joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
I don't think it's so much "cynical" as "inaccurate" to say that people prefer quality to easy access. People want both, but they're realistic (not cynical) enough to realize that perfect information isn't always available. What they want, more than "quality" or "easy," is USEFUL -- meaning, usually accurate enough to answer their curiosity about whatever topic they're interested in, but also easy enough to use that they don't have to waste a lot of time finding finding the information.
Right now, Wikipedia satisfies those needs most of the time. Citizendium, because it only has a few thousand articles, almost never answers those needs. Moreover, the rate at which it is adding new articles suggests that it is a long time before it will come close to matching WIkipedia for usefulness.
For people to prefer Citizendium over Wikipedia, it has to massively increase the number of articles and topics it covers. If it can do that, while also providing higher-quality information, it will replace WIkipedia. However, it has a long way to go before it can meet that test.
If I were running Citizendium, I would relax the user registration rules a little bit while still requiring user registration. I would also adopt a copyright scheme that allows Citizendium to freely copy over content from Wikipedia. I would then launch a campaign aimed at copying over the 100,000 best articles from Wikipedia and editing them to meet Citizendium's quality standards. Once that was completed, I would go for the next 100,000 articles, and so on until Citizendium had enough content to rival WIkipedia for actual usefulness, while also providing higher quality.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:22:38PM -0600, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
I don't think it's so much "cynical" as "inaccurate" to say that people prefer quality to easy access. People want both, but they're realistic (not cynical) enough to realize that perfect information isn't always available. What they want, more than "quality" or "easy," is USEFUL -- meaning, usually accurate enough to answer their curiosity about whatever topic they're interested in, but also easy enough to use that they don't have to waste a lot of time finding finding the information.
Right now, Wikipedia satisfies those needs most of the time. Citizendium, because it only has a few thousand articles, almost never answers those needs. Moreover, the rate at which it is adding new articles suggests that it is a long time before it will come close to matching WIkipedia for usefulness.
For people to prefer Citizendium over Wikipedia, it has to massively increase the number of articles and topics it covers. If it can do that, while also providing higher-quality information, it will replace WIkipedia. However, it has a long way to go before it can meet that test.
If I were running Citizendium, I would relax the user registration rules a little bit while still requiring user registration. I would also adopt a copyright scheme that allows Citizendium to freely copy over content from Wikipedia. I would then launch a campaign aimed at copying over the 100,000 best articles from Wikipedia and editing them to meet Citizendium's quality standards. Once that was completed, I would go for the next 100,000 articles, and so on until Citizendium had enough content to rival WIkipedia for actual usefulness, while also providing higher quality.
Meanwhile veropedia is doing exactly that and getting ahead of Citizendium. It is doing this through wikipedia editors selecting good articles, checking them and transfering them to veropedia. I think it would be good if we flagged that an article had been put on to veropedia. I might add that I have not yet joined the folks who do this, but I have been asked and I'm thinking about it.
Brian.
| Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate
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 Dec 19, 2007 11:05 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Meanwhile veropedia is doing exactly that
Wikipedia should be doing what Veropedia is doing. It's not a new idea. I think Mav suggested (like five years ago, or something) using the Nupedia domain for exactly that.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:18:56PM -0800, Grease Monkee wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 11:05 PM, Brian Salter-Duke <[1]b_duke@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Meanwhile veropedia is doing exactly thatWikipedia should be doing what Veropedia is doing. It's not a new idea. I think Mav suggested (like five years ago, or something) using the Nupedia domain for exactly that.
Why was it not done? We have talked about stable versions for too long. We should be doing it or supporting veropedia doing it.
Brian.
References
- mailto:b_duke@bigpond.net.au
On 20/12/2007, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:18:56PM -0800, Grease Monkee wrote:
Wikipedia should be doing what Veropedia is doing. It's not a new idea. I think Mav suggested (like five years ago, or something) using the Nupedia domain for exactly that.
Why was it not done? We have talked about stable versions for too long. We should be doing it or supporting veropedia doing it.
It got lost in endless talking, as far as I recall.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Why was it not done? We have talked about stable versions for too long. We should be doing it or supporting veropedia doing it.
It got lost in endless talking, as far as I recall.
Gah. In the past few months we came this close -> <- to having anonymous page creation restored before it got bogged down in some sort of debate, and we had hope for stable versions rise briefly only to sink back into the mire again as well. I wish Wikipedia would stop toying with me.
On 20/12/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Gah. In the past few months we came this close -> <- to having anonymous page creation restored before it got bogged down in some sort of debate, and we had hope for stable versions rise briefly only to sink back into the mire again as well. I wish Wikipedia would stop toying with me.
The stable version stuff is apparently only delayed, with WMF's meagre technical staff having their lives filled with fundraiser and moving house.
- d.
