http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
Look Who's Using Wikipedia Thursday, Mar. 01, 2007 By BILL TANCER The Wikipedia home page
Poor Wikipedia. Professional Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing one of its contributors for a defamatory cyber-attack. And last year, television host and comedian Stephen Colbert urged his audience to vandalize a Wikipedia entry about elephants to prove the point that in a model where any user can edit encyclopedia entries, those entries are only as good as their source. Take the case of retired journalist John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who was wrongfully accused of involvement in the assassination of Robert and John Kennedy by an anonymous Wikipedia contributor in 2005. Given the controversy stirring around Wikipedia, the history department at Middlebury College has banned its use as a research source. When did the online form of the dust-covered encyclopedia become such a magnet for drama?
Academics are split on the usefulness of Wikipedia, which bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The sheer volume of content (Wikipedia claims over 5.3 million entries, 1.6 million in English) is partly responsible for the site's dominance as an online reference. When compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites in the U.S., Wikipedia is #1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the category, according to Hitwise data. But as the recent drama illustrates, a body of online knowledge built by an army of 75,000 volunteer, anonymous contributors and editors is prone to anything from simple benign errors to outright information vandalism.
Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core groups of Wikipedia users are school children.
Determining the extent to which students leverage Wikipedia requires some data detective work. The search terms that users enter to navigate to the site are the most revealing. Along with searches for various anime cartoons, sex topics and information on the most recently shorn, exposed or departed celebrities, the majority of top terms bear a close resemblance to elementary school homework and research projects. During the month of February, which is also Black History month, three of the top 20 terms sending traffic to Wikipedia were for prominent black historical figures, while two other searches were likely motivated by President's Day. In fact, changing time-frames to any other month during the school year reveals a similar result. (Source: Hitwise)
Along with the impressive growth in visits to the site, 680% in two years, charting those visits over time confirms student activity. Over the last three years of growth, traffic dipped during the summer months and the weeks of spring break and winter vacation.
One of the reasons for Wikipedia's stellar growth rate in visits is all the traffic it receives from search engines, over 64% last week. In fact, due to Google's algorithm for displaying search results and the abundance of links in any given entry, Wikipedia has become the #1 external site visited after Google's search page.
As students begin their online research, they could view the prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of relying on a single source for their education. Hopefully their research projects won't involve elephants or professional golfers.
Bill Tancer is general manager of global research at Hitwise.
As students begin their online research, they could view the prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of relying on a single source for their education.
What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our sources and references and external links, and use those for citations instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out nonstop.
Stan
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
On 06/03/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
As students begin their online research, they could view the prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of relying on a single source for their education.
What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our sources and references and external links, and use those for citations instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out nonstop.
Stan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Well, using "we" in a more specific sense, we librarians mostly teach the use of Wikipedia as a convenient first step, in order to get basic information which can then be used to select the proper index or other resource. I personally teach it using the concept of it as a filter to the web. In addition to printed books, I try to add links to the best available online material, and also to the best available online material that is available without subscription.
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
On 06/03/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
As students begin their online research, they could view the prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of relying on a single source for their education.
What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our sources and references and external links, and use those for citations instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out nonstop.
Stan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent end products. FREE.
Weak: Entrenched in committess and committees and committees. Overemphasis on Western and internet culture. Emergent 'Elite Class' of editors and admins who not only know the ropes, but create the ropes.
-S
On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I was thinking he meant subject areas, but you are right here.
The worst of all is that anyone who mentions the increasingly hierarchial structure of our communities and the virtual impunity afforded to certain persons (especially admins in medium-sized Wikis, who often rule like dictators), they are instantly perceived as anti-Wiki and/or paranoid.
The simple fact is, there _is_ a cabal now. In fact, there are multiple cabals. They just call themselves different things. The Board, Arbcom, etc. etc. etc., the number of admins now is so great that it really is almost like real life, where people are divided by class. Will people inherit admin accounts from their parents? (kidding... mostly)
Ever since I joined, the community has been moving more and more in this direction. I did not take things totally seriously here until it was suggested in a serious tone that if I were just a couple of years older, I should be _killed_ for the whole Zlatiborian fracas and that it was "people like me" who were responsible for the turbulent recent history of Southeast Europe.
Our community has faced several major trials, and we have pulled through all but (an early) one of them almost completely intact. However, I am afraid that will not always be the case. Although we're growing larger, it doesn't seem to me that we're growing much smarter, and I think we will end up with mass exoduses and large portions of our community breaking off and forming similarly-sized competing projects. I do not think this future is in the best interests of the movement, it does not fit our aims, surely divided we shall fall.
And I know most of you will blow this off as utter nonsense, you will say it's not going to happen, but if we continue on our present course I promise you it will for the wicked are among us and it is only a matter of time before the Wiki-empire falls into tiny pieces. Mark my words, in two months, six months, two years, however long it takes for us to crumble, if anyone remembers this e-mail they will know that I was right.
Mark
On 06/03/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent end products. FREE.
Weak: Entrenched in committess and committees and committees. Overemphasis on Western and internet culture. Emergent 'Elite Class' of editors and admins who not only know the ropes, but create the ropes.
