[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Sat, 5/2/11, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Academic writing makes a judgement
> about  what the most likely state
> of matters is, and gives a position. When I read  an
> academic paper ,
> in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions.
> (I am
> likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if
> they seem
> interesting, then go back and read the evidence.)  I
> don't see how
> community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for
> which a
> particular person does not take responsibility: the reason
> is that
> different people will necessarily reach different
> conclusions.
> 
> A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a
> POV, but
> nonetheless arrange the material so  as to express
> one. I think all
> good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or
> textbook
> writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying
> one,
> beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the
> different
> people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel
> each other
> out.
> 
> But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a
> particular
> direction. We try to write articles so the readers will
> have an
> understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This
> provides a
> fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning
> guide, and
> give a basis for further understanding--"understanding"
> implies a
> theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts
> of
> variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the
> way we
> work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and
> balance.   Let those
> who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method
> of
> orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that
> will
> express their personal view.


David, as always with your posts, this is an interesting view, and there is
much in it that I half-agree with. 

This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming 
for is FA. FAs are not written in the way you describe; they typically are 
polished, they do explain things, apply discrimination in the selection of
sources, and place appropriate weight on mainstream opinion, rather than 
focusing on tabloids and POVs from either end of the bell curve. 

The same is true about all good encyclopedia or textbook writing, to use
your expression.

FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams. The 
process you describe rarely results in FAs. Once anonymous community editing 
takes over, with an opinion inserted here, and a factoid inserted there, 
articles usually degrade, and lose FA status. That for example is the way 
the Atheism FA seems to be going currently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&action=history

The question is if we want a jumble of POVs, with duelling extremist 
sources inserted by anonymous drive-by editors, or sober articles that give 
a balanced overview of the knowledge compiled by society's institutions of
learning.

The problem with the anonymous crowdsourcing process, as it stands, is that 
the attraction of a good, emotive soundbyte, motivating an anonymous editor 
to insert it in knee-jerk fashion, outweighs the attraction exercised by a 
wealth of well-researched published educational content. Researching the 
latter takes time and serious effort; inserting a soundbyte does not.

FA writers do survey, access and reflect this educational content. I believe
in good encyclopedia writing. I believe we should aspire to it, and do what
we can to foster it.

Andreas
 
> In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and
> recognize
> the limitations. I think the general public does also, and
> it is our
> very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more
> polished,
> it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is
> twofold:
> bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is
> accurate and
> representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully; 
> and increasing
> our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the
> traditional
> humanities and similar areas in one direction, and
> everything outside
> the current English speaking world, in the other .