[WikiEN-l] "So fix it." "The next day someone will fix it back."

[K P]

On 4/1/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it is too important to be dismissive about this approach. Even
> > correctly cited things can be removed or butchered, even incorrectly
> > cited things can stay on. I'm not sure that increased calls for
> > citation will solve or even mitigate the problem. Any academic can
> > tell you that citation is hardly a gold standard; it is not what
> > convinces people of the accuracy of any claim. In the end that comes
> > down to trust, and that comes down to authorship, and that comes down
> > to things that Wikipedia doesn't, won't, and maybe can't do right.
> >
> > At this point, Wikipedia's epistemology privileges the persistant, the
> > dedicated, and those with a lot of free time on their hands. Which is
> > a set of qualities which describes both the best _and_ the worst
> > editors.
> >
> > I don't have an answer though. Just something to muse on, in the face
> > of some rather derisive high-brow publicity from an immensely popular,
> > immensely intelligent person.
> >
> > FF
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> Persistence can win over truth and neutrality - unless the persistent
> one is so blatantly inserting falsehoods that he is identified as a
> vandal and blocked.
>
> On high profile articles this matters not, as the persistence of the one
> pov-pusher will be undone by the more apathetic action of the many.
>
> The problem is with low notability articles, where one persistent pusher
> can own the article for months or years.
>
> To harp back on to my subject of bios, here there is a real problem, not
> of the outright libeler but one someone persistently making sure the
> article includes all negative commentary (often well cited) and no
> positive. These hatchet jobs are a real problem as what really need is
> someone to equally persistently research the other side and then keep
> it balanced. The admin called to the scene seldom had the time or
> interest.
>
> Maybe that is just what wikipedia is. We have a great system that can
> produce great articles in fairly uncontroversial subjects, or at its
> best controversial ones where there is a large group of people with a
> cross-section of views interested. But we are crap at low-notability
> controversial subjects, and particularly bios. Maybe trying to change
> policies to correct that systemic fact is misguided.


There is a small but dedicated group of editors who think that these small
bios are rather important to Wikipedia--in fact, I think they are where
Wikipedia can shine.  Please don't throw our work in the trash.  Check out
Daniel Rodriguez sometimes, for example, and look at the tooth pulling we
had to do to polish this article up.

The problem, imo, is the lack of notice of these articles, and the cat
fights at AfD for anybody who doesn't have a ten-page spread in Britannica.
It's too small to be a FA, and GA status is not much.  It will never be on
the front page, and fighting its owner to just improve the English, much
less the content of the article took down at least 3 editors and an admin.
The editors have to fight to keep in the small biographies all of the time
by the deletionists (and yes, they exist), they're not often adopted by
projects, again because they're not big names.

We don't crap at "low-notability controversial subject, particularly bios."
It's just the editors can't spend all their time fighting every single thing
about the article and produce a good article.  The person who put this
article up attacked me and two other editors for every edit we made, no
matter how dramatically it improved the article.  The article was an
unreadable piece of shit to begin with.  We had to fight in AfD to keep it
on Wikipedia at all.

Rodriguez isn't particularly controversial, other than whether he's notable
at all, but I offered a sound solution to the recent bio on what's her name
and the use of blogs, namely quote from the blogs and then show the blogs
are notable because OTHERS have quoted from them, but it was ignored.
Wikipedia and this list both have a lot of inertia.  The ideas are there,
the people are there, but they're being ignored.  So are the small
biographies, unless and until someone complains or edit wars about them.
This is an area where Wikipedia can, and imo, should shine, because
you can't find this type of information in one place elsewhere on the web,
succinct, well-researched and good biographies of minor notables.

I think minor biographies of living people should be featured on the front
page, just like FA, get all those award chasers interested in them, show
people Wikipedia cares about biographies of living people.  Strike out,
again, in solitude against the big boy encyclopedias, by showing what you
can do on the web that you can't do in print, namely include lots of minor
notables, polish them up, and display them proudly.

There's too much reactionary response to supposed crisis.

KP