From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com
I have only skimmed the Guardian article, but it seems fair and balanced. I bet the "grades" rating the reviewed articles on a scale from 1 to 10 are realistic indicators of quality.
I agree.
We don't pay enough attention to quality.
This is what bothers me most about Wikipedia.
Low-quality articles are tolerated on the assumption that every low-quality article is the nucleus around which a pearl will coalesce.
Unfortunately, one of the things that seems to be scaling, possibly increasing, is the ratio between the rate at which irritating grains of pollutant are introduced and the rate at which nacre is being deposited.
The de facto situation here seems to be that we would _rather_ have more article than better articles.
I thought the Guardian article was very fair and accurate. And speaks quite well of Wikipedia. We have consciously chosen to produce an encyclopedia in which most articles are "almost good enough."
But if we want them to be better, we have got to do something to direct more nacre around fewer nuclei.
Quality is not one of the "five pillars of Wikipedia." And only a certain level of quality results from the natural operation of the Wiki process.
If we want Wikipedia to be not just a "free encyclopedia," but a "high- quality free encyclopedia," something needs to change.
This is what bothers me most about Wikipedia.
Low-quality articles are tolerated on the assumption that every low-quality article is the nucleus around which a pearl will coalesce.
Unfortunately, one of the things that seems to be scaling, possibly increasing, is the ratio between the rate at which irritating grains of pollutant are introduced and the rate at which nacre is being deposited.
The de facto situation here seems to be that we would _rather_ have more article than better articles.
I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are low-quality articles "tolerated"? Who would rather have more articles than better articles? Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and better articles?
I thought the Guardian article was very fair and accurate. And speaks quite
well of Wikipedia. We have consciously chosen to produce an encyclopedia in which most articles are "almost good enough."
But if we want them to be better, we have got to do something to direct more nacre around fewer nuclei.
Either would probably be sufficient, but I agree we could do more to focus more on a core set of articles. It's one of the reasons I think we should eliminate VFD and the like. It wastes far too much time focussing on at best accomplishing nothing and at worst decreasing the quality of the encyclopedia.
Quality is not one of the "five pillars of Wikipedia." And only a certain
level of quality results from the natural operation of the Wiki process.
If we want Wikipedia to be not just a "free encyclopedia," but a "high- quality free encyclopedia," something needs to change.
Probably a lot needs to change, and not just "something". But that's pretty obvious. What's less obvious is what it is that needs to change. Anthony
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are low-quality articles "tolerated"?
by not being deleted
Who would rather have more articles than better articles?
It is the logical endpoint of the inclusionist position
Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and better articles?
Those of us that can do the maths. The relivant caculation is:
Ew=A*meanAE
AQ=AE
So
MeanAQ=Ew/A
Where
A= no of articles E=effort w=wikipedia Q=quality.
-- geni
On 10/24/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are low-quality articles "tolerated"?
by not being deleted
So deletion is the only solution to something that is low quality? I would think making it higher quality would also suffice.
Who would rather have more articles than better
articles?
It is the logical endpoint of the inclusionist position
Not at all. I'm an inclusionist, and I'd much rather have better articles than more articles. However 1) I think deletion is a waste of time that could be better spent improving articles, and 2) I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, I think you can have more articles *and* better articles. So please, if you're not an inclusionist, don't speak for us. That's called a strawman argument.
Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and better
articles?
Those of us that can do the maths. The relivant caculation is:
Ew=A*meanAE
AQ=AE
So
MeanAQ=Ew/A
Where
A= no of articles E=effort w=wikipedia Q=quality.
I don't remember ever learning that one in my math class.
--
geni
Those of us that can do the maths. The relivant caculation is:
Ew=A*meanAE
AQ=AE
So
MeanAQ=Ew/A
Where
A= no of articles E=effort w=wikipedia Q=quality.
I don't remember ever learning that one in my math class.
Let me expand on why that equation is bullshit. Effort is not a constant, and the more articles you have, the more contributors you'll have, and the more effort you'll have. Also, not all effort is equal, nor does it have an equal effect on quality. In fact, some of the worst quality articles happen to be the articles which have the most editors, and the most effort, spent on them. Keeping around a short factual article about an obscure topic is not going to bring the average quality of the encyclopedia down. In fact, a short article on an obscure topic is easy to make into a high quality short article on an obscure topic, and will therefore bring the average quality of the encyclopedia up.
