[Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that dealswithcontentissues.

[Peter Damian]

From: "Andrea Zanni" <zanni.andrea84 at gmail.com>


> It seems that Humanities are overall a problematic area for Wikipedia,
> because less involved in consensus building, and much focused in the
> stratification of different interpretations.

No quite untrue.  My background is analytic philosophy and I have worked on 
many articles and have made friends with those working in the 'European' 
tradition of philosophy. We settled our differences (indeed ignored our 
differences from the beginning) and worked to defend philosophy articles 
from the endless vandalism.  There was never any disagreement. But most of 
them have given up by now.

From: "Excirial" <wp.excirial at gmail.com>
> The problem you mention is actually the stagnation of edits.

You snipped the bit where I talked about the benchmark article which is 
gradually eroded into chaos.  Unless the articles are well looked after by 
those that care and understand, they deteriorate and rot away. Do you 
propose any solutions for this?  I'm interesting in solutions.


From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> We need to set up a regular mechanism which analyzes and searches for
> errors.

Well I'm working through articles and writing them up and reporting them 
(I'm not correcting them, obviously).  But there are many thousands of 
errors, and I am one person :(