What is your feeling about the following sort of problem? This sort problem is what drove Julie Kemp away, not to mention a number of other very valuable participants.
As a philosopher, I've studied metaphysics and topics in metaphysics in a number of graduate courses and I continue to maintain an interest in the topic of existence ("Is existence a property?") and metaphysics generally. By no means am I an *expert* on the topic of reality, but I guess I'm the closest thing we current have to one.
Last June or July I noticed that our [[Reality]] page was a complete joke. At the time I felt I didn't have the time or patience to try to correct it. Unfortunately, the people working on the page kept at it for the next few months and now, if anything, it has gotten worse: philosophically illiterate, poorly written, completely biased, and fundamentally confused about what an article about "reality" should be about.
So on the talk page I took some time out and went through the article, line by line, and explained what was wrong with it. When finished, I had convinced myself that virtually no part of it was salvageable, so I wrote about five paragraphs of a new article, and just completely deleted the old one.
This upset Fred Bauder, who it seems was responsible for most of the old article. Without going into details (see the Talk: page if you want), Fred maintained that the original article was superior to the new one. After an exchange, I decided to give up; I wrote, "I'm not going to try to improve this article any more. Go ahead and revert it to the old crappy version. I'm not going to work on this article as long as you're working on it."
So Fred did revert it, making my article into a subheading of his article, called "A Philosophical Discussion" (as if I had been talking about a different topic from the one he was addressing). To his credit he actually edited his old article and removed a few of the problems with it that I had pointed out, but it still remains pretty much a confused piece of garbage, in my opinion.
Then I realized that I had been driven away from working on something I actually cared about and knew something about--just as Julie had been. So I decided to resist the desire to give up; I reverted my own article and put Fred's below it.
I am extremely dissatisfied with this situation, however. As in the case with the [[racism]] article, there is now more than one article on the page. Having multiple articles is just a way to avoid controversy among editors; it doesn't serve readers very well, for one thing. I'm mighty tempted to delete Fred's version again, but I honestly don't really know what to do at this point. (Thus, I'm writing to you folks.)
There's a general issue that this situation illustrates. This isn't the first time the issue has come up, obviously. The issue is: when we've got someone who is clearly more of an expert on a topic locking horns with a stubborn dilettante who fails to see how little he or she actually knows, what do we do? Nothing?
Let me tell you, I can *really* understand why Michael Tinkler and Julie Kemp left. It's the same reason that a lot of other able minds never join in the first place.
Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness, to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the face of the above problem?
--Larry
Larry Sanger wrote:
What is your feeling about the following sort of problem? This sort problem is what drove Julie Kemp away, not to mention a number of other very valuable participants.
...
Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness, to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the face of the above problem?
Get Ed Poor to mediate ^_^.
-- Toby
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip to the end...>
Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness, to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the face of the above problem?
--Larry
I agree with KQ's suggestion. I think it's a matter of trying to work together. As an expert, your natural inclination is to replace an article that you don't think very much of with your own writing. Fred's natural reaction to this is to feel dismissed. The problem escalates from there.
This isn't the same situation as, say, "working" on an article with Helga Jonat. Fred (Hi Fred! Are you tuned in to this thread?) is a good contributor to the project, and isn't out to push a specific agenda all through Wikipedia. On the other side of the coin, you're obviously not intending to dismiss Fred as unimportant, nor are you trying to insult his intelligence.
Remember that you both have the same goal: to produce a good article on "reality". It seems that there's a clash of approaches here. "Reality" is an enormous topic, and a truly good article is not going to take shape in only a few weeks.
We're starting to see the growth of Wikipedia straining the sense of community. Take a look at the Wiki Life Cycle (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle). It's a remarkably accurate guide to the rise and fall of wiki communities. We are entering stage 17: "Decline Of Civility -- there are more strangers than friends, and assum[ing] good faith fails as reputation is fleeting." As more and more Wikipedians contribute, we have to be careful; it's getting easier to get into heated arguments, and these fights will de-stabilize a project that bases itself on openness.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip to the end...>
Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with our policies of openness, to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the face of the above problem?
--Larry
I agree with KQ's suggestion. I think it's a matter of trying to work together. As an expert, your natural inclination is to replace an article that you don't think very much of with your own writing. Fred's natural reaction to this is to feel dismissed. The problem escalates from there.
Here's the problem, though. Again, I think KQ has the right approach, but it doesn't solve every problem along these lines. With all due respect, in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's talking about on this topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to go through an article from someone who does not understand the subject (but thinks he does).
Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred has reacted, I think. Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say. Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said, "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article, I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
This isn't the same situation as, say, "working" on an article with Helga Jonat. Fred (Hi Fred! Are you tuned in to this thread?) is a good contributor to the project, and isn't out to push a specific agenda all through Wikipedia.
I'm not talking about the whole project. In this article, he certainly has been trying to push a specific agenda, though it's possible he doesn't quite realize that.