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Let me expand on why that equation is bullshit. Effort is not a constant, and the more articles you have, the more contributors you'll have, and the more effort you'll have.
I think the term you are looking for is over simplifed modle. I know this is the case (Ew is a compersite of at least three terms). I could go go through with more complex models but the result is the same. Beyond a certian number of articles the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the average article quality starts to fall.
Also, not all effort is equal, nor does it have an equal effect on quality. In fact, some of the worst quality articles happen to be the articles which have the most editors, and the most effort, spent on them.
Prove it.
Keeping around a short factual article about an obscure topic is not going to bring the average quality of the encyclopedia down. In fact, a short article on an obscure topic is easy to make into a high quality short article on an obscure topic, and will therefore bring the average quality of the encyclopedia up.
However such articles don't seem to turn up at AFD much and even these articles require mentanence.
-- geni
On 10/24/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Let me expand on why that equation is bullshit. Effort is not a
constant,
and the more articles you have, the more contributors you'll have, and
the
more effort you'll have.
I think the term you are looking for is over simplifed modle. I know this is the case (Ew is a compersite of at least three terms). I could go go through with more complex models but the result is the same. Beyond a certian number of articles the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the average article quality starts to fall.
I guess I'm supposed to take your word for this.
Also, not all effort is equal, nor does it have an
equal effect on quality. In fact, some of the worst quality articles
happen
to be the articles which have the most editors, and the most effort,
spent
on them.
Prove it.
Well, it's an opinion, not a fact, but if I recall correctly those two articles that Jimbo brought up before were quite popular and heavily edited.
Keeping around a short factual article about an obscure topic is
not going to bring the average quality of the encyclopedia down. In
fact, a
short article on an obscure topic is easy to make into a high quality
short
article on an obscure topic, and will therefore bring the average
quality of
the encyclopedia up.
However such articles don't seem to turn up at AFD much and even these articles require mentanence.
I don't understand what you're getting at. In my experience most articles listed on AFD could be turned into quality short factual articles in about 5 minutes. Did you read my suggestion about replacing AFD with "Articles for Improvement"? Would that satisfy your problem with articles which require "mentanence"?
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I guess I'm supposed to take your word for this.
No you are free to try and come up with a modle that is consitant with reality but at the same time doesn't have the diminishing returns kicking in. Of course trivualy since the amount of effort availible on the internet is finite a large enough number of articles will always bring their mean quality down.
Well, it's an opinion, not a fact, but if I recall correctly those two articles that Jimbo brought up before were quite popular and heavily edited.
And nowhere near as bad as some of the ignored dross that no one edits. The cleanup catogries are growing at an impressive rate.
I don't understand what you're getting at. In my experience most articles listed on AFD could be turned into quality short factual articles in about 5 minutes.
But they aren't.
Did you read my suggestion about replacing AFD with "Articles for Improvement"? Would that satisfy your problem with articles which require "mentanence"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cleanup_by_month
And thats just straight cleanup. The system is already overloaded.
-- geni
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
So deletion is the only solution to something that is low quality? I would think making it higher quality would also suffice.
yeah but I think we have fairly firmly established that that isn't happening.
Not at all. I'm an inclusionist, and I'd much rather have better articles than more articles. However 1) I think deletion is a waste of time that could be better spent improving articles, and 2) I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, I think you can have more articles *and* better articles. So please, if you're not an inclusionist, don't speak for us. That's called a strawman argument.
1)I can delete stuff at a rate of more than once a second
2)Errr that isn't happening.
3)It's called Reductio ad absurdum. The logical endpoint of the inclusionist position is to include everything.
-- geni
On 10/24/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
So deletion is the only solution to something that is low quality? I
would
think making it higher quality would also suffice.
yeah but I think we have fairly firmly established that that isn't happening.
Articles aren't getting better? I disagree.
Not at all. I'm an inclusionist, and I'd much rather have better articles
than more articles. However 1) I think deletion is a waste of time that could be better spent improving articles, and 2) I don't think the two
are
mutually exclusive, I think you can have more articles *and* better articles. So please, if you're not an inclusionist, don't speak for us. That's
called
a strawman argument.
