Stan has voiced a very important theoretical point that defines the whole mechanism of Wikipedia. It also resolves (or rationalises) some of Larry's concerns. Articles develop Darwinistically. They emerge from primordial soup (substubs, anon newbie edits) and evolve as more people add material. From this point, there are two types of articles: those that attract interest and those that do not. This is easily compared to evolutionary selection pressures. Lifeforms that develop under extreme circumstances are simply more adapted than those that have had free reign without being predated upon. Articles under scrutiny get better (vandalism to [[Jew]] or [[Holocaust]] is reverted quicker than vandalism to [[Metabolic syndrome]] due to Watchlist and "vested contributor" exposure). Articles out of the limelight perform much worse - inaccuracies are not corrected, vandalism is removed by other anons (yep, this happens), etc. These are the ones that are poorly sourced, inundated with irrelevant external links, sometimes edit warred over a bit, but generally don't reach anything close to featured article quality. Stan is completely right that effective contributors eventually carry the day. There is so much to write about, to improve, to edit. He ignores the big POV dinosaurs, who do eventually get blocked for personal attacks or sockpuppetry, but that just proves the point.
I don't completely disagree with Larry on the accuracy issues for these "underperforming articles". They are just not getting the attention they deserve. There are a few solutions. Most involve automatic Vfd, but it can be replaced with "cleanup" by inclusionists: * Vfd an article that has not been edited for 6 months (or 12, or 18) * Vfd an article that is on nobody's watchlist * Vfd orphaned articles * Vfd an article that has STILL not been put in a category (other than "stub")
The above is the pruning effort of unviable lifeforms on Wikipedia. Some articles should be allowed to die gracefully. Others may be revived by vigorous spring cleanup. Anyway, this amorphous mass of poorly edited articles should get more attention that it is getting right now.
Jfdwolff
J.F. de Wolff wrote:
Articles develop Darwinistically. They emerge from primordial soup (substubs, anon newbie edits) and evolve as more people add material.
The essence of my talk in Berlin was to argue against this view of how wikipedia operates. Obviously, there is something to it if we streeeeeeetch the "Darwinistic" metaphor to the breaking point. But in the main, I think this analogy is one which misleads us into incorrect conclusions.
This is not to say that any of your particularly conclusions is wrong. I am just saying that I think that the "Darwinistic" model is more of a hindrance than a help in understanding how to improve things.
--Jimbo
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 08:53, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
J.F. de Wolff wrote:
Articles develop Darwinistically. They emerge from primordial soup (substubs, anon newbie edits) and evolve as more people add material.
The essence of my talk in Berlin was to argue against this view of how wikipedia operates. Obviously, there is something to it if we streeeeeeetch the "Darwinistic" metaphor to the breaking point. But in the main, I think this analogy is one which misleads us into incorrect conclusions.
As an aside, and being a non-expert, that sounds right to me -- are the slides from your talk available? To actually claim something as Darwinian one should have variation, reproduction, and selection. In the Wikipedia context there is variation and selection but I do not think one sees a continuance of character in the articles themselves. To really think about this in a Darwinian context one would need to ask what is the object of selection and reproduction? It clearly is not the articles themselves, what would more likely be the culture of Wikipedia itself as reproduced in the socialization of newcomers. So the Wikipedia culture of friendliness, populism, persistence, etc. is selected for given the collaborative character of this work, its historical momentum, and reproduced via socialization. A potential perspective on the question of "expertise" is then why experts are not selected in this environment? A simple reason is that they are used to competing and surviving in a different environment with similar goals (knowledge production) but otherwise quite different: simply, they lack patience -- or simply do not have the time -- when the authority granted to them in that other environment does not translate to this one.
On Jan 5, 2005, at 8:53 AM, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
J.F. de Wolff wrote:
Articles develop Darwinistically. They emerge from primordial soup (substubs, anon newbie edits) and evolve as more people add material.
The essence of my talk in Berlin was to argue against this view of how wikipedia operates. Obviously, there is something to it if we streeeeeeetch the "Darwinistic" metaphor to the breaking point. But in the main, I think this analogy is one which misleads us into incorrect conclusions.
This is not to say that any of your particularly conclusions is wrong. I am just saying that I think that the "Darwinistic" model is more of a hindrance than a help in understanding how to improve things.
--Jimbo
The math doesn't work for the Darwinian metaphor. But there is a Hamiltonian way of representing the selection process at work on wiki.
Short form, we, the wikipedians, aren't the environment, we are the organism.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org