"Thomas Dalton" wrote
It seems like they do have something of a systemic bias problem. Not that en:wiki doesn't, but I doubt it's as bad as citizendium's.
I expect both projects have a similar systematic bias, but it's really just a matter of priorities, rather than anything permanent.
Cough ... exactly how many articles does Citizendium have in German? Wikipedia (the project) wins that match 600,000-nil. The _priority_ for Citizens of non-English articles is where?
We're naturally going to prioritise articles relevant to the English-speaking world. There are far more than 5000 articles relevant to the English-speaking world, so Citizendium hasn't got around to other articles yet, Wikipedia already has all the obviously important articles that we consider high priority, so we've started on the lower priority ones.
I doubt that's really the position. CZ has _installed_ some extra bias by its requirements to edit. I think that's just a fair observation on defining "systemic bias", meaning bias in coverage that is an unintended consequence of the composition of the community.
Anyway a brief surf around the place would suggest that its more "writerly" feel (as opposed to "editorly", which is what WP does quite well) has consequences, too.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
I'd agree with charles comments above, but let me rephrase my observation.
Citizendium has, in my opinion, an infinitely larger potential for maintaining its current systemic bias, unlike wikipedia, which is constantly correcting this (see things such as User:llrwych's recent devotion to the history of Ethiopia and the like). The very nature of the cz project and its base of contributors demands a bias in the topics it gives substantial coverage to.
Start with intellectual and personal elitism, and you're going to have that bias show in your work, just like academia. Also just like academia, this bias doesn't negate the value of the work they do focus on, but you still have to acknowledge that there will always be holes in their coverage.
On Jan 23, 2008 1:08 PM, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
It seems like they do have something of a systemic bias problem. Not
that
en:wiki doesn't, but I doubt it's as bad as citizendium's.
I expect both projects have a similar systematic bias, but it's really just a matter of priorities, rather than anything permanent.
Cough ... exactly how many articles does Citizendium have in German? Wikipedia (the project) wins that match 600,000-nil. The _priority_ for Citizens of non-English articles is where?
We're naturally going to prioritise articles relevant to the English-speaking world. There are far more than 5000 articles relevant to the English-speaking world, so Citizendium hasn't got around to other articles yet, Wikipedia already has all the obviously important articles that we consider high priority, so we've started on the lower priority ones.
I doubt that's really the position. CZ has _installed_ some extra bias by its requirements to edit. I think that's just a fair observation on defining "systemic bias", meaning bias in coverage that is an unintended consequence of the composition of the community.
Anyway a brief surf around the place would suggest that its more "writerly" feel (as opposed to "editorly", which is what WP does quite well) has consequences, too.
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
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 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'd agree with charles comments above, but let me rephrase my observation.
Citizendium has, in my opinion, an infinitely larger potential for maintaining its current systemic bias, unlike wikipedia, which is constantly correcting this (see things such as User:llrwych's recent devotion to the history of Ethiopia and the like). The very nature of the cz project and its base of contributors demands a bias in the topics it gives substantial coverage to.
Start with intellectual and personal elitism, and you're going to have that bias show in your work, just like academia. Also just like academia, this bias doesn't negate the value of the work they do focus on, but you still have to acknowledge that there will always be holes in their coverage.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about the lack of English speaking experts on topics about non-English speaking countries? I'm not sure how serious an issue that is - most academics anywhere in the world speak decent English, if they look for them, I'm sure they can find suitable experts of Ethiopian history, or whatever.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about the lack of English speaking experts on topics about non-English speaking countries?
No, I'm talking about credentialed/degreed people (and their pretenders) who can't bear the idead of writing a thousand words on the Simpsons. The kind of person that finds Citizendium attractive is the same that thinks that the Galileo article must morally be longer than the Paris Hilton one. Wikipedia doesn't make that kind of distinction. In other words, they're just like a wiki version of Britannica, which the world doesn't want or need. No person of my generation (I'm 20) would ever choose the online version of Britannica over Wikipedia, even if it was free.
On Jan 23, 2008 2:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'd agree with charles comments above, but let me rephrase my
observation.
Citizendium has, in my opinion, an infinitely larger potential for maintaining its current systemic bias, unlike wikipedia, which is
constantly
correcting this (see things such as User:llrwych's recent devotion to
the
history of Ethiopia and the like). The very nature of the cz project and
its
base of contributors demands a bias in the topics it gives substantial coverage to.