1)I can delete stuff at a rate of more than once a second
Speedy delete, maybe, but the current deletion process is too permanent to allow any admin to speedy delete any article for any reason. If you allowed editors to view deleted articles that might be a solution, but until then it isn't.
2)Errr that isn't happening.
I disagree.
3)It's called Reductio ad absurdum. The logical endpoint of the inclusionist position is to include everything.
Huh? Is the logical endpoint of the deletionist position to delete everything?
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Speedy delete, maybe, but the current deletion process is too permanent to allow any admin to speedy delete any article for any reason. If you allowed editors to view deleted articles that might be a solution, but until then it isn't.
I dunno it seems to be working at Uncyclopedia. Servival of the fittest and all that.
2)Errr that isn't happening.
I disagree.
See all the recent messages on the mailing list
3)It's called Reductio ad absurdum. The logical endpoint of the inclusionist position is to include everything.
Huh? Is the logical endpoint of the deletionist position to delete everything?
Yep. In practice deletionists tend to be in a much better position to draw a line in the sand.
-- geni
On 10/24/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Speedy delete, maybe, but the current deletion process is too permanent
to
allow any admin to speedy delete any article for any reason. If you
allowed
editors to view deleted articles that might be a solution, but until
then it
isn't.
I dunno it seems to be working at Uncyclopedia. Servival of the fittest and all that.
Is that sarcasm or something? You're not seriously suggesting that Wikipedia become more like Uncyclopedia, are you?
2)Errr that isn't happening.
I disagree.
See all the recent messages on the mailing list
3)It's called Reductio ad absurdum. The logical endpoint of the inclusionist position is to include everything.
Huh? Is the logical endpoint of the deletionist position to delete everything?
Yep. In practice deletionists tend to be in a much better position to draw a line in the sand.
You're seriously misunderstanding the technique of reductio ad absurdium. For one thing, you seem to be expanding rather than reducing. I really don't have the time to teach you logic, but your current argument is more of a slippery slope argument than one of reductio ad absurdium. In fact, I think I've decided (once again) to not get involved in any discussions with you. I just wish I could force myself to abide by this decision.
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Is that sarcasm or something? You're not seriously suggesting that Wikipedia become more like Uncyclopedia, are you?
We both have a simular problem (substandard articles). It would appear they are being proactive.
-- geni
3)It's called Reductio ad absurdum. The logical endpoint of the inclusionist position is to include everything.
Huh? Is the logical endpoint of the deletionist position to delete everything?
Considering the high quality of some of the articles that are deleted, and the repeated, lunatic refusal of AfU to consider correcting those blatant errors....
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On Mon 24 Oct 2005, dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
This is what bothers me most about Wikipedia.
Low-quality articles are tolerated on the assumption that every low-quality article is the nucleus around which a pearl will coalesce.
Unfortunately, one of the things that seems to be scaling, possibly increasing, is the ratio between the rate at which irritating grains of pollutant are introduced and the rate at which nacre is being deposited.
The de facto situation here seems to be that we would _rather_ have more article than better articles.
I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are low-quality articles "tolerated"? Who would rather have more articles than better articles? Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and better articles?
Editor makes a good-faith edit to article. It is reverted by another editor who is uncompromisingly pushing a POV. A conflict results, sometimes more acrimonious than at other times.
Rinse, lather, repeat. Eventually the first editor will decide that it is more rewarding to start creating articles & turn those red links blue than to argue over content -- unless that editor is also uncompromising about a certain POV, & decides to squat on certain articles to preserve that POV.
Either path means that articles improve to a certain point, then unless something happens they remain at that level of quality. We need more tools to ensure that "something happens".
Geoff
I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are low-quality articles "tolerated"? Who would rather have more articles than better articles? Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and
better
articles?
Editor makes a good-faith edit to article. It is reverted by another editor who is uncompromisingly pushing a POV. A conflict results, sometimes more acrimonious than at other times.
Rinse, lather, repeat. Eventually the first editor will decide that it is more rewarding to start creating articles & turn those red links blue than to argue over content -- unless that editor is also uncompromising about a certain POV, & decides to squat on certain articles to preserve that POV.
Either path means that articles improve to a certain point, then unless something happens they remain at that level of quality. We need more tools to ensure that "something happens".