On the other side of the coin, you're obviously not intending to dismiss Fred as unimportant, nor are you trying to insult his intelligence.
Well, that certainly wasn't my point!
Remember that you both have the same goal: to produce a good article on "reality". It seems that there's a clash of approaches here. "Reality" is an enormous topic, and a truly good article is not going to take shape in only a few weeks.
I appreciate the attention you're giving this, Stephen, but this doesn't help. The problem decidedly *isn't* that we haven't spent enough time on it (the original, awful article was up there for many months).
Wikipedia should not *have to be* about *everyone* who wants to collaborate on an article gets an equal seat at the table on every article, with all of their views expressed. Sometimes, people can be wrong; and they don't know that they're wrong, because they just don't know enough about the topic. That's my point.
We're starting to see the growth of Wikipedia straining the sense of community. Take a look at the Wiki Life Cycle (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle). It's a remarkably accurate guide to the rise and fall of wiki communities. We are entering stage 17: "Decline Of Civility -- there are more strangers than friends, and assum[ing] good faith fails as reputation is fleeting." As more and more Wikipedians contribute, we have to be careful; it's getting easier to get into heated arguments, and these fights will de-stabilize a project that bases itself on openness.
Again, while I agree that it's important to be civil and I agree with the above sentiments, but I am skeptical that it's a new or growing problem. I mean, we've *always* had trouble of this sort. You'd think I'd know how to deal with it by now...
Larry
Larry Sanger wrote:
Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say. Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said, "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article, I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
This is an interesting example. In the main it expresses a logical approach to a situation, but it gets off the track in two respects. The phrase "totally garbage" is unnecesary to the expert's critical comments even if he finds little of value in your contributions; there are many people whose sensitivities are such that they would see none of the posting after that phrase. The second problem would lie in your feeling that you need to be "abjectly apologetic". When you wrote about digital cameras in the first place, you, in good faith, produced the best article that you could under the circumstances; there's no cause for apology in that.
Eclecticology
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say. Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said, "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article, I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
This is an interesting example. In the main it expresses a logical approach to a situation, but it gets off the track in two respects. The phrase "totally garbage" is unnecesary to the expert's critical comments even if he finds little of value in your contributions; there are many people whose sensitivities are such that they would see none of the posting after that phrase. The second problem would lie in your feeling that you need to be "abjectly apologetic". When you wrote about digital cameras in the first place, you, in good faith, produced the best article that you could under the circumstances; there's no cause for apology in that.
Larry does have a point. As a classically-trained musician, I know a lot about music theory. But Camembert knows more than me. In the past week I've made a couple of suggestions which s/he has disagreed with, and I've (graciously, I hope) given way. Rational, intelligent wikipedians ought to be expected to recognize when someone has more expertise in a given field than they do.
The problem with the "reality" article is somewhat the same as I found on something like "key signature" a long time ago. It's quite a complex subject, everyone thinks they understand it, and most are mistaken. (in the case of "key sig", because they were shoved in front of the piano at the tender age of 6 and barked at by wizened spinster piano teachers... but I digress)
tarquin wrote:
As a classically-trained musician, I know a lot about music theory. [...] Rational, intelligent wikipedians ought to be expected to recognize when someone has more expertise in a given field than they do.
The problem here is that we know a lot about a topic, but we don't necessarily know how to explain or teach the topic to those who know less, in such a way that makes them realize that they know less. There is much literature on how to teach in an effective and efficient way, and how to write useful texts. But all normal teaching assumes that the student knows he is the student and doesn't falsely believe that he is the teacher. Here we first have to establish who is the teacher and who is the student. We cannot simply tell them "you know less about this, so you are the student, and I am the teacher". That won't work. They will (perhaps correctly) believe that we are pompous and stupid. The blurring of the teacher-student relationship occurs only at the postgraduate level in our traditional education system. We cannot expect all Wikipedians to be on that level (age 25 or above in full academic careers).
It's quite a complex subject, everyone thinks they understand it, and most are mistaken.
So each article needs not only to establish a context, but also to establish how complex the topic is.
My favorite history book starts by asserting that the "ice age" was discovered in the late 19th century, i.e. it starts by telling the history of the history topic (the ice age is more recent than the telephone!). Most traditional history books would start (as does http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age) by telling when the glaciation happened (as if that had always been known).
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip to the end...>
Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with
our
policies of openness, to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the face of the above problem?
--Larry
I agree with KQ's suggestion. I think it's a
matter of
trying to work together. As an expert, your
natural
inclination is to replace an article that you
don't
think very much of with your own writing. Fred's natural reaction to this is to feel dismissed. The problem escalates from there.
Here's the problem, though. Again, I think KQ has the right approach, but it doesn't solve every problem along these lines. With all due respect, in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's talking about on this topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to go through an article from someone who does not understand the subject (but thinks he does).