Start with intellectual and personal elitism, and you're going to have
that
bias show in your work, just like academia. Also just like academia,
this
bias doesn't negate the value of the work they do focus on, but you
still
have to acknowledge that there will always be holes in their coverage.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about the lack of English speaking experts on topics about non-English speaking countries? I'm not sure how serious an issue that is - most academics anywhere in the world speak decent English, if they look for them, I'm sure they can find suitable experts of Ethiopian history, or whatever.
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 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about the lack of English speaking experts on topics about non-English speaking countries?
No, I'm talking about credentialed/degreed people (and their pretenders) who can't bear the idead of writing a thousand words on the Simpsons. The kind of person that finds Citizendium attractive is the same that thinks that the Galileo article must morally be longer than the Paris Hilton one. Wikipedia doesn't make that kind of distinction. In other words, they're just like a wiki version of Britannica, which the world doesn't want or need. No person of my generation (I'm 20) would ever choose the online version of Britannica over Wikipedia, even if it was free.
If they haven't already, I imagine they will work out a system for subjects that Universities don't offer degrees in (although plenty of people have degrees in Media and could well write quality articles about the Simpsons). At first, they are likely to concentrate on traditional subjects, but once they've got those to a decent level, I expect they'll move onto the less traditional stuff.
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 22:07 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'd agree with charles comments above, but let me rephrase my observation.
Citizendium has, in my opinion, an infinitely larger potential for maintaining its current systemic bias, unlike wikipedia, which is constantly correcting this (see things such as User:llrwych's recent devotion to the history of Ethiopia and the like). The very nature of the cz project and its base of contributors demands a bias in the topics it gives substantial coverage to.
Start with intellectual and personal elitism, and you're going to have that bias show in your work, just like academia. Also just like academia, this bias doesn't negate the value of the work they do focus on, but you still have to acknowledge that there will always be holes in their coverage.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about the lack of English speaking experts on topics about non-English speaking countries? I'm not sure how serious an issue that is - most academics anywhere in the world speak decent English, if they look for them, I'm sure they can find suitable experts of Ethiopian history, or whatever.
Certainly, one would only have to look at specialist universities, for example my own the [[School of Oriental and African Studies]] in London.
IMHO, Wikipedia should - at some point - do a recruiting drive for academics to get more involved with specialist subjects.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
IMHO, Wikipedia should - at some point - do a recruiting drive for academics to get more involved with specialist subjects.
I've tried to do that personally. The problem is that academics feel entitled to a certain authority. When they can't remember where they saw a source, they inevitably fall back on: I'm a Ph.D, I trump you.
On Jan 23, 2008 2:24 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 22:07 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'd agree with charles comments above, but let me rephrase my
observation.
Citizendium has, in my opinion, an infinitely larger potential for maintaining its current systemic bias, unlike wikipedia, which is
constantly
correcting this (see things such as User:llrwych's recent devotion to
the
history of Ethiopia and the like). The very nature of the cz project
and its
base of contributors demands a bias in the topics it gives substantial coverage to.
Start with intellectual and personal elitism, and you're going to have
that
bias show in your work, just like academia. Also just like academia,
this
bias doesn't negate the value of the work they do focus on, but you
still
have to acknowledge that there will always be holes in their coverage.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about the lack of English speaking experts on topics about non-English speaking countries? I'm not sure how serious an issue that is - most academics anywhere in the world speak decent English, if they look for them, I'm sure they can find suitable experts of Ethiopian history, or whatever.
Certainly, one would only have to look at specialist universities, for example my own the [[School of Oriental and African Studies]] in London.
IMHO, Wikipedia should - at some point - do a recruiting drive for academics to get more involved with specialist subjects.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
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 Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:30:07PM -0800, Steven Walling wrote:
IMHO, Wikipedia should - at some point - do a recruiting drive for academics to get more involved with specialist subjects.
I've tried to do that personally. The problem is that academics feel entitled to a certain authority. When they can't remember where they saw a source, they inevitably fall back on: I'm a Ph.D, I trump you.
Some might, but others do not. I am a retired academic. I had 40 years in the trade and still do some research and help with teaching. I love the balance of wikipedia. There are quite a few academics here and they do not fall back on their Ph D. We need peopel who know where to look for sources.
On the other hand I can understand why working academics are not interested. It will not get them promotion.
Brian.
On Jan 23, 2008 2:24 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 22:07 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'd agree with charles comments above, but let me rephrase my
observation.