Geoff
I'm not sure you're referring to the same issue as Daniel, but you do raise a major one. What tools do you think we need more of to ensure that something happens?
I think the Requests for Comments page is a good idea for how to resolve these types of problems, but last time I followed it (many months ago) it was more about trying to get someone banned than about resolving problems with articles. Looking at the page again it seems it's been reorganized and more focused around "Article content disputes". But it's just a bunch of links to talk pages, so in that sense it's probably not focussed enough to do much good.
Do you think the RfC page could be adapted to resolve these issues more easily? I don't know if it could or not. It takes a lot of effort to argue your point effectively, and it's pretty easy for a troll to game the system until you give up. This is a really tough problem, somewhat inherent in the concept of a wiki, and I don't have much of a clue how to resolve it.
Initially I saw Wikipedia as more of a rough draft than a finished product. Over the years it's been made abundantly clear that the majority of Wikipedians don't see it that way. I've come to accept that, but I guess I never really figured out how it would work. Along those same lines, I've never heard anyone explain how you could solve the quality problems inherent in a wiki without throwing out all the advantages.
Nowadays my greatest optimism is that we'll be able to point to the highest quality version of any particular article, even if it isn't the most recent version. So in your example, the POV pusher might be able to make his/her version the latest version, but the software would still recognize that most people consider that version to be POV. I suppose if you're going to that you might as well just make that version the latest version, though. So now I've come full circle.
I don't know. :)
Anthony
We can try to eliminate the really easy backlog and than work our way to the really hard one? The endless piles of backlog continue to grow at a rapid rates but let finish on eliminating the backlog to zero and maintain that way until next week and than move on. It just an idea on a way to focus the effort of wikipedians and editors so we clean up the really ugly masses so we can focus on the ugly one thus systemically improve wikipedia one level of quality at a time.
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are
low-quality
articles "tolerated"? Who would rather have more articles than better articles? Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and
better
articles?
Editor makes a good-faith edit to article. It is reverted by another editor who is uncompromisingly pushing a POV. A conflict results, sometimes more acrimonious than at other times.
Rinse, lather, repeat. Eventually the first editor will decide that it
is
more rewarding to start creating articles & turn those red links blue than to argue over content -- unless that editor is also uncompromising about a certain POV, & decides to squat on certain articles to preserve that POV.
Either path means that articles improve to a certain point, then unless something happens they remain at that level of quality. We need more tools to ensure that "something happens".
Geoff
I'm not sure you're referring to the same issue as Daniel, but you do raise a major one. What tools do you think we need more of to ensure that something happens?
I think the Requests for Comments page is a good idea for how to resolve these types of problems, but last time I followed it (many months ago) it was more about trying to get someone banned than about resolving problems with articles. Looking at the page again it seems it's been reorganized and more focused around "Article content disputes". But it's just a bunch of links to talk pages, so in that sense it's probably not focussed enough to do much good.
Do you think the RfC page could be adapted to resolve these issues more easily? I don't know if it could or not. It takes a lot of effort to argue your point effectively, and it's pretty easy for a troll to game the system until you give up. This is a really tough problem, somewhat inherent in the concept of a wiki, and I don't have much of a clue how to resolve it.
Initially I saw Wikipedia as more of a rough draft than a finished product. Over the years it's been made abundantly clear that the majority of Wikipedians don't see it that way. I've come to accept that, but I guess I never really figured out how it would work. Along those same lines, I've never heard anyone explain how you could solve the quality problems inherent in a wiki without throwing out all the advantages.
Nowadays my greatest optimism is that we'll be able to point to the highest quality version of any particular article, even if it isn't the most recent version. So in your example, the POV pusher might be able to make his/her version the latest version, but the software would still recognize that most people consider that version to be POV. I suppose if you're going to that you might as well just make that version the latest version, though. So now I've come full circle.
I don't know. :)
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If we want Wikipedia to be not just a "free encyclopedia," but a "high- quality free encyclopedia," something needs to change.
Here's an idea. Let's combine "cleanup" and "deletion" into "articles for improvement". Any article which hasn't improved in one month, and isn't a featured article, can be listed, along with a note on areas for improvement. If no one adopts the article and addresses at least some of the issues of it within 2 weeks, it gets deleted. I'd go for that, as long as we limited nominations to say 5 per person per day.