From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Loosing more of our best contributors
I'd have to say I agree with that criticism. I've wasted some time myself on some of these contentious subjects, only to come back a few months later and find an abysmally horrid article in its place. Now I could start over again and try to hammer that article back into a reasonable state, or I could just revert to my 3-month-old version, or I could give up and say, "fine, the crappy article can stay". And, increasingly, a lot of people are taking the third option.
-Mark
I can relate to that. Even with non-contentious articles. I call it the "months later" effect. One of the delusions of Wikipedia is that when one has done good work, and an article receives no comments or further edits, that the article has somehow been accepted or approved. In most cases, I suspect, it just hasn't been noticed.
There's one article which I really, really liked a few months ago. Factual, vigorous, lively, and the collaborative product of many contributors. In the meantime, a new editor appeared and, _while in fact remaining within the bounds of good behavior_, reshaped it to his personal vision by extremely assertive editing of the article, monitoring it, and challenging any other edits that don't fit his point of view (which of course he regards as "neutral"). There's nothing actually wrong with the new article but _I just don't like it_.
One of the big problems with "hammering out consensus" in _any_ organization is the arrival of newcomers who did not take part in forming that consensus. I've seen it almost every place that I've worked. Someone will propose something that seems outrageous, and someone will pipe up and say, "But we spent all that time on it and we all _agreed_..." and, on analysis, it turns out that it was quite a while ago and many of the "all" are no longer there, the procedure had remained in place only because nobody challenged it... and the hard work of building consensus starts all over again with a different cast of characters.
But in a company, the arrival of newcomers is infrequent, structured, and the newcomers undergo some kind of formal or informal process of becoming oriented.
There's also a regression-to-the-mean-like effect. When an article is relatively undeveloped, and a random newcomer wanders in and decides to "edit this page," the chances of improvement are high. Not only because the average quality of the editors is higher than the quality of the page, but also because theor motivation is likely to be relatively pure. The main reason for wanting to edit a _low-quality_ page is that one actually knows something about the subject.
But when an article is of high quality, the people who have knowledge in the topic area are likely to leave it alone. The people who are most likely to edit it are people who want to push a point of view, or people who know much less than they think they know. The result is that the better an article is, the greater the chances that random edits will lower its quality.
I think there needs to be some mechanism in place so that when an article becomes generally regarded as good, Version 1.0 or whatever, it can be sort of locked in place. Perhaps it could be stamped with a version number, and any attempts to edit [[GoodArticle]] are automatically redirected to [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]]. Within a discussion forum, when and only when there is general consensus that [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]] is better than [[GoodArticle]], a sysop or suitably-authorized-panjandrum can move it to [[GoodArticle]].
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:30:48 -0400, Daniel P.B.Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
There's also a regression-to-the-mean-like effect. When an article is relatively undeveloped, and a random newcomer wanders in and decides to "edit this page," the chances of improvement are high. Not only because the average quality of the editors is higher than the quality of the page, but also because theor motivation is likely to be relatively pure. The main reason for wanting to edit a _low-quality_ page is that one actually knows something about the subject.
But when an article is of high quality, the people who have knowledge in the topic area are likely to leave it alone. The people who are most likely to edit it are people who want to push a point of view, or people who know much less than they think they know. The result is that the better an article is, the greater the chances that random edits will lower its quality.
I don't know if this effect actually exists -- I suspect it does -- but if there are any systemic mechanisms that impede the development of WP, we must be on the lookout for them.
I think there needs to be some mechanism in place so that when an article becomes generally regarded as good, Version 1.0 or whatever, it can be sort of locked in place. Perhaps it could be stamped with a version number, and any attempts to edit [[GoodArticle]] are automatically redirected to [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]]. Within a discussion forum, when and only when there is general consensus that [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]] is better than [[GoodArticle]], a sysop or suitably-authorized-panjandrum can move it to [[GoodArticle]].
That soulds a good idea.
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
[many true things]
But when an article is of high quality, the people who have knowledge in the topic area are likely to leave it alone. The people who are most likely to edit it are people who want to push a point of view, or people who know much less than they think they know. The result is that the better an article is, the greater the chances that random edits will lower its quality.
I completely agree with this view. We are loosing too many good authors due to these problems. Bored with reverting the same propaganda and POV again and again, having to repeat discussions every two months when the next guy arrives who insists on bringing up an already solved point. It's not only Adam Carr, there are many others who silently leave wikipedia.
I think there needs to be some mechanism in place so that when an article becomes generally regarded as good, Version 1.0 or whatever, it can be sort of locked in place. Perhaps it could be stamped with a version number, and any attempts to edit [[GoodArticle]] are automatically redirected to [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]]. Within a discussion forum, when and only when there is general consensus that [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]] is better than [[GoodArticle]], a sysop or suitably-authorized-panjandrum can move it to [[GoodArticle]].