On Dec 20, 2007 12:36 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:18:56PM -0800, Grease Monkee wrote:
Wikipedia should be doing what Veropedia is doing. It's not a new idea. I think Mav suggested (like five years ago, or something)
using
the Nupedia domain for exactly that.
Why was it not done? We have talked about stable versions for too long. We should be doing it or supporting veropedia doing it.
It got lost in endless talking, as far as I recall.
- d.
Oh come on, David. You know as well as I do that when the "wheels" want something done it gets done, like oversite or checkuser. And when they don't feel like doing doing something they see to it that the community "talks" until the cows come home. You can't blame this on the community engaging in "endless talking", as there is no other initiative that has such widespread consensus. This is a failure of leadership to honor the will of the community, nothing more.
On Dec 20, 2007 7:26 AM, Grease Monkee welloiledmachine@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 12:36 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:18:56PM -0800, Grease Monkee wrote:
Wikipedia should be doing what Veropedia is doing. It's not a new idea. I think Mav suggested (like five years ago, or something)
using
the Nupedia domain for exactly that.
Why was it not done? We have talked about stable versions for too
long.
We should be doing it or supporting veropedia doing it.
It got lost in endless talking, as far as I recall.
- d.
Oh come on, David. You know as well as I do that when the "wheels" want something done it gets done, like oversite or checkuser. And when they don't feel like doing doing something they see to it that the community "talks" until the cows come home. You can't blame this on the community engaging in "endless talking", as there is no other initiative that has such widespread consensus. This is a failure of leadership to honor the will of the community, nothing more.
Expanding on this a little more: proposals that reduce transparency and enhance control over individual editors seem to happen with no problema, like checkuser, oversite and the admin irc channel (proposed right here on this list).
But the really important things like stable versions ...
As an aside ... one of the things that companies and governments do to rejuvenate themselves is to create internal forks that compete with eachother in various ways. These can be small and limited in scope but still have a tremendous effect. That's one of the angles that could be designed into Mav's idea.
On Dec 20, 2007 9:53 AM, Grease Monkee welloiledmachine@gmail.com wrote:
Expanding on this a little more: proposals that reduce transparency and enhance control over individual editors seem to happen with no problema, like checkuser, oversite and the admin irc channel (proposed right here on this list).
But the really important things like stable versions ...
Checkuser and oversight are also relatively simple things to implement technically and aren't used by large numbers of editors. Also, in both cases, what this actually was is that previously if these things were required, we had to ask a developer to do them.
I think what you're actually seeing here is that the developers and sysadmins are much more motivated to make changes that reduce their workload and free them up for more important tasks (understandably, since we are very under-manned comparitively)
As to the admin IRC channel, IRC channels don't require any changes to Wikipedia itself, since they exist completely outside of it.
-Matt
On 20/12/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think what you're actually seeing here is that the developers and sysadmins are much more motivated to make changes that reduce their workload and free them up for more important tasks (understandably, since we are very under-manned comparitively)
You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to start from an assumption of bad faith, fill in gaps in your own knowledge with the worst assumption you can think of, then extrapolate from there.
- d.
On Dec 20, 2007 1:53 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think what you're actually seeing here is that the developers and sysadmins are much more motivated to make changes that reduce their workload and free them up for more important tasks (understandably, since we are very under-manned comparitively)
You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to start from an assumption of bad faith, fill in gaps in your own knowledge with the worst assumption you can think of, then extrapolate from there.
- d.
Oh dear David - still stooping to ad hominems. You make this list what it is.
Quoting Grease Monkee welloiledmachine@gmail.com:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:53 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think what you're actually seeing here is that the developers and sysadmins are much more motivated to make changes that reduce their workload and free them up for more important tasks (understandably, since we are very under-manned comparitively)
You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to start from an assumption of bad faith, fill in gaps in your own knowledge with the worst assumption you can think of, then extrapolate from there.
- d.
Oh dear David - still stooping to ad hominems. You make this list what it is.
This isn't an ad hominem. I suggest you look the term up. An ad homimen is "X said Y. But X is a Z, so Y is wrong". To use examples I've seen on this list: "X said Y. But X is (for/against BADSITES)(for/against spoiler warnings), (for/against eating babies (ok, haven't seen the last one on this list. Besides all sane people agree that babies are delicious)) so Y is wrong."
David's comment in contrast was a humorous remark not directed at anyone commenting on his perception of the general meta patterns of how people appear to constructing conclusions. Now if David had said "but X is assuming bad faith, so statement Y said by X must be wrong" then you might have a point.
On 20/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Grease Monkee welloiledmachine@gmail.com:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:53 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to start from an assumption of bad faith, fill in gaps in your own knowledge with the worst assumption you can think of, then extrapolate from there.
Oh dear David - still stooping to ad hominems. You make this list what it is.