Citizendium has, in my opinion, an infinitely larger potential for maintaining its current systemic bias, unlike wikipedia, which is
constantly
correcting this (see things such as User:llrwych's recent devotion to
the
history of Ethiopia and the like). The very nature of the cz project
and its
base of contributors demands a bias in the topics it gives substantial coverage to.
Start with intellectual and personal elitism, and you're going to have
that
bias show in your work, just like academia. Also just like academia,
this
bias doesn't negate the value of the work they do focus on, but you
still
have to acknowledge that there will always be holes in their coverage.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about the lack of English speaking experts on topics about non-English speaking countries? I'm not sure how serious an issue that is - most academics anywhere in the world speak decent English, if they look for them, I'm sure they can find suitable experts of Ethiopian history, or whatever.
Certainly, one would only have to look at specialist universities, for example my own the [[School of Oriental and African Studies]] in London.
IMHO, Wikipedia should - at some point - do a recruiting drive for academics to get more involved with specialist subjects.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Some might, but others do not. I am a retired academic. I had 40 years in the trade and still do some research and help with teaching. I love the balance of wikipedia. There are quite a few academics here and they do not fall back on their Ph D. We need peopel who know where to look for sources.
On the other hand I can understand why working academics are not interested. It will not get them promotion.
It does tend to be students and retired academics who are most likely to contribute. But to be fair, I think it's the same with other professions. Journalists and other professional writers who I have approached about contributing are used to being paid for their work. It often takes so much work (and luck) just to get paid a living wage to write that I think writers feel somehwat superstitious about writing for free.
I also think that for academics and writers who do want to contribute, wiki may itself be a hurdle for many of them. I've been given lists of work to do from a local historian bc she wanted to help out but didn't have the time and energy to learn how.
On Jan 23, 2008 3:23 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:30:07PM -0800, Steven Walling wrote:
IMHO, Wikipedia should - at some point - do a recruiting drive for academics to get more involved with specialist subjects.
I've tried to do that personally. The problem is that academics feel entitled to a certain authority. When they can't remember where they saw
a
source, they inevitably fall back on: I'm a Ph.D, I trump you.
Some might, but others do not. I am a retired academic. I had 40 years in the trade and still do some research and help with teaching. I love the balance of wikipedia. There are quite a few academics here and they do not fall back on their Ph D. We need peopel who know where to look for sources.
On the other hand I can understand why working academics are not interested. It will not get them promotion.
Brian.
On Jan 23, 2008 2:24 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 22:07 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I'd agree with charles comments above, but let me rephrase my
observation.
Citizendium has, in my opinion, an infinitely larger potential for maintaining its current systemic bias, unlike wikipedia, which is
constantly
correcting this (see things such as User:llrwych's recent devotion
to
the
history of Ethiopia and the like). The very nature of the cz
project
and its
base of contributors demands a bias in the topics it gives
substantial
coverage to.
Start with intellectual and personal elitism, and you're going to
have
that
bias show in your work, just like academia. Also just like
academia,
this
bias doesn't negate the value of the work they do focus on, but
you
still
have to acknowledge that there will always be holes in their
coverage.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about the lack of English speaking experts on topics about non-English speaking countries? I'm not sure how serious an issue that is - most
academics
anywhere in the world speak decent English, if they look for them,
I'm
sure they can find suitable experts of Ethiopian history, or
whatever.
Certainly, one would only have to look at specialist universities, for example my own the [[School of Oriental and African Studies]] in
London.
IMHO, Wikipedia should - at some point - do a recruiting drive for academics to get more involved with specialist subjects.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I like the concept of Citizendium, but I have questions about the exercise of allowing wholesale Wikipedia articles to be transferred across. It defeats the whole purpose of their goal of being "trusted" when its mirroring what's already available on Wikipedia. What's the point? There are only a handful of original articles that have been uploaded there that are in any shape or form different to the syntax and content of existing Wikipedia articles, and these are very few and far between.
I also have concerns that some authors there who transferred articles are claiming credit for them on their user page, when most of that content came from Wikipedia to begin with. It's no different than plagiarism found in school essays.
Don't get me wrong. I think Larry has done a great job so far but I have questions on the whole point of the project.
Meg
That is supposed to be the point of "CZ-live". It means an article has not just been copied, but modified at least to some extent. But if a WP article is good, why should it not be expected that one in CZ will be somewhat similar? The point of free content is it can be reused. The goals of filling up all red links and getting only high-quality articles can't be optimized simultaneously. The main problem there is the same as the main problem as Wikipedia--not enough good people willing to do hard work on important subjects.
