Dear all,
Inspired by the article about Wikipedia in Nature, I have recently made some contributions to Wikipedia in my field of expertise. Based on this experience with Wikipedia, I would like to suggest a change to the structure of Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether my suggestion has been discussed previously. I have scanned e-mails in the list from the last months and couldn't find anything related, but apologize if I simply reiterate an older discussion.
Here's my suggestion: Allow multiple entries for one topic.
Why? In my opinion, there is no such thing as THE perfect entry about a topic or, as a matter of fact, the TRUTH about a topic. So, why adopt one of the shortcomings of printed encyclopedias? Why not allow users to read different entries (and opinions!) about one topic?
An important complement of my suggestion is the introduction of a rating system. How could this work? I would suggest a rating system consisting of three parts. After reading an article, you can: 1. rate the quality of the entry on a, say, 6-point rating scale 2. rate yourself as an expert, amateur, or layperson in the field the entry belongs to 3. enter strengths or weaknesses of this entry in a comment textbox (not obligatory)
When you access an entry, you would then first get a list of existing entries with their respective ratings separately for expert, amateur, and layperson ratings. Based on these ratings, you then choose the article you want to read.
Open questions: Is there a danger of too many articles for one topic? Should there be a limit of parallel articles? If yes, how do you get in new articles if this limit is reached? (Possible solution: You can write a new article and "challenge" the worst existing article. If your article gets higher ratings in the next, say, 4 weeks, your article replaces the older one.)
Best, Troas
Troas wrote:
Dear all,
Inspired by the article about Wikipedia in Nature, I have recently made some contributions to Wikipedia in my field of expertise. Based on this experience with Wikipedia, I would like to suggest a change to the structure of Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether my suggestion has been discussed previously. I have scanned e-mails in the list from the last months and couldn't find anything related, but apologize if I simply reiterate an older discussion.
Here's my suggestion: Allow multiple entries for one topic.
You seem lost; perhaps you were looking for http://wikinfo.org/ ?
No good, the post was about improving Wikipedia.
Fred
On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:56 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Troas wrote:
Dear all,
Inspired by the article about Wikipedia in Nature, I have recently made some contributions to Wikipedia in my field of expertise. Based on this experience with Wikipedia, I would like to suggest a change to the structure of Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether my suggestion has been discussed previously. I have scanned e-mails in the list from the last months and couldn't find anything related, but apologize if I simply reiterate an older discussion.
Here's my suggestion: Allow multiple entries for one topic.
You seem lost; perhaps you were looking for http://wikinfo.org/ ?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This is an excellent idea. Rather than try to cram all points of view into one article, how about loosening up and allowing several articles with differing points of view or level of detail?
This idea has been discussed before, but is worth another look.
Fred
On Jan 5, 2006, at 3:05 AM, Troas wrote:
Dear all,
Inspired by the article about Wikipedia in Nature, I have recently made some contributions to Wikipedia in my field of expertise. Based on this experience with Wikipedia, I would like to suggest a change to the structure of Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether my suggestion has been discussed previously. I have scanned e-mails in the list from the last months and couldn't find anything related, but apologize if I simply reiterate an older discussion.
Here's my suggestion: Allow multiple entries for one topic.
Why? In my opinion, there is no such thing as THE perfect entry about a topic or, as a matter of fact, the TRUTH about a topic. So, why adopt one of the shortcomings of printed encyclopedias? Why not allow users to read different entries (and opinions!) about one topic?
An important complement of my suggestion is the introduction of a rating system. How could this work? I would suggest a rating system consisting of three parts. After reading an article, you can:
- rate the quality of the entry on a, say, 6-point rating scale
- rate yourself as an expert, amateur, or layperson in the field
the entry belongs to 3. enter strengths or weaknesses of this entry in a comment textbox (not obligatory)
When you access an entry, you would then first get a list of existing entries with their respective ratings – separately for expert, amateur, and layperson ratings. Based on these ratings, you then choose the article you want to read.
Open questions: Is there a danger of too many articles for one topic? Should there be a limit of parallel articles? If yes, how do you get in new articles if this limit is reached? (Possible solution: You can write a new article and "challenge" the worst existing article. If your article gets higher ratings in the next, say, 4 weeks, your article replaces the older one.)
Best, Troas
-- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is an excellent idea. Rather than try to cram all points of view into one article, how about loosening up and allowing several articles with differing points of view or level of detail?
This idea has been discussed before, but is worth another look.
Fred, you can keep SPOV on Wikinfo; Wikipedia is and always will be NPOV. The "multiple levels of detail" is already covered by subarticles (eg. Geography of Australia).
On 1/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is an excellent idea. Rather than try to cram all points of view into one article, how about loosening up and allowing several articles with differing points of view or level of detail?
This idea has been discussed before, but is worth another look.
Fred, you can keep SPOV on Wikinfo; Wikipedia is and always will be NPOV. The "multiple levels of detail" is already covered by subarticles (eg. Geography of Australia).
Having multiple articles on one topic from different points of view is certainly a bad idea, but having multiple articles (if people can bother to maintain them) need not be. The objective of an article is to explain a given topic, and a single monolithic explanation might not suit everybody, for instance if you're familiar with the field you'd like a more technical explanation and if you aren't something that eases you into the topic is more appropriate.
On 05/01/06, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is an excellent idea. Rather than try to cram all points of view into one article, how about loosening up and allowing several articles with differing points of view or level of detail?
This idea has been discussed before, but is worth another look.
Fred, you can keep SPOV on Wikinfo; Wikipedia is and always will be NPOV. The "multiple levels of detail" is already covered by subarticles (eg. Geography of Australia).
Having multiple articles on one topic from different points of view is certainly a bad idea, but having multiple articles (if people can bother to maintain them) need not be. The objective of an article is to explain a given topic, and a single monolithic explanation might not suit everybody, for instance if you're familiar with the field you'd like a more technical explanation and if you aren't something that eases you into the topic is more appropriate.
To give some examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete
Excellent examples. Here's another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_communism
Fred
On Jan 6, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Tomer Chachamu wrote:
To give some examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete
Fred Bauder napisału:
To give some examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete
Excellent examples. Here's another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_communism Fred
Of the three articles, only one is an article variant. The other two are actually subarticles. Article about criticisms of communism is one thing, a critical article about communism is another.
That's true and the article Criticisms of communism would not be acceptable on Wikinfo as it is NPOV. We might keep it but it would be entitled Criticisms of communism according to Wikipedia.
Fred
On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Paweł Dembowski wrote:
Fred Bauder napisału:
To give some examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete
Excellent examples. Here's another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_communism Fred
Of the three articles, only one is an article variant. The other two are actually subarticles. Article about criticisms of communism is one thing, a critical article about communism is another.
-- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org