This isn't an ad hominem. I suggest you look the term up. An ad homimen is "X
No, no, you didn't see what he did there: an ad hominem, rather than addressing any actual points, by accusation of ad hominem.
- d.
On Dec 20, 2007 3:20 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Grease Monkee welloiledmachine@gmail.com:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:53 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to start from an assumption of bad faith, fill in gaps in your own knowledge with the worst assumption you can think of, then extrapolate from there.
No, no, you didn't see what he did there: an ad hominem, rather than addressing any actual points, by accusation of ad hominem.
- d.
Jeeze, can't a guy talk about quality and stable versions without the being assailed by delusional and raving attacks?
David, I'm not the meat in your sandwich. Can we get back to a productive discussion?
On Dec 20, 2007 12:38 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 9:53 AM, Grease Monkee welloiledmachine@gmail.com wrote:
Expanding on this a little more: proposals that reduce transparency and enhance control over individual editors seem to happen with no problema, like checkuser, oversite and the admin irc channel (proposed right here
on
this list).
But the really important things like stable versions ...
Checkuser and oversight are also relatively simple things to implement technically and aren't used by large numbers of editors. Also, in both cases, what this actually was is that previously if these things were required, we had to ask a developer to do them.
I think what you're actually seeing here is that the developers and sysadmins are much more motivated to make changes that reduce their workload and free them up for more important tasks (understandably, since we are very under-manned comparitively)
As to the admin IRC channel, IRC channels don't require any changes to Wikipedia itself, since they exist completely outside of it.
-Matt
Actually, Matt, the stable version concept I mentioned here didn't involve a single new line of code.
On 20/12/2007, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
If I were running Citizendium, I would relax the user registration rules a little bit while still requiring user registration. I would also adopt a copyright scheme that allows Citizendium to freely copy over content from Wikipedia. I would then launch a campaign aimed at copying over the 100,000 best articles from Wikipedia and editing them to meet Citizendium's quality standards. Once that was completed, I would go for the next 100,000 articles, and so on until Citizendium had enough content to rival WIkipedia for actual usefulness, while also providing higher quality.
Except the first sentence, and that the editing happens on Wikipedia, you just described Veropedia.
- d.
On Dec 19, 2007 8:22 PM, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Right now, Wikipedia satisfies those needs most of the time. Citizendium, because it only has a few thousand articles, almost never answers those needs. Moreover, the rate at which it is adding new articles suggests that it is a long time before it will come close to matching WIkipedia for usefulness.
I seem to recall Larry talking about how Citizendium after one year had more articles than Wikipedia did after one year. I'm not sure if I'm paraphrasing him right, and/or if his original statement was accurate, but I don't think one can write off Citizendium just yet.
They still haven't picked a license, though.
On 12/21/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I seem to recall Larry talking about how Citizendium after one year had more articles than Wikipedia did after one year. I'm not sure if I'm paraphrasing him right, and/or if his original statement was accurate, but I don't think one can write off Citizendium just yet.
Citizendium may well teach Wikipedia some humility on the way. But likely it will learn some of the same for itself. Citizendium definitely has Nupedia beat by now, quite easily. Both in terms of money spent, and in terms of results.
One thing Larry Sanger may be miscalculating is he thinks there will be a sudden surge of growth in Citizendiums activity level at some point, like a slashdotting. Let's face it, just on the coat-tails of Wikipedia, Citizendium has *been* slashdotted, and the surge hasn't yet materialized. There is no real reason to presume that it will. Academics aren't susceptible to the same volatile flash-mob sensibilities as nerds.
What may be in the future for Citizendium as a milestone, is the point where they have a single article or more that they feel compare favourably, or which outside evaluators compare to be better than wikipedias. That may well spur on a real race on the highest quality of both encyclopaedias articles, which could in the end either benefit both projects, or derail them into focusing only on a narrow apex of articles, and forget all about the long tail.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 21/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
One thing Larry Sanger may be miscalculating is he thinks there will be a sudden surge of growth in Citizendiums activity level at some point, like a slashdotting. Let's face it, just on the coat-tails of Wikipedia, Citizendium has *been* slashdotted, and the surge hasn't yet materialized. There is no real reason to presume that it will. Academics aren't susceptible to the same volatile flash-mob sensibilities as nerds.
Larry's been putting in a lot of legwork recruiting experts in various fields. CZ seems to be growing at a rate its community can handle.
What may be in the future for Citizendium as a milestone, is the point where they have a single article or more that they feel compare favourably, or which outside evaluators compare to be better than wikipedias. That may well spur on a real race on the highest quality of both encyclopaedias articles, which could in the end either benefit both projects,
Indeed. There's got to be more than one way to do this thing.
or derail them into focusing only on a narrow apex of articles, and forget all about the long tail.
That won't happen while we have such a low barrier to entry. My Pokemans, let me show you them.
- d.