[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia, a world without borders with borders?

[Ray Saintonge]

b m wrote:

>As for the low quality content on NL, i agree that EN was conceived a couple
>of years earlier, but the Dutch wiki has over 300k articles, that's a number
>that suggests a large userbase, and high quality. But as i demonstrated, an
>article about the most famous scientist of the last 100 years cites 0
>sources. I believe that is wrong. On the Dutch wiki the image use policy is
>enforced with vigor, but the "citing references" issue is hardly addressed.
>I think that is wrong.
>
Then _you_ can add them.

>I agree that Jimbo can't interfere with every wiki in every language, -but-
>the Dutch wiki is in the top 10 of wikis in size. And i believe that on
>other large wikis the same issue applies. The German wiki is second in size,
>and has only 3 references in the article about Einstein.
>
Maybe the German wiki is right about this.  One good reference about a 
biography of this sort may be enough.  Is anyone in German or Dutch 
questioning the accuracy of any specific points about the Einstein 
biography.

>Wouldn't it be reasonable is there was something of a rapporteur to the
>board for the larger wikis, so that at least the top 10 wikis look generally
>the same? The Dutch wiki gets a fair amount of press coverage, it would be a
>shame if it were negative press, would't it?
>
The fact then is that you are getting the press coverage that you are.  
Your speculation suggests that at least it is not yet bad.  Why is nl:wp 
getting so much good press coverage when it is as bad as you say?

>As for NPOV, I have seen more examples of the sort on various articles, even
>about animals. Some articles echo a sort of "Greenpeace" sound, whether it
>be deliberate or not. 
>
Maybe the "Greenpeace" sound is the Dutch NPOV on the matter.  It could 
just as easily happen that the NPOV on another wiki is quite different.

>The Dutch wiki also has no template for "this article
>is written like an advertisement". Not because they had no time to make one,
>but because for some reason, they have no desire for it.
>
If the Dutch participants have no desire for it, and are satisfied by 
the situation, then that's their choice.  If you think that that is 
wrong then they are the one whom you must convince to change.

>My question, can, and is it desirable, that Jimbo or some other official
>intervenes?
>
It's not at all desirable.  To me project autonomy is a paramount value, 
and interference from higher authority needs to be limited to an 
absolute minimum.  There will still be a few areas where this is 
unavoidably needed, but they need to be well thought out.

 Oddly enough, it seems that most of the support for greater Board 
interference is not coming from the Board.  Some of the things that 
people do or the rules that they adopt on any project are absolutely 
maddening.  English is no exception.  Having some kind of superior body 
decide everything for us would make certain aspects of life much easier, 
but do we really want easier.  Easier comes with a cost.

>Or is citing references only vital in the English wiki? I tend to look at
>the English wiki before looking at the Dutch one, for this very reason, the
>quality is so low on many Dutch articles, and sometimes the facts differ
>substantially from the English articles, as if the author did not compare or
>check his facts. Do we want other language wikis to be inferior because they
>are not under strict regulations?
>
Different does not imply inferior.  Is anyone stopping you from adding 
references to the Dutch Wikipedia or otherwise improving its quality?  
That project needs to develop in its own way, and at its own rate.

Ec