-S
On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Mar 6, 2007, at 10:19 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
The worst of all is that anyone who mentions the increasingly hierarchial structure of our communities and the virtual impunity afforded to certain persons (especially admins in medium-sized Wikis, who often rule like dictators), they are instantly perceived as anti-Wiki and/or paranoid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR exists for a reason, and for me, that reason is to totally bypass bureaucratic wonks and trolls who get their rocks off from wiki-lawyering, and constantly complaining about process, pet projects, pet issues, etc.
The simple fact is, there _is_ a cabal now. In fact, there are multiple cabals. They just call themselves different things. The Board, Arbcom, etc. etc. etc., the number of admins now is so great that it really is almost like real life, where people are divided by class. Will people inherit admin accounts from their parents? (kidding... mostly)
IAR.
We have people who jaywalk in real life, who deviate above the speed limit, etc. We also have murderers and pedophiles on wikipedia. Nature of the beast.
Ever since I joined, the community has been moving more and more in this direction. I did not take things totally seriously here until it was suggested in a serious tone that if I were just a couple of years older, I should be _killed_ for the whole Zlatiborian fracas and that it was "people like me" who were responsible for the turbulent recent history of Southeast Europe.
I take it you haven't been on the internet for very long.
Our community has faced several major trials, and we have pulled through all but (an early) one of them almost completely intact. However, I am afraid that will not always be the case. Although we're growing larger, it doesn't seem to me that we're growing much smarter, and I think we will end up with mass exoduses and large portions of our community breaking off and forming similarly-sized competing projects. I do not think this future is in the best interests of the movement, it does not fit our aims, surely divided we shall fall.
<Insert ranting counter-slogan here.> Whatever. I don't have any reason to care. I'm not writing or editing for "wikipedia", I'm writing and editing for people 300, 800, years from now. If we have a break into, oh, a wikia community of people obsessed with Manga, great! Less noise! Break into "vettedscholarpedia", cool! I only care that we have more vehicles for carrying information.
And I know most of you will blow this off as utter nonsense, you will say it's not going to happen, but if we continue on our present course I promise you it will for the wicked are among us and it is only a matter of time before the Wiki-empire falls into tiny pieces. Mark my words, in two months, six months, two years, however long it takes for us to crumble, if anyone remembers this e-mail they will know that I was right.
Sweet. Now, mark *my* words: The reason a species dies out is because something else, or having nothing else, is better. I *hope* that either wikipedia, or something 10 times better, is around in 300-800 years. I don't give a damn what rules it has, or what it's called, or who runs it, or how (I plan on being dead by then). The Library of Alexandria wasn't built because text authors gave a damn about what the politics of turkey would be like in 300 years. Heck, with forks in the empire, we have even *more* survivability over the next 800 years.
I just don't have the vanity, or smug self importance, left, to think that I'm anything more than just another contributor to a possible vast knowledge base for the future.
-Bop
I just don't have the vanity, or smug self importance, left, to think that I'm anything more than just another contributor to a possible vast knowledge base for the future.
-Bop
Maybe, but at least you have enough smug self importance left to show be utterly dismissive.
Enjoyed the rant. Thanks for emphasizing IAR. You're obviously glossing over lots but I'm pretty sure that was half way your intention.
-S
Ronald Chmara wrote:
On Mar 6, 2007, at 10:19 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
The worst of all is that anyone who mentions the increasingly hierarchial structure of our communities and the virtual impunity afforded to certain persons (especially admins in medium-sized Wikis, who often rule like dictators), they are instantly perceived as anti-Wiki and/or paranoid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR exists for a reason, and for me, that reason is to totally bypass bureaucratic wonks and trolls who get their rocks off from wiki-lawyering, and constantly complaining about process, pet projects, pet issues, etc.
It may very well do that, but at the same time it is not there to be trotted out as an excuse for every POV pusher's actions.
Ec
On 07/03/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent end products. FREE.
NPOV. In my opinion that's much more radical an innovation than merely letting any idiot edit your website.
- d.
Hoi!
NPOV. In my opinion that's much more radical an innovation than merely letting any idiot edit your website.
Yes, it's the first time that our western culture embarks in the project of exporting its good sides, instead of simply bombing those who happen not to be telepathic.
My concern is that very little people realize how little NPOV is an easily understood concept. If you go down to it it's the root of expressions like "democracy", "human right", etc. Waste this and what you have is but a posh chat-line about philosophers...
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
On Mar 6, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Frederick Noronha wrote:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIAS
-Bop
Hoi. Wikipedia is very much lacking in all areas.. What Wikipedia are you talking about; it is not the same situation on all Wikipedias.. On the English Wikipedia I would say that subjects to do with Africa, Asia and South America could use a lot of refinement. One topic I think is worrisome is the lack of a full picture for Iran. It really makes it easy to paint them as a villain when there is so little public knowledge about the people, the country and the culture.
The en.wikipedia is strong on Pokemon, when there is an invasion of these creatures we know all there is to know about them. :)
Thanks, GerardM
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
HOI!
