--- Steve Lefevre lefevre.10@osu.edu wrote:
Hey folks -
A PGP sign-off system will keep track of who wrote what, and who agrees with it. Authors who have had a lot of people sign off on their word will get bonus scores on their texts, and articles that well-reputed authors sign off on will get also get bonus scores.
I don't have any comments (yet) on your idea, but I thought I'd mention that cryptographic signatures would be overkill here, IMO: it's quite reasonable to trust the "history" function of a wiki to verify that someone wrote something, or "voted" for an article fork, etc.
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Matt R wrote:
I don't have any comments (yet) on your idea, but I thought I'd mention that cryptographic signatures would be overkill here, IMO: it's quite reasonable to trust the "history" function of a wiki to verify that someone wrote something, or "voted" for an article fork, etc.
Does the 'history' function maintain separate forks? I haven't really looked at it, but it doesn't seem to really jump out at the user. When I read a wikipedia article, I see only one text under a title at any given time. I can't choose between different competing articles.
What I am suggesting is something like this: when a user looks up, say, "Abortion", they are presented with a listing of high-rated articles to choose from, probably with a summary or something to help them make their decision about what to read.
Does the 'history' function maintain separate forks? I haven't really looked at it, but it doesn't seem to really jump out at the user. When I read a wikipedia article, I see only one text under a title at any given time. I can't choose between different competing articles.
What I am suggesting is something like this: when a user looks up, say, "Abortion", they are presented with a listing of high-rated articles to choose from, probably with a summary or something to help them make their decision about what to read.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. With this system, articles would not be of as high a quality. Your not considering quality over quantity. Why have 10 good articles to choose from when you can have one excellent one?
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. With this system, articles would not be of as high a quality. Your not considering quality over quantity. Why have 10 good articles to choose from when you can have one excellent one?
I disagree that the articles would not be of higher quality. It's not a matter of quantity over quality. I think, if proponents of a particular truth are allowed free control over their version of the truth, their passion for their version of things, to make their case and convince other people, will make for a better article. Articles that purport to be neutral, or take all sides into account, tend to be mushy overviews. Also, the multiple concurrent versions does allow for the creation of articles that claim to be neutral.
Furthermore, wikipedia is not necessarily a collaborative project. It seems to work best when people collaborate, but they don't always -- there are edit wars, trolling, grafitti, etc. The current wikipedia loses out from non-collaboration -- there is wasted person-hours in clean up, reversion, and the most damning of all, loss of public confidence. My proposal is allows for both collaboration and disagreement to enrich the project.
I disagree that the articles would not be of higher quality. It's not a matter of quantity over quality. I think, if proponents of a particular truth are allowed free control over their version of the truth, their passion for their version of things, to make their case and convince other people, will make for a better article. Articles that purport to be neutral, or take all sides into account, tend to be mushy overviews. Also, the multiple concurrent versions does allow for the creation of articles that claim to be neutral.
Furthermore, wikipedia is not necessarily a collaborative project. It seems to work best when people collaborate, but they don't always -- there are edit wars, trolling, grafitti, etc. The current wikipedia loses out from non-collaboration -- there is wasted person-hours in clean up, reversion, and the most damning of all, loss of public confidence. My proposal is allows for both collaboration and disagreement to enrich the project. _______________________________________________
You appear to be claiming that Wikipedia should become a place to prove a point. I'm sure theres a page called [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]], and by replacing disrupt with use, you get the same concept. Wikipedia isn't a place for persuading people that your conspiracy theories are correct, and by "allowing free control to people over their version of the truth" and improving articles by "their passion to convince people that they are right" won't improve things at all.
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
You appear to be claiming that Wikipedia should become a place to prove a point. I'm sure theres a page called [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]], and by replacing disrupt with use, you get the same concept. Wikipedia isn't a place for persuading people that your conspiracy theories are correct, and by "allowing free control to people over their version of the truth" and improving articles by "their passion to convince people that they are right" won't improve things at all.
I disagree -- I think all articles should have a point.
First off, who gets to say what is a conspiracy theory and what is fact? I say let all sides of the story be presented, and let the rating system show what theories are most popular. You're showing your bias right here. Wikipedia is kind of a tyranny of the majority right now.
This idea will improve things. Look at it this way -- it's sort of like a honey trap. If there isn't a place for conspiracy theorists to go, they will disrupt wikipedia and we will waste time and energy cleaning up after trolls and grafitti, waging edit wars, etc. Currently, having your version of the truth fall under an article is a zero-sum game. Only one text can win. If your truth conflicts with the current article, you have to erase someone else's text, or else have conflicting text fall under the same title. It's destructive process at worst, with edit wars, and at best, it just makes wikipedia a place with contradictory articles.
If I and my people can have a our own article under 'Evolution', then I don't need to go disrupting the other side's article. I can put my energy into building and maintaining my side of the story.
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10@osu.edu) [050418 03:51]:
If I and my people can have a our own article under 'Evolution', then I don't need to go disrupting the other side's article. I can put my energy into building and maintaining my side of the story.
Is this Wikinfo you're describing?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10@osu.edu) [050418 03:51]:
If I and my people can have a our own article under 'Evolution', then I don't need to go disrupting the other side's article. I can put my energy into building and maintaining my side of the story.
Is this Wikinfo you're describing?
David, I think you are right! Thanks for pointing this out to me.
Steve
This is a new guy to me who as far as I know has never edited on Wikinfo. Basic idea is same though.
Fred
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:11:11 +1000 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10@osu.edu) [050418 03:51]:
If I and my people can have a our own article under 'Evolution', then I don't need to go disrupting the other side's article. I can put my energy into building and maintaining my side of the story.
Is this Wikinfo you're describing?
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is a new guy to me who as far as I know has never edited on Wikinfo. Basic idea is same though.
Are you referring to me? Yes, I am a new goy to the wikipedia-l list. I think wikinfo might be exactly what I'm describing. I'll check it out and come back with a list of improvements ;)
Let's deal with postmodernism. As Steve says, and as we all know, there are multiple perspectives of single events, people, religious documents etc, and I think it is very much in the interest of public or common knowledge that as many of these perspectives are presented openly, especially in an encyclopedia like this one.
As we know (most here better than me - I don't actually write much) the essential challenge of NPOV is to outline these perspectives and present them in context of each other, sometimes as a form of dialogue or debate. This is the very process of this encyclopedia, this is what every contentious article's talk page is about. Steve's proposal is to split this process into a container for multiple POVs. I certainly embrace the spirit of free expression and multiplicity of perspectives that Steve hopes for, but I wonder what this proposal would do to the process of Wikipedia. I wonder what it would do to the actual debates inherent in this collaborative process; whether the debate would fragment and lose it's creative tension. That's essentially my point - a concern for creativity - which is also Steve's main motivation, as i see it.
I think Wikipedia *already is* quite a postmodern encyclopedia, in the sense of the constant flux as the status quo (Lyotard from [[Postmodernity]]). I think that the challenge of NPOV is also quite postmodern, ie. to write about a topic with this multiplicity as a given and use this as its creative source. [[Global warming]] is a good example, I think, of a controversial topic characterised from both sides - at least it rises above a "mushy overview".
Still though, I think that Steve has raised some interesting points and these should enrich our ongoing debate.
Regards, Cormac
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org