[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Yann Forget]

Hello,

2010/9/17 Peter Damian <peter.damian at btinternet.com>:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wjhonson" <wjhonson at aol.com>
>
>> 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 agree that the core content of Wikipedia should be educational, not trivia.

I also agree that there is a strong unbalance against humanities, and
social sciences,
as you said "Linguistics, economics, sociology and philosophy". I
would add pedagogy
and psychology among the areas with the poorest quality.

I think that was OK in the beginning, and maybe still in 2005, and I
have hoped it would correct
itself over time, when the average contributor would shift away from
geeks and free software activists
(I am myself a geek and a free software/content activist, just to be clear).
It worries me now than 10 years after the project started, we still
have this strong unbalance.
Of course, the quality of most articles has improved, but I would like
to see some serious study
about this unbalance, and what WMF intends to do to correct this.

> I would be interested in other people's views.

Regards,

Yann