I was describing to someone how Wikipedia works:
"anyone can edit" etc.
He answered with this argument:
"Wikipedia is the triumph of the average person!
of the man in the street!)"
(average meaning: not good, not bad, just OK)
I asked "why?"
His explanation:
"Great brilliant works are built by individuals.
Groups of people can only create average works.
If someone writes something good in the wiki,
other average persons will intervene with his/her
work and turn it into an average work. If someone
writes something bad in the wiki, the others will
again turn it into something of average value.
with your system (meaning: Wikipedia's system)
you can be sure that you will never create
something too bad but also never something too
good. You can create only average articles."
The idea behind his argument was that Wikipedia
will be a good resource as long as it attracts
good cotnributors. but it will soon become an
average site/encyclopaedia because it allows
anyone to join the project and edit, and most
people are just average persons and not brilliant
writers.
Do you think it's true? and how can we answer
this argument?
--Optim
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
--mav
Hoi,
Red links are part of the MediaWiki architecture. They indicate that a
subject has not been covered in an article. Consequently, they are
functional and, a good thing to have.
When you link to a "disambiguation page", there is a chance that there is a
reference to the missing subject, there is however no guarantee. When you
are looking for a given subject, chances are that Wikidata does have an
item for the missing article.
Magnus Manske created a new template on the en.wp named "Redwd" [1]. It
does do two things, it leaves the red link red and, it refers to both
Wikidata and the Reasonator. I blogged about it [2] and Jane used it on a
disambiguation page [3].
The template is relatively simple and it can easily be copied to any other
Wikipedia that is interested in this functionality. As it is the first
iteration of this functionality, I am sure that there will be people who
will provide us with improvements to what is already on offer.
I want to thank Magnus for the code and Multichill for the documentation.
Thanks,
GerardM
PS, the disambiguation by Reasonator will show all items that fit a
criterium [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Redwd
[2]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/mark-davis-wrote-shama-lama-ding…
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koekkoek
[4] http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Koekkoek