We'll need mechanisms - what kind I don't know yet. For the moment I placed two feature requests on bugzilla: http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675 http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
I want to encourage everyone to vote for and leave comments on these requests.
That's the technical part. The other thing I want to propose is a change to our NPOV policy.
At the moment it says: "articles should have a neutral point of view." This dates back to the time where people had confidence that in the wiki process, in the struggle between adherents of different views after some time a good NPOV version finally emerges. I don't believe in this (I never did, actually). Yes, sometimes it happens, but only if non-involved people put a lot of effort in establishing compromises, moderating the conflicts and so on.
NPOV policy should be: "authors should write from a neutral point of view."
Of course, that's an ideal. You can never completely leave your personal views aside. But the important is: you can try. People who openly work for pushing POV in an article, shouldn't be allowed to edit that article at all. NPOV policy is not about "I insert my propaganda into an article and let others do the tedious taks of neutralizing it", it's "do your best to write from a neutral point of view. And if you are unable to do so, leave the article alone". And this policy should be enforced by the community.
greetings and sorry for the terrible english, elian
I also think the idea of having a stable locked version is good (I think I posted the idea in another thread), as it stops disruption.
I assume most users of wikipedia just go on to find information, and to see that an article has been 'generally agreed' on will be a positive sign for people to trust that article.
It might be interesting to put a kind of 'was this article helpful' or 'rate this article' thing on, like on MSDN. It might aid the editing of articles and / or be used as part of the 'generally agreed' procedure. Users could add a comment why they dont think it was useful, and if its a valid point the article could be edited.
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:09:12 +0200, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
[many true things]
But when an article is of high quality, the people who have knowledge in the topic area are likely to leave it alone. The people who are most likely to edit it are people who want to push a point of view, or people who know much less than they think they know. The result is that the better an article is, the greater the chances that random edits will lower its quality.
I completely agree with this view. We are loosing too many good authors due to these problems. Bored with reverting the same propaganda and POV again and again, having to repeat discussions every two months when the next guy arrives who insists on bringing up an already solved point. It's not only Adam Carr, there are many others who silently leave wikipedia.
I think there needs to be some mechanism in place so that when an article becomes generally regarded as good, Version 1.0 or whatever, it can be sort of locked in place. Perhaps it could be stamped with a version number, and any attempts to edit [[GoodArticle]] are automatically redirected to [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]]. Within a discussion forum, when and only when there is general consensus that [[GoodArticle/Version1.1]] is better than [[GoodArticle]], a sysop or suitably-authorized-panjandrum can move it to [[GoodArticle]].
We'll need mechanisms - what kind I don't know yet. For the moment I placed two feature requests on bugzilla: http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675 http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
I want to encourage everyone to vote for and leave comments on these requests.
That's the technical part. The other thing I want to propose is a change to our NPOV policy.
At the moment it says: "articles should have a neutral point of view." This dates back to the time where people had confidence that in the wiki process, in the struggle between adherents of different views after some time a good NPOV version finally emerges. I don't believe in this (I never did, actually). Yes, sometimes it happens, but only if non-involved people put a lot of effort in establishing compromises, moderating the conflicts and so on.
NPOV policy should be: "authors should write from a neutral point of view."
Of course, that's an ideal. You can never completely leave your personal views aside. But the important is: you can try. People who openly work for pushing POV in an article, shouldn't be allowed to edit that article at all. NPOV policy is not about "I insert my propaganda into an article and let others do the tedious taks of neutralizing it", it's "do your best to write from a neutral point of view. And if you are unable to do so, leave the article alone". And this policy should be enforced by the community.
greetings and sorry for the terrible english, elian
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Matthew Larsen wrote
I also think the idea of having a stable locked version is good (I think I posted the idea in another thread), as it stops disruption.
Well, then you don't have a wiki. You have one of those other things, where you need some permission to edit. In fact this is exactly the suggestion that bright people who don't know the wiki way always will come up with, in their first five minutes of thinking about how to make it work.
My own other wiki experience suggests to me that stasis is probably death for a wiki.
Charles
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:55:49 +0100, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Matthew Larsen wrote
I also think the idea of having a stable locked version is good (I think I posted the idea in another thread), as it stops disruption.
Well, then you don't have a wiki. You have one of those other things, where you need some permission to edit. In fact this is exactly the suggestion that bright people who don't know the wiki way always will come up with, in their first five minutes of thinking about how to make it work.
I'm been editing Wikipedia for over a year, and I think it's a (potentially) good idea.