The en.wikipedia is strong on Pokemon, when there is an invasion of these creatures we know all there is to know about them. :)
ROTFL! This is one of the funniest ways to tell a tragic truth I've ever seen :) It's true. Once again, a wiki is but a reflection (a summa, if you like latin) of the community writing it.
In the middle ages monks would write a lot about proto-martyrs that did not even exist, in the current middle ages us monks like anime... virtual sex happens to be an eternal human feature, ever since Aphrodite was invented and people could dream of Her and Apollon :)
The Wikimedia tribe did not invent our carelessness for enemies either. Subject like Iran are not interesting to westerners AND are little self-promoting. There is a big number of Iranians who speak English, I don't see much activity from them, either. As it often happens, the Byzantine and the Parthian emperor will probably ignore each other until a weird Arab guy won't kill them both. It's a pity for our will to influence society by spreading awareness and culture, but it's also a reflection of what our societies really want at ground-zero level.
As per wiki-layering, possible split editions and Committees... there never was a human society that did not evolve into a class layering system. The problem is that here we do not have anything that will protect anyone from arbitrary moves from the "powers".
That is, nobody knows what the Board can do but basically we all think they are local Tamerlans. In reality it's more like Ceasars, because they do depend from the popularity they get among us plebeians. If we got upset, we could get rid of them. But there are NO written rules. So it's all a matter of negotiating the mood of the judge. We love to talk about anarchy and democracy but... in reality we just moved from the fortunate period of King Jimbo to a kind of large triumvirate and have no Magna Charta whatsoever. Isn't this interesting?
BTW, saying that we are "plebeians" is but a giant lie. Plebeians work out there making up links and articles, while us senators sit here and complain that the House of the Emperor is centralizing too much power... There ARE barriers to an enlarged participation. One is the English language; the other is what in the old times was called "social engineering". That is, the capability to get something from the people. Not everyone is capable to do it, so not everyone will want to (be capable to) be a senator, in real life as here. So that 0,5% of people who sit here and read meta can hardly be labeled as "plebeians". And yes, since language capability and social (should I say "political"?) attitudes are mostly the product of family education... chances are that our places will be transmitted to our kids. Let's be real about it. Wikipedia is just a bit of life, and life is like that. We may want to change it (I do) but then we have to work on it, and not simply be ironical about it.
Anyway, wikipedia is also just another living human society. As all such bodies it has a living cycle. It has been young, now it's getting older. One day it will die, and it will spread its kids in virtual space. There's nothing wrong with it, it's the way Nature works. It applies to languages, nations, political parties, religions and Carnaby Street's miniskirt fad, too.
Technology will get older and the wikimedia machine will look simply ridiculous (as a visicalc looks today). So you can also get ready for the time in which we will have to think about migrating content to more "contemporary" platforms (kids at that time will say "not fossile"), while people will have PHP emulators run a "real wiki" on their machines. It's happened with pacman, it will happen with us, too.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
The problem is with the current rules on en.wikipedia which are totally geared towards western style relevance and references ,and the bias amongst editors, it is difficult to get the same debt for Africa, Asia and South America. Something has got to give. And the rules will never be changed because of the western pov of most of our editors. So we will have to accept that we will be weak in these areas forever. Or somehow with a miracle an exception clause has to be made for topics regarding this area.
Waerth
Hoi. Wikipedia is very much lacking in all areas.. What Wikipedia are you talking about; it is not the same situation on all Wikipedias.. On the English Wikipedia I would say that subjects to do with Africa, Asia and South America could use a lot of refinement. One topic I think is worrisome is the lack of a full picture for Iran. It really makes it easy to paint them as a villain when there is so little public knowledge about the people, the country and the culture.
The en.wikipedia is strong on Pokemon, when there is an invasion of these creatures we know all there is to know about them. :)
Thanks, GerardM
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi!
current rules on en.wikipedia
Which ones? I'm interested and willing to help, just specify, pls.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Hoi, Your reply seems to assume en.wikipedia only. I am however not as pessimistic as you are.. The English Wikipedia provides a wealth of great quality information in many subjects. Even though it is a work in progress it gets better all the time in both quality and quantity.
When asked where the English Wikipedia fails, it is for me in the other cultures. However, when you consider the Wikipedians that have a different mother tongue, there is a group that does their native language and there are others that work on the English Wikipedia. It could be argued that the quality of the articles in the English Wikipedia has a relation to the quality of the Wikipedia in the local language.
As to improving the "other" Wikipedias, there are many ways in which this can be done. The question is do these Wikipedias have to be in the exact mould of the "big ones" or is some cultural diversity allowed ?
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/7/07, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
The problem is with the current rules on en.wikipedia which are totally geared towards western style relevance and references ,and the bias amongst editors, it is difficult to get the same debt for Africa, Asia and South America. Something has got to give. And the rules will never be changed because of the western pov of most of our editors. So we will have to accept that we will be weak in these areas forever. Or somehow with a miracle an exception clause has to be made for topics regarding this area.
Waerth
Hoi. Wikipedia is very much lacking in all areas.. What Wikipedia are you talking about; it is not the same situation on all Wikipedias.. On the English Wikipedia I would say that subjects to do with Africa, Asia and South America could use a lot of refinement. One topic I think is worrisome is the lack of a full picture for Iran. It really makes it easy to paint them as a villain when there is so little public knowledge about the people, the country and the culture.
