that Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source.) Making that decision ourselves is original research.
Being a reliable source depends on one's perspective. If we have a rule saying that we cannot use other Wikipedia articles as a reliable source, that's only a rule rather than an objective determination about the reliability of any given article. A spoiler warning presupposes that someone's experience will be spoiled, it relates a future event that cannot take place until someone has read the article. Reliable spoiler warnings require reliable crystal balls.
Ec
2008/10/7 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is this the same David Gerard that not only spearheaded the drive but even personally removed spoiler warnings...
There is a big difference between a quality warning and a spoiler warning.
Yeah, spoiler warnings are easy to delete by not-technically-but-pretty-much- automated methods.
Wasn't one of the rationales for taking out spoiler warnings that it was original research to decide that something is a spoiler? Wouldn't it be original research to determine something's quality too?
If it were original research to determine that information is missing from an article, it would logically follow that compiling an article in the first place is original research. When writing an article one determines what information should be included, or what information should be added. If this is considered original research as you suggest, then writing articles for Wikipedia would be original research and therefore against our own rules.
Writing an article is a creative act, and it is original. No two editors would write the same article from the same set of sources. That does not make writing an article "original research" since none of the information in the article is original. It seems that "original research" applies to content and information, rather than compilation and expression.
2008/10/7 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
"People can be misled by incomplete information as well as inaccurate information (cf. Frické and Fallis 2004, 240). Even if Wikipedia includes only accurate information, if its omissions tend to mislead people, it may not be a reliable information source ... Hence, important omissions should be flagged as well as inaccuracies."
1) Wikipedia is written to a large extent by the type of nerds who like complete sets. Thus for example even stations so obscure that they never actually got built get a mention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_London_Underground_stations#Central_Line...
We don't quite get as far as the stations that never actually existed (the secret BBC one for example) but I'm sure we will in time.
2)The tag for important omissions is {{NPOV}}.
2008/10/7 geni geniice@gmail.com:
- Wikipedia is written to a large extent by the type of nerds who
like complete sets. Thus for example even stations so obscure that they never actually got built get a mention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_London_Underground_stations#Central_Line...
We don't quite get as far as the stations that never actually existed (the secret BBC one for example) but I'm sure we will in time.
Hey, I know, I'm one of those nerds. I :-)
In all seriousness, we can distinguish between several types of incompleteness.
a) There's incomplete subject sets - having articles on 90% of towns in a country, or all but two Turkish prime ministers, or what have you - which is usually quite easy to find and to rectify. In the most basic case, after all, we just have to get a list from somewhere, turn it into redlinks, and cross out the entries one by one. It also tends to be an obvious hole - they'll be mentioned elsewhere but with no reference.
However, there's also more subtle types.
b) Incomplete topics. These come in two types; explicit and implicit.
b) i) An explicitly incomplete topic would be, say, an article on the history of a city which covered the seventeenth century and then didn't mention anything until 1890. We have a lot of these dotted around - it's immediately apparent to the reader that something is missing, because there's a gap. Perhaps we might have an article on a ship which talks about its history, but never mentions anything about its physical construction. Again, it's a reasonably obvious omission to the reader - they know that there ought to be something on an obvious topic.
b) ii) Alternatively, there's subtly incomplete topics. For example, an article about Kings Cross Station that doesn't mention the 1980s fire. The reader wouldn't know it had happened, so wouldn't know that they were missing anything. Perhaps an article on a politician that forgets to mention one of the cabinet posts they held, or omits their involvement in a particular cause celebre - things where you can read the article without immediately noticing something is missing.
(It's a little hard to give examples here without seeming silly - any case famous enough to be recognisable is so obvious that we would be really stupid not to notice we'd missed it out.)
c) Finally, the most insidious kind: incomplete perspectives. If you look at many of our articles on World War II, for example, you'll find that they're quite one-sided; they do describe accurately what happened, but they do so overwhelmingly from the "viewpoint" of one side. The Germans moved troops here, the Germans decided this and that; the Soviet opponents read as merely reacting. This is rarely intentional, and sometimes hard to rectify; often, it's simply a matter of what the available sources provide, and one set of data being much more detailed than another. This might be a full-blown NPOV issue - but, more often, it's something we don't even notice.
It's all the same "undue weight" problem, when you get down to it, but there are differences in the way we need to handle them.
2008/10/8 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
b) ii) Alternatively, there's subtly incomplete topics. For example, an article about Kings Cross Station that doesn't mention the 1980s fire. The reader wouldn't know it had happened, so wouldn't know that they were missing anything. Perhaps an article on a politician that forgets to mention one of the cabinet posts they held, or omits their involvement in a particular cause celebre - things where you can read the article without immediately noticing something is missing.
(It's a little hard to give examples here without seeming silly - any case famous enough to be recognisable is so obvious that we would be really stupid not to notice we'd missed it out.)
I would argue not to major a problem. What the article tells the person is correct and the missing stuff is not meant to bias the article.
c) Finally, the most insidious kind: incomplete perspectives. If you look at many of our articles on World War II, for example, you'll find that they're quite one-sided; they do describe accurately what happened, but they do so overwhelmingly from the "viewpoint" of one side. The Germans moved troops here, the Germans decided this and that; the Soviet opponents read as merely reacting. This is rarely intentional, and sometimes hard to rectify; often, it's simply a matter of what the available sources provide, and one set of data being much more detailed than another. This might be a full-blown NPOV issue - but, more often, it's something we don't even notice.
It's all the same "undue weight" problem, when you get down to it, but there are differences in the way we need to handle them.
The problem here is that in many cases even if you do notice it is is rather hard to fix. Our early African conflicts in WW2 are written from the British perspective with the role of the Italians to lose badly. The problem is most histories written in English are going to talk about the battles from the English perspective and it is understandable if the Italians give the battles less coverage.
The various actions against the Tirpitz suffer similar issues although it doesn't help that in this case rather a lot of the German participants didn't survive the war.