[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Phil Nash]

Peter Damian wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wjhonson" <wjhonson at aol.com>
> To: <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>
>
>> Quote: "Then you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word
>> 'educational' I think. "
>>
>> Perhaps the word you want is "academic".
>
> No I meant 'educational'.  I'm actually quite shocked by some of the
> things being said in this thread, and that the people who have said
> them are running Wikipedia.
> Does anyone else, apart from these two, have any views on what they
> have said?  The WMF goal is about "collecting and developing
> educational content".  Does that mean 'education' in the sense I have
> characterised it? I.e. bringing to the public subjects that are
> generally not ephemeral or trivial, and which are enduring and a
> monument to the human spirit, and generally noble and good, in a way
> that is interesting and accessible?
>
> I would be interested in other people's views.

You say you meant "educational", but it seems clear to me that your POV is 
that anything that is not "academic" is not "educational". Philosophy, your 
own subject, is not one to be approached lightly, yet which has been taught 
(at least in its principles) to primary school children in the UK in recent 
years; ideas of "right and wrong, fairness and justice", "why are we here 
and what do we do while we're here?" are always interesting concepts, 
whatever ones level of understanding, and while I don't see kids being 
taught the history of moral thought, or existentialism, it makes them think, 
which is what I believe education should be about.

Having said that, the idea of what constitutes "education" has changed 
somewhat majorly over that least 2000 years, and specifically the last 100 
years in the UK, and whereas we no longer regard the ability to launch a 
spear into an enemy as a worthwhile talent to possess (and which can be 
taught), we now have systems that perform the same calculations, much 
faster, and with much more repeatability. We also have yet primitive AI 
systems that can achieve success rates approaching human capabilities, yet 
are mistrusted simply because in safety-critical or life-critical 
situations, they are perceived as inferior to human judgement- yet we see 
news reports of such failures by highly-qualified human professionals in 
those fields, and their consequences.

In the latter case, it's a matter of statistics, which brings me back to my 
original point in this thread- that taking an article at point A and later 
at point B in time, detecting "no improvement" (a surely subjective 
assessment) and thereby extrapolating to the whole of Wikipedia, cannot be 
sustained as a valid conclusion, as others have pointed out.

As for content generally, I have no objection to what you might call 
"popular culture", as long as it is treated properly; however, it's often 
written by editors who are unfamiliar with the difference between a blog and 
an encyclopedia and that is a challenge we face to educate those editors in 
reliable sourcing, encyclopedic tone, etc.

As for you, like "The Blues Brothers", you claim the moral high ground as if 
you were "on a mission from God", yet are not only banned from Wikipedia, 
but have expressed an intention to challenge from within, as a kind of 
breaching experiment, by complaining to our major donors that you have been 
prevented from adding "good content". In fact, you've tried this on several 
occasions, none of which have resulted in an perceived reduction on 
donations. That should tell you that apart from the various other banned 
malcontents who inhabit Wikipedia Review, you are alone, and very much so. 
I'd suggest you read C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" essay; interpolate a third 
culture (say, pop music or reality tv) and extrapolate to how Wikipedia 
should be dealing philosophically and practically, with editors who, in good 
faith, want to add information of interest to themselves and their 
generation.

That's all, and "all the rest is silence".

Phil