The en.wikipedia is strong on Pokemon, when there is an invasion of these creatures we know all there is to know about them. :)
Thanks, GerardM
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 3/7/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When asked where the English Wikipedia fails, it is for me in the other cultures. However, when you consider the Wikipedians that have a different mother tongue, there is a group that does their native language and there are others that work on the English Wikipedia. It could be argued that the quality of the articles in the English Wikipedia has a relation to the quality of the Wikipedia in the local language.
I think en.wikipedia does reasonably better than the other wikipedias on
this, because there are so many non-native speakers that write on it. It is easier to drift towards a "national" POV with languages that no one speaks outside a country. It's still not perfect, but it could be worse.
Marco/Cruccone
I agree with this greatly. The only "major" language I can think of with a more drastic native speaker to second language speaker ratio is French, whose speakers are more than slightly more regionally concentrated.
Spanish has a wider reach than either as a native language, but as a second language it falls short.
Mark
On 07/03/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When asked where the English Wikipedia fails, it is for me in the other cultures. However, when you consider the Wikipedians that have a different mother tongue, there is a group that does their native language and there are others that work on the English Wikipedia. It could be argued that the quality of the articles in the English Wikipedia has a relation to the quality of the Wikipedia in the local language.
I think en.wikipedia does reasonably better than the other wikipedias on
this, because there are so many non-native speakers that write on it. It is easier to drift towards a "national" POV with languages that no one speaks outside a country. It's still not perfect, but it could be worse.
Marco/Cruccone _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 07/03/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
I think en.wikipedia does reasonably better than the other wikipedias on this, because there are so many non-native speakers that write on it. It is easier to drift towards a "national" POV with languages that no one speaks outside a country. It's still not perfect, but it could be worse.
Indeed. The hard part can be getting people to use and contribute to the Wikipedia in their own language rather than just using the English one.
- d.
Let's have a race war then :-) BTW, despite my name (or because of it), I'm Indian/South Asian.
Now, to shift to a more serious subject. I think the good side of the Wikipedia is that it is relatively more open to all compared to any other form of knowledge production and agglomeration that we have known till this point in history. Tell me if I'm wrong.
What however needs to be taken into account, following up on Walter van Kalken, is that people in the global South/Third World/"developing" countries simply aren't contributing as much. So that diversity isn't getting reflected here. This happens because of various reasons. Lack of access, stronger tradition in oral cultures rather than written ones, lack of peer groups to encourage this, difficulties in keying-in non-Romanised texts (specially Asian languages) via computers.. whatever.
It would help if Wikipedia took on efforts to spur such contributions. Once they start, I have no doubt that the trickle will turn into a mighty river. Till that time, hold on to your faith.-- FN in Goa/India.
On 07/03/07, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
The problem is with the current rules on en.wikipedia which are totally geared towards western style relevance and references ,and the bias amongst editors, it is difficult to get the same debt for Africa, Asia and South America. Something has got to give. And the rules will never be changed because of the western pov of most of our editors. So we will have to accept that we will be weak in these areas forever. Or somehow with a miracle an exception clause has to be made for topics regarding this area.
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Let's have a race war then :-) BTW, despite my name (or because of it), I'm Indian/South Asian.
Now, to shift to a more serious subject. I think the good side of the Wikipedia is that it is relatively more open to all compared to any other form of knowledge production and agglomeration that we have known till this point in history. Tell me if I'm wrong.
What however needs to be taken into account, following up on Walter van Kalken, is that people in the global South/Third World/"developing" countries simply aren't contributing as much. So that diversity isn't getting reflected here. This happens because of various reasons. Lack of access, stronger tradition in oral cultures rather than written ones, lack of peer groups to encourage this, difficulties in keying-in non-Romanised texts (specially Asian languages) via computers.. whatever.
It would help if Wikipedia took on efforts to spur such contributions. Once they start, I have no doubt that the trickle will turn into a mighty river. Till that time, hold on to your faith.-- FN in Goa/India.
On 07/03/07, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
The problem is with the current rules on en.wikipedia which are totally geared towards western style relevance and references ,and the bias amongst editors, it is difficult to get the same debt for Africa, Asia and South America. Something has got to give. And the rules will never be changed because of the western pov of most of our editors. So we will have to accept that we will be weak in these areas forever. Or somehow with a miracle an exception clause has to be made for topics regarding this area.
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Yeah, I'm trying... but it has not been very easy convincing others about what seems to be a "counter-intuitive" idea ... ("anyone being able to edit me writing... whaaat?")
We're also having a script war going on here amidst Kok. But I think it will happen one day, hopefully sooner rather than later. FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Yeah, I'm trying... but it has not been very easy convincing others about what seems to be a "counter-intuitive" idea ... ("anyone being able to edit me writing... whaaat?")