Perhaps Fred doesn't understand the subject; I really can't say. After reading both versions of the article, I can say that I found neither particularly helpful to a philosophical layman, but of course you had just started the new version, so it's hardly a completed article.
Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred has reacted, I think. Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say. Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said, "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article, I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
In general, I think generalists (like me) should defer to people who have actively studied and specialized in a certain field. However, it's much easier to see mistakes in an article on [[digital camera]]s as opposed to somethig like [[reality]].
This isn't the same situation as, say, "working"
on an
article with Helga Jonat. Fred (Hi Fred! Are you
tuned
in to this thread?) is a good contributor to the project, and isn't out to push a specific agenda
all
through Wikipedia.
I'm not talking about the whole project. In this article, he certainly has been trying to push a specific agenda, though it's possible he doesn't quite realize that.
If that's what you think, it might be best to assume the latter.
Remember that you both have the same goal: to
produce
a good article on "reality". It seems that there's
a
clash of approaches here. "Reality" is an enormous topic, and a truly good article is not going to
take
shape in only a few weeks.
I appreciate the attention you're giving this, Stephen, but this doesn't help. The problem decidedly *isn't* that we haven't spent enough time on it (the original, awful article was up there for many months).
We have lots of awful articles that have been up for more than a year. "Time" may have been a poor word to use; I'm thinking more about effort. Wikipedia's broad, general subjects are of a much lower quality than more specific ones, and I think this is because of the time and effort it takes to write a good, general article. I know I've been working offline on a Communication article for months, and I just can't drum up enough enthusiasm for it. It's a major project.
You may be right that this doesn't touch on the specific problem you bring up, but I do think it is a factor in the larger problem of general articles. I'll move on...
Wikipedia should not *have to be* about *everyone* who wants to collaborate on an article gets an equal seat at the table on every article, with all of their views expressed.
Of course not.
Sometimes, people can be wrong; and they don't know that they're wrong, because they just don't know enough about the topic. That's my point.
Well, it comes dow to this: You have studied philosophy extensively, and you say that the article on reality is full of errors. Fred, who is interested in the topic, doesn't see the article as being full of errors. If neither of you can find common ground to work on the article, the only solution is to recruit more people who have studied the topic work on it.
Fred, if you are reading this, I encourage you to work with Larry, not against him. He's not just pulling things out of thin air, and taking the time to go through an article line by line, point out problems, takes an enormous amount of effort. Don't let that effort go to waste.
We're starting to see the growth of Wikipedia straining the sense of community. Take a look at
the
Wiki Life Cycle
(http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle).
It's a remarkably accurate guide to the rise and
fall
of wiki communities. We are entering stage 17: "Decline Of Civility -- there are more strangers
than
friends, and assum[ing] good faith fails as
reputation
is fleeting." As more and more Wikipedians
contribute,
we have to be careful; it's getting easier to get
into
heated arguments, and these fights will
de-stabilize a
project that bases itself on openness.
Again, while I agree that it's important to be civil and I agree with the above sentiments, but I am skeptical that it's a new or growing problem. I mean, we've *always* had trouble of this sort. You'd think I'd know how to deal with it by now...
I disagree. From my observations, it is a growing problem in that we have more contributors who don't really know each other. The Wiki Life Cycle describes Wikipedia's evolution quite accurately; I'd rather that changed before we hit the downswing.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com writes:
Here's the problem, though. Again, I think KQ has the right approach, but it doesn't solve every problem along these lines. With all due respect, in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's talking about on this topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to go through an article from someone who does not understand the subject (but thinks he does).
I doubt if anyone can say for himself that he really understood the concept of reality. My attitude towards topics like this is always a sort of humility - many great people have thought about it but didn't arrive at one generally agreed definition, so why should I? and that would be the first rule for editing in such a field: if you think you've understood it wholly you are probably wrong. Maybe you have understood Kant or Plato's conception - but reality as a whole?
Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred has reacted, I think. Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say. Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said, "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article, I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
This depends. If I wrote an article and some expert came around, reverting all I did and writing a new, I can imagine two possible reactions: either he suceeded to say what I wanted to say but failed. Then I sit back, admire his work and say: fine :-). or he says something completely different which goes against my concepts of the topic. He did better in his approach than I but I feel there is more to say which he left out and which was - even inadequately expressed - in my old part he deleted. I think Fred and you are in situation 2 at the moment.
I'm not talking about the whole project. In this article, he certainly has been trying to push a specific agenda, though it's possible he doesn't quite realize that.
The impression I got was that Fred tried a broader approach to the topic while you tried to limit the article on philosophical concepts. Both approaches are IMHO legitim. Second: while you tried to give an account of the discussions about reality, Fred tried to give definitions - which in the way he did will IMHO inevitably fail. Maybe you should seperately discuss these two points: what should be the content and how should be the form.
greetings, elian
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org