At 09:55 PM 10/10/2004 +0100, Charles Matthews wrote:
Matthew Lar> > I also think the idea of having a stable locked version is good (I
think I posted the idea in another thread), as it stops disruption.
Well, then you don't have a wiki. You have one of those other things, where you need some permission to edit. In fact this is exactly the suggestion that bright people who don't know the wiki way always will come up with, in their first five minutes of thinking about how to make it work.
Well, I've been an editor here on Wikipedia practically since it started and this is an idea I've come up with a lot too, so don't dismiss it so lightly. I think it bears some deeper consideration. How about the following variant on the idea, for example:
The default page that everyone first sees when they go to an article is the most up-to-date "working" version, just like what we see when we go to an article currently. Editing it, viewing its history, all of that would remain exactly the same. The difference would be that tucked away in the sidebar or at the top of the page would be a link that says "view most recent stable version". This would take the reader to the most recent version that's been tagged by whatever form of "editorial staff" or "approval rating" system we eventually come up with (to be worked out separately). Following any links from that "stable" version (including the edit link) would take one right back to the "working" version of whatever page is linked to, so it would be impossible to ignore the work in progress.
Does that address your concerns about stasis? The only remaining issue I can think of is ensuring that the "stable" version isn't considered so great that people keep mindlessly reverting to it when they shouldn't, and that's similar enough to the existing issue of article reversion that I suspect it wouldn't take a lot of policy work to handle it.
Bryan Derksen wrote
Does that address your concerns about stasis?
Isn't it basically the case that the moment when the current WP community starts taking the attitude that it knows better than prospective newcomers is also going to be the moment when WP stops being hot, and looks more like a mutual admiration society/
Charles
At 03:14 PM 10/11/2004 +0100, Charles Matthews wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote
Does that address your concerns about stasis?
Isn't it basically the case that the moment when the current WP community starts taking the attitude that it knows better than prospective newcomers is also going to be the moment when WP stops being hot, and looks more like a mutual admiration society/
The version that gets picked as the "milestone" won't always _remain_ the milestone. Eventually the selection mechanism (still undefined - it could very well include some voting system that allows oldsters and newcomers alike to participate in it) will revisit the article and if there's been any improvement the current version will become the _new_ milestone. And under the approach I suggested in the email you're responding to, all of this would be going on invisibly behind the scenes so people would still be defaulting to the current "working" version when they visit that article.
There are already aspects of Wikipedia operation where the current WP community takes the attitude that it knows better than prospective newcomers - things like the voting process for admin status (one needs a certain number of edits in one's history to plausibly succeed), the Arbitration Committee, etc. None of these strike me as particularly egregious, and I don't think a low-key method of marking "milestones" is going to be worse than that. Just make it clear that the process is an ongoing one, and that good new edits will ultimately be included in a milestone version at some point.
Bryan Derksen wrote
The version that gets picked as the "milestone" won't always _remain_ the milestone.
Well OK. We have 'featured articles' and may wish to revisit those too, I suppose. But the main point is that WP pages should constantly and obviously be 'open for business', not subject to hurdles for editors.
Charles
At 08:34 AM 10/12/2004 +0100, Charles Matthews wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote
The version that gets picked as the "milestone" won't always _remain_ the milestone.
Well OK. We have 'featured articles' and may wish to revisit those too, I suppose. But the main point is that WP pages should constantly and obviously be 'open for business', not subject to hurdles for editors.
Which would be the default view of things under the system I proposed. The current "working" version is the first thing people see, and unless they specifically go out of their way to click on the "view last milestone" link in the sidebar it'll be the only version they see.
IMO this is the key for rolling out and testing any new feature on Wikipedia without causing a major uproar; it should be possible for people who don't care about the feature to just ignore it and continue to use Wikipedia as they always have, with it behaving in the same way it always did. Templates violated this somewhat since it's not obvious how to edit them when you stumble upon one in an article, but categories fit it well since one can simply ignore them and they make no difference. TeX and table wikimarkup was sort of midway between those, since they required a bit of learning to use properly but one could still do those things the "old way" instead. Can't think of any other recent major additions to Wikipedia offhand, I'm probably missing a few.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
At 08:34 AM 10/12/2004 +0100, Charles Matthews wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote
The version that gets picked as the "milestone" won't always
_remain_ the
milestone.
Well OK. We have 'featured articles' and may wish to revisit those too, I suppose. But the main point is that WP pages should constantly and obviously be 'open for business', not subject to hurdles for editors.
Which would be the default view of things under the system I proposed. The current "working" version is the first thing people see, and unless they specifically go out of their way to click on the "view last milestone" link in the sidebar it'll be the only version they see.