We're also having a script war going on here amidst Kok. But I think it will happen one day, hopefully sooner rather than later. FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
Hoi, I have had a look at Konkani, the code currently in use on the Incubator will not necessarily lead to new project. Konkani is in ISO-639-3 no longer considered to be a single language. There are currently seven languages that all make up Konkani; they are
Katkari [kfu http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kfu] (India http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN)
Konkani [knn http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=knn] (India http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN)
Konkani, Goanese [gom http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gom] (India http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN)
Kukna [kex http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kex] (India http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN)
Phudagi [phd http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=phd] (India http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN)
Samvedi [smv http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=smv] (India http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN)
Varli [vav http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=vav] (India http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN)
This means that you can forget about a script war; the paricipant of these script wars will probably belong to one of these seven. The first battle you will have to fight is the clarification of what it is that you want.
Thanks, GerardM
GOM, if not KNN. As Frederick is Goan and that is (afaik) the major variety, I can but assume that is the one they will use.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Yeah, I'm trying... but it has not been very easy convincing others about what seems to be a "counter-intuitive" idea ... ("anyone being able to edit me writing... whaaat?")
We're also having a script war going on here amidst Kok. But I think it will happen one day, hopefully sooner rather than later. FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
Hoi, I have had a look at Konkani, the code currently in use on the Incubator will not necessarily lead to new project. Konkani is in ISO-639-3 no longer considered to be a single language. There are currently seven languages that all make up Konkani; they are
Katkari [kfu <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kfu>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani [knn <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=knn>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani, Goanese [gom <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gom>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Kukna [kex <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kex>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Phudagi [phd <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=phd>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Samvedi [smv <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=smv>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Varli [vav <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=vav>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>)
This means that you can forget about a script war; the paricipant of these script wars will probably belong to one of these seven. The first battle you will have to fight is the clarification of what it is that you want.
Thanks, GerardM
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=92010
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, It is that simply a matter of picking and choosing. This project was "voted" into being, It proved to be fractious for good reason; there being more than one language behind the kok ISO-639-2 language code. There is already a fight over the script, I think it best when we have a proposal on how this is to be settled.
Without such a proposal I am dead against it moving to a full WMF language.
Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson schreef:
GOM, if not KNN. As Frederick is Goan and that is (afaik) the major variety, I can but assume that is the one they will use.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Yeah, I'm trying... but it has not been very easy convincing others about what seems to be a "counter-intuitive" idea ... ("anyone being able to edit me writing... whaaat?")
We're also having a script war going on here amidst Kok. But I think it will happen one day, hopefully sooner rather than later. FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
Hoi, I have had a look at Konkani, the code currently in use on the Incubator will not necessarily lead to new project. Konkani is in ISO-639-3 no longer considered to be a single language. There are currently seven languages that all make up Konkani; they are
Katkari [kfu <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kfu>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani [knn <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=knn>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani, Goanese [gom <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gom>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Kukna [kex <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kex>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Phudagi [phd <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=phd>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Samvedi [smv <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=smv>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Varli [vav <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=vav>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>)
This means that you can forget about a script war; the paricipant of these script wars will probably belong to one of these seven. The first battle you will have to fight is the clarification of what it is that you want.
Thanks, GerardM
Isn't it also better if we wait for the required 5 users? Right now it seems there are only two.
Mark
On 10/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is that simply a matter of picking and choosing. This project was "voted" into being, It proved to be fractious for good reason; there being more than one language behind the kok ISO-639-2 language code. There is already a fight over the script, I think it best when we have a proposal on how this is to be settled.
Without such a proposal I am dead against it moving to a full WMF language.
Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson schreef:
GOM, if not KNN. As Frederick is Goan and that is (afaik) the major variety, I can but assume that is the one they will use.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Yeah, I'm trying... but it has not been very easy convincing others about what seems to be a "counter-intuitive" idea ... ("anyone being able to edit me writing... whaaat?")
We're also having a script war going on here amidst Kok. But I think it will happen one day, hopefully sooner rather than later. FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
Hoi, I have had a look at Konkani, the code currently in use on the Incubator will not necessarily lead to new project. Konkani is in ISO-639-3 no longer considered to be a single language. There are currently seven languages that all make up Konkani; they are
Katkari [kfu <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kfu>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani [knn <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=knn>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani, Goanese [gom <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gom>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Kukna [kex <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kex>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Phudagi [phd <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=phd>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Samvedi [smv <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=smv>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Varli [vav <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=vav>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>)
This means that you can forget about a script war; the paricipant of these script wars will probably belong to one of these seven. The first battle you will have to fight is the clarification of what it is that you want.
Thanks, GerardM
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, I think it is best to indicate opposition as soon as possible. Even with thirty people on a kok wikipedia there are now sufficient reasons to deny the project. Without a good write up explaining how a kok wikipedia would respect the seven languages that are now split off from this code, I am against the creation of this project Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson schreef:
Isn't it also better if we wait for the required 5 users? Right now it seems there are only two.
Mark
On 10/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is that simply a matter of picking and choosing. This project was "voted" into being, It proved to be fractious for good reason; there being more than one language behind the kok ISO-639-2 language code. There is already a fight over the script, I think it best when we have a proposal on how this is to be settled.
Without such a proposal I am dead against it moving to a full WMF language.
Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson schreef:
GOM, if not KNN. As Frederick is Goan and that is (afaik) the major variety, I can but assume that is the one they will use.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Yeah, I'm trying... but it has not been very easy convincing others about what seems to be a "counter-intuitive" idea ... ("anyone being able to edit me writing... whaaat?")