On Jan 23, 2008 5:40 PM, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I like the concept of Citizendium, but I have questions about the exercise of allowing wholesale Wikipedia articles to be transferred across. It defeats the whole purpose of their goal of being "trusted" when its mirroring what's already available on Wikipedia. What's the point? There are only a handful of original articles that have been uploaded there that are in any shape or form different to the syntax and content of existing Wikipedia articles, and these are very few and far between.
I also have concerns that some authors there who transferred articles are claiming credit for them on their user page, when most of that content came from Wikipedia to begin with. It's no different than plagiarism found in school essays.
Don't get me wrong. I think Larry has done a great job so far but I have questions on the whole point of the project.
Meg
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thanks David. Yes, it's the same with any encyclopaedia, not just Wikipedia or CZ. Finding authors who can do good quality reliable articles. But what is the object here? Speedily filling up red-links or doing good quality articles with trusted authors? CZ doesn't approve anonymous IP edits, so at least you know it's written by one of their authors and there is at least some form of accountability. I guess it's down to personal preference though. Why bother reading a replicate article in CZ when most search engines will lead you first to the Wikipedia one anyway.
Meg
On 25/01/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
That is supposed to be the point of "CZ-live". It means an article has not just been copied, but modified at least to some extent. But if a WP article is good, why should it not be expected that one in CZ will be somewhat similar? The point of free content is it can be reused. The goals of filling up all red links and getting only high-quality articles can't be optimized simultaneously. The main problem there is the same as the main problem as Wikipedia--not enough good people willing to do hard work on important subjects.
On Jan 23, 2008 5:40 PM, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I like the concept of Citizendium, but I have questions about the exercise of allowing wholesale Wikipedia articles to be transferred across. It defeats the whole purpose of their goal of being "trusted" when its mirroring what's already available on Wikipedia. What's the point? There are only a handful of original articles that have been uploaded there that are in any shape or form different to the syntax and content of existing Wikipedia articles, and these are very few and far between.
I also have concerns that some authors there who transferred articles are claiming credit for them on their user page, when most of that content came from Wikipedia to begin with. It's no different than plagiarism found in school essays.
Don't get me wrong. I think Larry has done a great job so far but I have questions on the whole point of the project.
Meg
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 23, 2008 5:24 PM, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, Wikipedia should - at some point - do a recruiting drive for academics to get more involved with specialist subjects.
I've been trying to do this, within my field. This went out to most historians of science in the Americas and the UK: http://hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsJan2008Ross.html . I've gotten a fair number of emails about it, all of them positive so far. Some of them said they planned to get involved, though I haven't seen much on-wiki activity from them yet. Academics can be receptive to the idea, especially if an appeal to edit is coming from a colleague. If you're involved with any sort of professional academic society, try getting a short letter about Wikipedia into their newsletter or main professional news outlet; the editors of such things are likely to jump at the chance to publish something about Wikipedia related specifically to their field.
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
Wikipedia hits 5000 Star Wars articles.
Going well.
On 23/01/2008, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
It seems like they do have something of a systemic bias problem. Not that en:wiki doesn't, but I doubt it's as bad as citizendium's.
I expect both projects have a similar systematic bias, but it's really just a matter of priorities, rather than anything permanent.
Cough ... exactly how many articles does Citizendium have in German? Wikipedia (the project) wins that match 600,000-nil. The _priority_ for Citizens of non-English articles is where?
This is wiki*EN*-l, so I was talking about the English Wikipedia. I imagine the German Wikipedia has a bias towards subjects relevant to the German-speaking world (although, probably not to the same extent enwiki did when it was the size of dewiki, since it had the advantage of being able to learn from enwiki's mistakes).
We're naturally going to prioritise articles relevant to the English-speaking world. There are far more than 5000 articles relevant to the English-speaking world, so Citizendium hasn't got around to other articles yet, Wikipedia already has all the obviously important articles that we consider high priority, so we've started on the lower priority ones.
I doubt that's really the position. CZ has _installed_ some extra bias by its requirements to edit. I think that's just a fair observation on defining "systemic bias", meaning bias in coverage that is an unintended consequence of the composition of the community.
Anyway a brief surf around the place would suggest that its more "writerly" feel (as opposed to "editorly", which is what WP does quite well) has consequences, too.
That's probably also a source, and one Wikipedia doesn't have to anywhere near the same extent. There can be multiple systemic biases at the same time.