[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

[David Gerard]

Andrew Lih wrote:

> I know what you're saying, and I don't think anyone on the
> Foundation-L list would endorse anything like regulation or being on
> the hook legally.
> But this clearly should be added to the wake up calls -- "SOFIXIT"
> does not cut it anymore. Wikipedia cannot enjoy the bragging rights of
> a "Top 40" web site without changing its quality standards to match.


The problem is that we peaked way too early. The site is late-alpha or
early beta at best, and should have big 1995-style yellow and black
"UNDER CONSTRUCTION" GIFs with really bad aliasing on most pages.

There's no drastic solution that won't fuck up the community operations
of the site. Running a hack'n'slash cull on the live site will lead to
the current webcomics debacle times a thousand. We already have
specialists in all sorts of areas saying they don't even want to bother
starting to write up something they know for Wikipedia because (quote
from Sunday's UK meet) "some idiot will delete it *because* they don't
understand it." Imagine that outside attitude for a thousand specialist
subjects.


> I'm not convinced the Article Rating feature that is waiting in the
> wings is the right or efficient way to do it. But we have to get
> closer to the "1.0" solution. It's time.


There isn't a fast way and article rating isn't a fast way either. There
is no silver bullet. We are early beta (usable and testable but mostly
composed of bugs) and the real world will need to get used to that,
because there is no way to change that in the next week or month.

I suspect we'll actually be able to work better if we're not flavour of
the month.


- d.