We're also having a script war going on here amidst Kok. But I think it will happen one day, hopefully sooner rather than later. FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
Hoi, I have had a look at Konkani, the code currently in use on the Incubator will not necessarily lead to new project. Konkani is in ISO-639-3 no longer considered to be a single language. There are currently seven languages that all make up Konkani; they are
Katkari [kfu <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kfu>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani [knn <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=knn>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani, Goanese [gom <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gom>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Kukna [kex <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kex>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Phudagi [phd <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=phd>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Samvedi [smv <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=smv>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Varli [vav <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=vav>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>)
This means that you can forget about a script war; the paricipant of these script wars will probably belong to one of these seven. The first battle you will have to fight is the clarification of what it is that you want.
Thanks, GerardM
There is some proposal right now at the talk page of the Konknni Test.
Script usage largely corresponds to individual varieties of Konkani -- Kannada script is used for dialects in Karnataka, Devanagari is used in Maharashtra, Roman script is used in Goa. However there are issues here as well, although Goa only has one dialect (and even more confusing, Hindus and Muslims in Goa may use Devanagri or Arabic script respectively to write the Goanese Konkani, although majority of Goans are, afaik, Catholics and prefer writing it in Roman alphabet).
Despite proposals on talkpage to have several parallel dialect/script/article versions in one single Wikipedia edition, this seems very unreasonable. To conver scripts (for example if we have Goanese only, to convert from Roman to Devanagri and Arabic and, with quite a bit more work perhaps vice-versa), that is certainly reasonable, but I don't think it makes sense to try to house multiple mutually unintelligible linguistic entities in one Wiki as was propsoed by Deepak D'Souza. Goanese is the one that is official and most spoken afaik, it should be able to get a Wiki sooner probably because it seems most supporters now are from Goa.
Often in situations like this that have occurred with other test-Wikis (for example North Frisian), proposers mention unity and content of articles in various dialects in a unified Wiki exemplified by nds-nl.wp, however before using such example it is important to note that each case is different, dialect diversity in different places is never equal, so nds-nl is not the exact same level of homogenous and heterogeneity as will be Konkani varieties, nor North Frisian varieties. Before implementing such a proposal to have a Wikipedia which combines multiple varieties, it is important to have input from native speakers of each variety who can testify that it will work, and to leave the possibility open in the future for a split in case it does not go as was planned.
In this situation I hope that we can hear maore from Frederick Noronha, and if a unified Konknni Wikipedia is in fact proposed, it will certainly be necessary to hear from speakers of ALL Konkani varieties to prove that it is feasible so we do not end up with a nother Lombard debâcle from the start.
Mark
On 10/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I think it is best to indicate opposition as soon as possible. Even with thirty people on a kok wikipedia there are now sufficient reasons to deny the project. Without a good write up explaining how a kok wikipedia would respect the seven languages that are now split off from this code, I am against the creation of this project Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson schreef:
Isn't it also better if we wait for the required 5 users? Right now it seems there are only two.
Mark
On 10/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is that simply a matter of picking and choosing. This project was "voted" into being, It proved to be fractious for good reason; there being more than one language behind the kok ISO-639-2 language code. There is already a fight over the script, I think it best when we have a proposal on how this is to be settled.
Without such a proposal I am dead against it moving to a full WMF language.
Thanks, GerardM
Mark Williamson schreef:
GOM, if not KNN. As Frederick is Goan and that is (afaik) the major variety, I can but assume that is the one they will use.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Frederick Noronha schreef:
Yeah, I'm trying... but it has not been very easy convincing others about what seems to be a "counter-intuitive" idea ... ("anyone being able to edit me writing... whaaat?")
We're also having a script war going on here amidst Kok. But I think it will happen one day, hopefully sooner rather than later. FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for > http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty > because of lack of participation. > > >
Hoi, I have had a look at Konkani, the code currently in use on the Incubator will not necessarily lead to new project. Konkani is in ISO-639-3 no longer considered to be a single language. There are currently seven languages that all make up Konkani; they are
Katkari [kfu <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kfu>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani [knn <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=knn>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Konkani, Goanese [gom <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gom>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Kukna [kex <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kex>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Phudagi [phd <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=phd>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Samvedi [smv <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=smv>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>) Varli [vav <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=vav>] (India <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN>)
This means that you can forget about a script war; the paricipant of these script wars will probably belong to one of these seven. The first battle you will have to fight is the clarification of what it is that you want.
Thanks, GerardM
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
No other Konkani-speaking Wikipedians already on, say, en:?
Mark
On 09/03/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Yeah, I'm trying... but it has not been very easy convincing others about what seems to be a "counter-intuitive" idea ... ("anyone being able to edit me writing... whaaat?")
We're also having a script war going on here amidst Kok. But I think it will happen one day, hopefully sooner rather than later. FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Okay, please see... I'm working to improve that: http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok Sending out an appeal to friends too.... FN
On 10/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could certainly take the lead by writing good articles for http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/kok/ . It is currently empty because of lack of participation.
