Hi!
I'm new to wikipedia, and I think that it is a great project that can help to extend the ideas of free software to other areas, and to non technical people.
I don't want to start a flame war but I want to express my point of view on the way that articles are edited in wikipedia.
I've contributed with some articles. I'm rather disapointed, though. For example, I've rewriten the article on Lebesgue integration in the English wikipedia, since I find that the article explained the tenichal difficulties of Riemman integral, but it does not define the notion of Lebesgue integral (perhaps I had to tell you that I'm a mathematician, I work at the mathematics department of Buenos Aires University, Argentina).
After that, looking at the history of the page, I find that some rather old previous versions where much better, but they had been deleted since a user consider them "too advanced". Needless to say, Lebesgue integration is indeed an advanced topic in mathematics, so that any article on this subject is necesarilly advanced (or does not covered the topic).
It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too much open, so that open that anyone can annonymously edit any page. That I think is to much.that at least one should have to register and log in in order to modify a page, one has to take a responsability for what is saying (specially for deleting some one else work). In the current model, we don't know who write what (even though, most civilizated wiikipedians do log in, but I think this should be mandatory)
Another idea that comes to my mind is that there could be some teams for especific topics, that manage the pages in some section (say mathematics, geogrpahy, economics or whatever). This does not mean that any user from outside the team could not submit modifications. But without a team of core developers or a project leader for each section how can you assure a minimum of quality of wikipedia? (this is more or less the model in all free software projects, no project grants write access to cvs to everyone anonymously, say)
Best regards, Pablo De Nápoli
Pablo De Nápoli wrote:
Hi!
I'm new to wikipedia, and I think that it is a great project that can help to extend the ideas of free software to other areas, and to non technical people.
Welcome to Wikipedia Pablo. I don't mean to be nasty, but I feel obliged to mention Most Common Wikipedia Faux Pas #9 "judging and trying to change what Wikipedia is before you understand it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMost_common_Wikipedia_faux_pas
I don't want to start a flame war but I want to express my point of view on the way that articles are edited in wikipedia.
I've contributed with some articles. I'm rather disapointed, though. For example, I've rewriten the article on Lebesgue integration in the English wikipedia, since I find that the article explained the tenichal difficulties of Riemman integral, but it does not define the notion of Lebesgue integral (perhaps I had to tell you that I'm a mathematician, I work at the mathematics department of Buenos Aires University, Argentina).
After that, looking at the history of the page, I find that some rather old previous versions where much better, but they had been deleted since a user consider them "too advanced". Needless to say, Lebesgue integration is indeed an advanced topic in mathematics, so that any article on this subject is necesarilly advanced (or does not covered the topic).
So fix it. Revert it to the previous version, and argue your case on the talk page.
It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too much open, so that open that anyone can annonymously edit any page. That I think is to much.that at least one should have to register and log in in order to modify a page, one has to take a responsability for what is saying (specially for deleting some one else work). In the current model, we don't know who write what (even though, most civilizated wiikipedians do log in, but I think this should be mandatory)
You'll be pleased to know that there is a faction you can join, and plenty of people to argue against. This has been dicussed many times before. Suffice to say that restrictions of this nature are against Wiki culture and are generally unpopular. The essential reason for this is that low barriers to entry encourage contribution and hence growth, and it is generally thought that this benefit outweighs the associated cost.
Another idea that comes to my mind is that there could be some teams for especific topics, that manage the pages in some section (say mathematics, geogrpahy, economics or whatever). This does not mean that any user from outside the team could not submit modifications. But without a team of core developers or a project leader for each section how can you assure a minimum of quality of wikipedia? (this is more or less the model in all free software projects, no project grants write access to cvs to everyone anonymously, say)
The concept related to this is the WikiProject, although it is traditionally associated with content generation, not protection. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject
Feel free to organise groups and review content, however you can't expect such groups to carry more weight in a dispute than a new user. Wikipedia is based around low barriers to entry, and the opinion of an anonymous reader should be treated with as much respect as that of a trusted user.