I have no problem with a stable version (The name "milestone" is not my favorite.) as long as there continues to be an editable version. The editable version in such circumstances could have a note at the beginning for the benefit of the unwary visitor.
The text below has been subject to heated differences of opinion, for a less controversial version see [[.../stable]].
There remains the question of how a stable version would be decided. One important factor should be the participation of a representative from each major POV on the matter.
IMO this is the key for rolling out and testing any new feature on Wikipedia without causing a major uproar; it should be possible for people who don't care about the feature to just ignore it and continue to use Wikipedia as they always have, with it behaving in the same way it always did. Templates violated this somewhat since it's not obvious how to edit them when you stumble upon one in an article, but categories fit it well since one can simply ignore them and they make no difference. TeX and table wikimarkup was sort of midway between those, since they required a bit of learning to use properly but one could still do those things the "old way" instead. Can't think of any other recent major additions to Wikipedia offhand, I'm probably missing a few.
If a person is not working on mathematics related material he does not need to concern himself with the needed TeX markup. Normal text base material is not affected at all. The templates seem to attract those people who believe that there is a technological solution for everything, and who often fail to heed the human side of editing.
Ec
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:24:25 +0100, Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com wrote:
I also think the idea of having a stable locked version is good (I think I posted the idea in another thread), as it stops disruption.
I assume most users of wikipedia just go on to find information, and to see that an article has been 'generally agreed' on will be a positive sign for people to trust that article.
It might be interesting to put a kind of 'was this article helpful' or 'rate this article' thing on, like on MSDN. It might aid the editing of articles and / or be used as part of the 'generally agreed' procedure. Users could add a comment why they dont think it was useful, and if its a valid point the article could be edited.
Good idea.
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
That's the technical part. The other thing I want to propose is a change to our NPOV policy. At the moment it says: "articles should have a neutral point of view." NPOV policy should be: "authors should write from a neutral point of view."
Perfect. Yes.
(I thought that was what it already meant, actually.)
Jimmy?
- d.
David Gerard wrote
NPOV policy should be: "authors should write from a neutral point of
view."
Perfect. Yes.
(I thought that was what it already meant, actually.)
Me too. Sadly, it seems that some people go with 'I'm sure we need an article on this, I've supplied my POV, someone please do the rest'. And explicitly - there is of course a great deal more where that is done implicitly/unintentionally.
Charles
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:09:12 +0200, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
That's the technical part. The other thing I want to propose is a change to our NPOV policy.
At the moment it says: "articles should have a neutral point of view." This dates back to the time where people had confidence that in the wiki process, in the struggle between adherents of different views after some time a good NPOV version finally emerges. I don't believe in this (I never did, actually). Yes, sometimes it happens, but only if non-involved people put a lot of effort in establishing compromises, moderating the conflicts and so on.
NPOV policy should be: "authors should write from a neutral point of view."
Of course, that's an ideal. You can never completely leave your personal views aside. But the important is: you can try. People who openly work for pushing POV in an article, shouldn't be allowed to edit that article at all. NPOV policy is not about "I insert my propaganda into an article and let others do the tedious taks of neutralizing it", it's "do your best to write from a neutral point of view. And if you are unable to do so, leave the article alone". And this policy should be enforced by the community.
I agree with this change.
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
The other thing I want to propose is a change to our NPOV policy.
At the moment it says: "articles should have a neutral point of view." This dates back to the time where people had confidence that in the wiki process, in the struggle between adherents of different views after some time a good NPOV version finally emerges. I don't believe in this (I never did, actually). Yes, sometimes it happens, but only if non-involved people put a lot of effort in establishing compromises, moderating the conflicts and so on.
NPOV policy should be: "authors should write from a neutral point of view."
Of course, that's an ideal. You can never completely leave your personal views aside. But the important is: you can try. People who openly work for pushing POV in an article, shouldn't be allowed to edit that article at all. NPOV policy is not about "I insert my propaganda into an article and let others do the tedious taks of neutralizing it", it's "do your best to write from a neutral point of view. And if you are unable to do so, leave the article alone".
I basically disagree. Wikipedia is about its contents, not about the people who write them. The NPOV article is the objective, and will remain there when the participants are long gone. I still believe in the wiki process of finding common ground.
This is not to say that it is bad to say that authors should write from a neutral point of view. They should continue to be encouraged to do so. Nevertheless, none of us can completely escape his biases, and that sometimes makes us the worst judges of our own neutrality. Try as we might, others may not consider that our writing has achieved neutrality. Writing from other than a POV in any subject is next to impossible. The POV pusher just takes it further than reasonable, and fails to consider alternative POVs in the process of synthesizing a good article. Please don't confuse the natural tendency to have a POV with POV pushing.
Ec