On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
I think Wikipedia is really strong in some pop culture niches (yes,
Pokemon may be one of that) and is weaker in some more scholarly subjects. But this varies from project to project and from topic to topic. There are articles which are the most complete essay ever written on the topic, there are articles that simply suck. Uniformity is something we're weak (basically people write about what they know and/or care about). We are strong in correcting factual mistakes, we are weak because we cannot guarantee if what we say is correct. We are strong because we give access to basic information of very many things to a huge lot of people, and for most of them we offer enough. We're far from being perfect, there's a lot to improve, but we're good at it.
Marco/Cruccone
Hoi, I do not know if uniformity is good. Actually I doubt very much it is good; one of the pillars of Wikipedia is "ignore all rules" and uniformity assumes that people have to comply with a format. Uniformity means that everybody shares the same values, works in a same way. Uniformity means that there can be no change as it would destroy the uniformity.
We should have communities of people working together on topics and when, as a result of a good collaboration, there may be some uniformity and this will be welcome as a by product. It should not be an aim in and of itself.
It is like having the people who only do patrolling content determine what content should look like. It is not their game. They are reactive, they are not active. They do not assume good faith because it is too easy to find what is wrong. Often they are correct, but having them determine rules is absolutely dangerous. They go for the blanket rules. They only look at the current patterns and do not have the vision to see how much opportunity is lost.
I was told that the English Wikipedia was proposing a blanket ban for paid for content. It was as expected a person who is proud to be only patrolling who wrote the piece I was referred to. It is unlikely that this person has any notion of other projects/languages it is just reactive and imho sad. It is sad because the text of this proposal was done in such a way that you cannot be against such a proposal.. It is a hopeless proposal if there is also this need for the WMF to reach out. It is hopeless because this type of determinism does not allow for some common sense policies. It is hopeless because it shows there is no faith that some good can come out of collaboration with other organisations. It is myopic.
Uniformity is not necessarily good. No paid for contributions is not necessarily good. Blanket policies are almost always not necessarily good. It takes consensus coming from some polite conversations to determine instances where conventional wisdom is in need for renewal with some alternate approaches.
Thanks, GerardM
Marco Chiesa schreef:
On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
I think Wikipedia is really strong in some pop culture niches (yes,
Pokemon may be one of that) and is weaker in some more scholarly subjects. But this varies from project to project and from topic to topic. There are articles which are the most complete essay ever written on the topic, there are articles that simply suck. Uniformity is something we're weak (basically people write about what they know and/or care about). We are strong in correcting factual mistakes, we are weak because we cannot guarantee if what we say is correct. We are strong because we give access to basic information of very many things to a huge lot of people, and for most of them we offer enough. We're far from being perfect, there's a lot to improve, but we're good at it.
Marco/Cruccone
On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
Strong: detailed, accurate, advanced science articles (but see below). US geography, cities, etc. are amazingly well-covered, beyond the base Rambot articles (which themselves are a great resource). Good coverage of current events, popular culture.
Weak: Major companies, primarily those in specialized fields, often completely lack articles. Many math and science articles are incomprehensible to most laypeople. Locations and events in non-English-speaking countries tend to have very little information, or it's badly out of date (in some cases, by a few centuries). Subjects from across all topics not covered due to "non-notability".
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
Jake Nelson wrote:
Locations and events in non-English-speaking countries tend to have very little information, or it's badly out of date (in some cases, by a few centuries).
I noticed this in particular when someone mentioned that the English Wikipedia has now grown to the point where it should focus more on quality than quantity, since 1.x million articles is surely enough. That seemed possible to me, although I thought there was still plenty of obscure but important information we were missing. But when I did some brief surveys, it turns out we don't have to dig for anything even remotely obscure to find articles missing. Looking at, say, political leaders, we don't have anywhere *close* to an article on every leader of a sovereign country. And it's not just that we have bad coverage of the non-western world---the English Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on every prime minister of Austria, to pick a European country.
So I'd be surprised if we're "done" covering even the top-tier subjects before we get to 3 million articles, if even then.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
So I'd be surprised if we're "done" covering even the top-tier subjects before we get to 3 million articles, if even then.
After "size" (number of "real" articles), the next measurement must be "coverage". But how do we define that? Surely, coverage was 0% on the first day and will be 100% if Wikipedia can answer any possible question, but this is an unrealistic limit. Maybe Britannica is at 90% and Wikipedia at 80%? But we don't know how to define the "coverage" of an encyclopedia to begin with.
Corpus linguists first collect a very large body (a corpus) of text, then they count how many times each word occurs. If every 20th word (or 5% of the corpus) is "the", then a dictionary only containing "the" will "cover" 5% of this corpus. Most spelling dictionaries can cover 95-98 % of any normal corpus. But creating a dictionary that covers the last few percents is hard, because any normal text will contain a few very uncommon words. There is a very long, thin tail.
