[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Wjhonson]

Can you give an example of what "appeal to the popular" means in the context of our project and how those "appeals" as you say are not educational?  For example just today, at work, a question came up about exactly what a certain divorce proceeding said about a certain politician and why that ruined his chances of getting elected.  I looked it up in Wikipedia and everyone thought I was very resourceful for being able to find the answer and now they know a lot more about sex clubs and ex-wives.  Now that's popular, tabloid if you will, but it's also knowledge and it's in the project where it should be.



QUOTE I have pointed out areas of weakness. On the point 
bout 'the masses', surely you agree there is a balance to strike between 
ppealing to the popular, and 'education'.  Education by definition is 
llowing people to acquire knowledge, stuff they wouldn't have got for 
hemselves without help. ENDQUOTE







-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Damian <peter.damian at btinternet.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?


Risker >>In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than half the number of 
rticles 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
uality standards for featured content has become more rigorous.
I think the featured articles are generally of merit.  I would never deny 
hat.
>>Can the content of all our projects be improved?  Of course it can; even 
>our
ighest quality content benefits from periodic review and improvement.
My point was rather that the content in certain areas is abysmal and easily 
mproved.  Linguistics, economics, sociology and of course philosophy are in 
 terrible state.
>>I'd suggest, however, that the progress of only a handful of the 12 
>million
rticles and files across the WMF group is probably not the best way to
ssess the overall quality of the project.
Well featured articles are a handful of the 12 million articles aren't they?
he only way to deal with this issue is methodically.  Take any humanities 
ubject, and compare the quality and proportionality of the treatment with 
ny standard reference work on the same subject.  My strong sense, in my own 
rea of specialisation, is that Wikipedia is very poor.
Nathan >>You are, and have been, committed to several conclusions about
ikipedia - that the idea of an editable encyclopedia itself is
atally flawed, that it is unduly oriented to topics of interest to
the masses", and that the community and its bureaucracy are [sic] hopefully
orrupt and ineffective.
I don't see an argument here.  I don't think that Wikipedia is fatally 
lawed, by any means.  I have pointed out areas of weakness. On the point 
bout 'the masses', surely you agree there is a balance to strike between 
ppealing to the popular, and 'education'.  Education by definition is 
llowing people to acquire knowledge, stuff they wouldn't have got for 
hemselves without help.  I have been a teacher, and I am strongly committed 
o that ideal.
And there is strong evidence of corruption, but as I was banned for pointing 
hat out, it is unfair of you to bring it up, I think. 

______________________________________________
oundation-l mailing list
oundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

=