-- Tim Starling.
I've contributed with some articles. I'm rather disapointed, though. For example, I've rewriten the article on Lebesgue integration in the English wikipedia, since I find that the article explained the tenichal difficulties of Riemman integral, but it does not define the notion of Lebesgue integral (perhaps I had to tell you that I'm a mathematician, I work at the mathematics department of Buenos Aires University, Argentina).
After that, looking at the history of the page, I find that some rather old previous versions where much better, but they had been deleted since a user consider them "too advanced". Needless to say, Lebesgue integration is indeed an advanced topic in mathematics, so that any article on this subject is necesarilly advanced (or does not covered the topic).
So fix it. Revert it to the previous version, and argue your case on the talk page.
Another possibility would be to create an article for the general public as well as one with technical details etc., similar to [[M-theory]] and [[M-theory simplified]].
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:43:36AM -0300, Pablo De Nápoli wrote:
After that, looking at the history of the page, I find that some rather old previous versions where much better, but they had been deleted since a user consider them "too advanced". Needless to say, Lebesgue integration is indeed an advanced topic in mathematics, so that any article on this subject is necesarilly advanced (or does not covered the topic).
Such a topic is an extreme example, but you always should try to write an article clear and easy enough that one who has just started to work into this topic will find great help in you article.
It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too much open, so that open that anyone can annonymously edit any page.
In my eyes wikipedia is NOT open enough, but the problem is mankind has too much bad behaviours and we can't trust our own kind.
Another idea that comes to my mind is that there could be some teams for especific topics, that manage the pages in some section (say mathematics, geogrpahy, economics or whatever). This does not mean that any user from outside the team could not submit modifications. But without a team of core developers or a project leader for each section how can you assure a minimum of quality of wikipedia?
There are WikiProjects, although they mostly have no leader, they bring some order into the chaos.
(this is more or less the model in all free software projects, no project grants write access to cvs to everyone anonymously, say)
That's a different thing. It requires special abilites to write software, abilities which only few people have.
ciao, tom
Pablo De Nápoli wrote:
I've contributed with some articles. I'm rather disapointed, though. For example, I've rewriten the article on Lebesgue integration in the English wikipedia, since I find that the article explained the tenichal difficulties of Riemman integral, but it does not define the notion of Lebesgue integral (perhaps I had to tell you that I'm a mathematician, I work at the mathematics department of Buenos Aires University, Argentina).
After that, looking at the history of the page, I find that some rather old previous versions where much better, but they had been deleted since a user consider them "too advanced". Needless to say, Lebesgue integration is indeed an advanced topic in mathematics, so that any article on this subject is necesarilly advanced (or does not covered the topic).
I see your point there, but consider this: An encyclopedia should explain what "Lebesgue integration" is and what it does, in a way that an average reader can understand it. It would be no problem to add mathematical details *after* such an introduction, but a degree in mathematics should *not* be required to understand the introduction itself.
If you like to elaborate on mathematical topics in detail, wikibooks.org might be a good place. I've written some biochemistry pages there myself.
It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too much open, so that open that anyone can annonymously edit any page. That I think is to much.that at least one should have to register and log in in order to modify a page, one has to take a responsability for what is saying (specially for deleting some one else work). In the current model, we don't know who write what (even though, most civilizated wiikipedians do log in, but I think this should be mandatory)
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections
Another idea that comes to my mind is that there could be some teams for especific topics, that manage the pages in some section (say mathematics, geogrpahy, economics or whatever). This does not mean that any user from outside the team could not submit modifications. But without a team of core developers or a project leader for each section how can you assure a minimum of quality of wikipedia? (this is more or less the model in all free software projects, no project grants write access to cvs to everyone anonymously, say)
There are WikiProjects for starters, but if you want to recruit a "math team", go ahead :-) Also, we have (rather vague) plans for a "wikipedia 1.0", which will contain only selected, proof-read article versions from wikipedia. This will have to wait until the current server crisis is solved, though.