Could we compile a "corpus" of questions, and see how large a percentage of them can be answered by Wikipedia? That probably requires artificial intelligence, if not science fiction. (Hey, did somebody write a novel about this already? Sci-fi can be a great source of inspiration.) I guess we could compile a list of famous places and people, and see what percentage of them have articles of reasonable length. But having an entry on St Petersburg, Florida, is less important than having entries on London or Paris. So the list must be weighted. Search companies like Google or MSN keep logs of every query that people type in, so they know exactly how many times more often people search for London than for St Petersburg, Florida. That's the kind of weights we would need to compute a coverage, I guess.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Delirium wrote:
So I'd be surprised if we're "done" covering even the top-tier subjects before we get to 3 million articles, if even then.
Corpus linguists first collect a very large body (a corpus) of text, then they count how many times each word occurs. If every 20th word (or 5% of the corpus) is "the", then a dictionary only containing "the" will "cover" 5% of this corpus. Most spelling dictionaries can cover 95-98 % of any normal corpus. But creating a dictionary that covers the last few percents is hard, because any normal text will contain a few very uncommon words. There is a very long, thin tail.
Good coverage is easier for dictionaries than for many other areas of knowledge. For major languages excellent resources already exist.
Could we compile a "corpus" of questions, and see how large a percentage of them can be answered by Wikipedia? That probably requires artificial intelligence, if not science fiction. (Hey, did somebody write a novel about this already? Sci-fi can be a great source of inspiration.) I guess we could compile a list of famous places and people, and see what percentage of them have articles of reasonable length. But having an entry on St Petersburg, Florida, is less important than having entries on London or Paris. So the list must be weighted. Search companies like Google or MSN keep logs of every query that people type in, so they know exactly how many times more often people search for London than for St Petersburg, Florida. That's the kind of weights we would need to compute a coverage, I guess.
An interesting source here would be published quiz and trivia books. While one must weigh the reliability of their information carefully, they can still be used as a way of testing coverage.
Ec
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Delirium wrote:
So I'd be surprised if we're "done" covering even the top-tier subjects before we get to 3 million articles, if even then.
After "size" (number of "real" articles), the next measurement must be "coverage". But how do we define that? Surely, coverage was 0% on the first day and will be 100% if Wikipedia can answer any possible question, but this is an unrealistic limit. Maybe Britannica is at 90% and Wikipedia at 80%? But we don't know how to define the "coverage" of an encyclopedia to begin with.
Corpus linguists first collect a very large body (a corpus) of text, then they count how many times each word occurs. If every 20th word (or 5% of the corpus) is "the", then a dictionary only containing "the" will "cover" 5% of this corpus. Most spelling dictionaries can cover 95-98 % of any normal corpus. But creating a dictionary that covers the last few percents is hard, because any normal text will contain a few very uncommon words. There is a very long, thin tail.
Could we compile a "corpus" of questions, and see how large a percentage of them can be answered by Wikipedia? That probably requires artificial intelligence, if not science fiction. (Hey, did somebody write a novel about this already? Sci-fi can be a great source of inspiration.) I guess we could compile a list of famous places and people, and see what percentage of them have articles of reasonable length. But having an entry on St Petersburg, Florida, is less important than having entries on London or Paris. So the list must be weighted. Search companies like Google or MSN keep logs of every query that people type in, so they know exactly how many times more often people search for London than for St Petersburg, Florida. That's the kind of weights we would need to compute a coverage, I guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_encyclopedia_topics
and the various other lists linked on that page, would be a good first place to start...
-- Neil
Stan Shebs wrote:
As students begin their online research, they could view the prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of relying on a single source for their education.
What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our sources and references and external links, and use those for citations instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out nonstop.
As the messengers we can very well say, "Don't shoot the messenger." Anyone whose not a virgin newbie to Wikipedia is aware of the limitations that you state. I generally agree with those teachers who reject Wikipedia as the sole source on which students base their articles, but it would be inappropriate to downgrade an essay simply because it uses Wikipedia as one source amoung others.
The real failing is with those educational establishments who have neglected to give students, from a very early stage, the tools with which to critically evaluate the information that they receive. Instead of viewing the internet as a source of mischief to be turned off, it is important that teachers and parents alike recognize it as a primary source of information for students. The paradox that educators find themselves in is that the student who makes judgements about the information he receives online is also likely to use the same criteria for making similar judgements about information provided by the educators.
Ec
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
"Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core groups of Wikipedia users are school children."
OH MY GOD TEH CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!???
;-)
--Jimbo
Jimbo Wales doesn't care about children. Film at 11.
On 3/7/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
"Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core groups of Wikipedia users are school children."
OH MY GOD TEH CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!???
;-)
--Jimbo
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
lol @ both.
I laughed when I saw that sentence in the article, too - is Wikipedia now just as bad for kids as Sex Drugs and Rock And Roll?
Better kids find out about sex from Wikipedia than from dolphinsex or goatse, right? And if they're researching school topics, so what? It's not as if [[Martin Luther King]] is full of falsehoods that will get them kicked out of school or anything.
Mark
On 07/03/07, David Still daveydweeb@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo Wales doesn't care about children. Film at 11.
On 3/7/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
"Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core groups of Wikipedia users are school children."
OH MY GOD TEH CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!???
;-)
--Jimbo
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Maybe a daft question .... but ..... What is so alarming about children using wikipedia?
Waerth
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
"Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core groups of Wikipedia users are school children."
OH MY GOD TEH CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!???
;-)
--Jimbo
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org