[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Nathan]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Peter Damian
<peter.damian at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Risker >>In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than half the number of
> articles it has now.
>
> Hs anyone made a serious study of what these articles actually contain?
>
>>>Only a tiny number of articles were considered of high enough quality to
>>>be
> "featured" in 2005; that number has grown exponentially at the same time as
> quality standards for featured content has become more rigorous.
>
> I think the featured articles are generally of merit.  I would never deny
> that.
>
>>>Can the content of all our projects be improved?  Of course it can; even
>>>our
> highest quality content benefits from periodic review and improvement.
>
> My point was rather that the content in certain areas is abysmal and easily
> improved.  Linguistics, economics, sociology and of course philosophy are in
> a terrible state.
>
>>>I'd suggest, however, that the progress of only a handful of the 12
>>>million
> articles and files across the WMF group is probably not the best way to
> assess the overall quality of the project.
>
> Well featured articles are a handful of the 12 million articles aren't they?
> The only way to deal with this issue is methodically.  Take any humanities
> subject, and compare the quality and proportionality of the treatment with
> any standard reference work on the same subject.  My strong sense, in my own
> area of specialisation, is that Wikipedia is very poor.
>
> Nathan >>You are, and have been, committed to several conclusions about
> Wikipedia - that the idea of an editable encyclopedia itself is
> fatally flawed, that it is unduly oriented to topics of interest to
> "the masses", and that the community and its bureaucracy are [sic] hopefully
> corrupt and ineffective.
>
> I don't see an argument here.  I don't think that Wikipedia is fatally
> flawed, by any means.  I have pointed out areas of weakness. On the point
> about 'the masses', surely you agree there is a balance to strike between
> appealing to the popular, and 'education'.  Education by definition is
> allowing people to acquire knowledge, stuff they wouldn't have got for
> themselves without help.  I have been a teacher, and I am strongly committed
> to that ideal.
>
> And there is strong evidence of corruption, but as I was banned for pointing
> that out, it is unfair of you to bring it up, I think.
>
>

(Just to clarify, since my error above might distort the meaning - I
intended to write "are hopelessly corrupt and ineffective", not
"hopefully").

It's always been my impression that you fundamentally disagree with
the idea of allowing a popular reference work to be written by anyone
who wants to participate, advanced education or no. Perhaps this is
because you view Wikipedia as an attempt at educating the public. I
don't think this is the right way of looking at it. In my mind the
purpose is to make as much information as possible available to as
wide an audience as possible, which is in line with the normal purpose
of a reference work - but not the same as developing a comprehensive
text intended as a curriculum aid. Normal reference works discriminate
against "frivolous" topics because they have space and financial
limits. Wikipedia suffers from neither, so the intentional balancing
you suggest is unnecessary.