Magnus
Pablo De Nápoli wrote in part:
It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too much open, so that open that anyone can annonymously edit any page. That I think is to much.that at least one should have to register and log in in order to modify a page, one has to take a responsability for what is saying (specially for deleting some one else work). In the current model, we don't know who write what (even though, most civilizated wiikipedians do log in, but I think this should be mandatory)
Well, the short response is: Get to know Wikipedia, and then say if you still believe this. I suspect that some experienced Wikipedians /do/ think this way, albeit probably not as strongly as you do (although I would disagree).
However, if you're worrying that you might not want to work on Wikipedia, then you will need a longer response. There is a whole lot of this at [[en:Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]] (that is shorthand for the URL <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Replies to common objections>), so I'll shut up since I can't say anything here that isn't said better there. (And that's not very surprising, since that text was edited in the wiki way, and has had far more input and refinement than this extemporaneous email! ^_^)
-- Toby
Pablo De Nápoli a écrit:
Hi Pablo
Your experience is interesting :-)
<snip>
It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too much open, so that open that anyone can annonymously edit any page. That I think is to much.that at least one should have to register and log in in order to modify a page, one has to take a responsability for what is saying (specially for deleting some one else work).
No one but an admin can delete someone else work. Admins are presumed of trust. Even if one fail, another can undelete. Apart from that, everything is kept in history. You may pick back some of the pas content of that article to integrate it again in the current article anytime
In the current model, we don't know who write what
(even though, most civilizated wiikipedians do log in, but I think this should be mandatory)
We may be civilized even when not loggued
Another idea that comes to my mind is that there could be some teams for especific topics, that manage the pages in some section (say mathematics, geogrpahy, economics or whatever). This does not mean that any user from outside the team could not submit modifications. But without a team of core developers or a project leader for each section how can you assure a minimum of quality of wikipedia?
Truely Pablo, apart from the wikiproject, this happens quite naturally in some topics. Most editors have a favorite topic or two. They will in time have most of the articles on the topic on their watch list. Little by little, they come to know the other editors who care about these topics. They know they can trust them, they also know which one are more likely to express a certain type of bias. That may not be directly visible, but depending on the person who edited last a page, an editor will go and check or not. He will no if he can expect a certain type of edition or not. We watch articles together. And on these articles that we watch together, there is little chance that much damage is done and goes unnoticed.
Welcome to the place !
"PDN" == Pablo De N?poli <Pablo> writes:
PDN> I don't want to start a flame war but I want to express my PDN> point of view on the way that articles are edited in PDN> wikipedia.
There are a lot of places to do this: on the village pump, on the meta-wikipedia, and on the talk pages for individual articles.
One advantage of using the wiki itself for commenting on how the wiki works is that you'll see what others have said before.
PDN> Needless to say, Lebesgue integration is indeed an advanced PDN> topic in mathematics, so that any article on this subject is PDN> necesarilly advanced (or does not covered the topic).
That's an important trade-off to note: extent of coverage versus generality. It's probably a good idea to start articles with general introductory text, and then if one needs to get into the nitty-gritty, do it later on. Give the layman a chance to bail out.
It's also worth noting that Wikipedia is not a textbook. There's another project for that: www.wikibooks.org. Knowing how much information to include in a Wikipedia article is a black art.
PDN> It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too much open, PDN> so that open that anyone can annonymously edit any page. That PDN> I think is to much.
There's an article about this on the meta wikipedia:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_users_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit...
Good pros-and-cons discussion here:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anonymous_users_should_not_be_allowed_to...
PDN> But without a team of core developers or a project leader for PDN> each section how can you assure a minimum of quality of PDN> wikipedia?
One reason that Wikipedia works so well is that it's structured to support a low level of commitment from a high number of people. Other encyclopedias are built with a high level of commitment from a low number of people.
There is a project to make an Open Content encyclopedia like that. It's called Nupedia, and the main page is here:
You should check it out.
~ESP
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org