I generally agree with Peter here.
I think that there is a general problem of quality on Wikipedia articles,
especially on articles about humanities, social sciences, etc.
I also agree that letting the usual process to care about articles quality
is not sufficient. In nearly ten years, there was enough time to fix the issue,
if it the current policies would be appropriate for dealing with this problem.
This also does not affect the English Wikipedia alone.
For what I know, it also affects the French Wikipedia.
So this list is appropriate to discuss this issue.
2010/9/1 Peter Damian <peter.damian(a)btinternet.com>om>:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snow" <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>
The post I was responding to was nothing but an
assessment of a
Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
speculation about what Wikipedia *might* have.
It was explicitly contrasting how Wikipedia actually is, or tends to be
like, as compared with the corresponding CZ article. I think the
observations were accurate and reflect pretty well what controversial
Wikipedia articles are like, namely festooned with supposedly reliable
citations, and bearing obvious battlescars from years of edit-warring. The
contrast was specifically prompted by a claim by Gerard that Wikipedia's
relaxed attitude to 'expertise' leads to better articles. I don't think it
If your intent is to
discuss content issues in Wikipedia, then you need to actually
explicitly discuss them.
I don't want to discuss content as such. I want to discuss generic and
systematic problems with the way Wikipedia is organised that lead to poor
quality articles. There needs first to be some recognition there is a
quality problem and that it is serious - I think there is an element of
denial that is evident from some of the replies here, as well as elsewhere.
Once the problem is recognised, there needs to be a careful examination of
possible causes for this. And then a further examination of how policy and
governance could be changed to address some or all of these causes. Does
that sound reasonable?
I might suggest that you should
familiarize yourself with some of our other mailing lists and consider
whether another list, like wikien-l, is better suited to have this
conversation, since foundation-l exists for issues related to the
Wikimedia Foundation and the overall movement surrounding its projects,
not just Wikipedia.)
I consider this is the best mailing list for the purpose. What do people