[Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Kim Bruning <kim at bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
> eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
> encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
>
> Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
> strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.
>


Rules may be strict, but in the things that matter they are ineffective.
For the past few days, the media have reported on the Bicholim Conflict
hoax – a "Good Article" on a war that never happened, and could never have
happened (one of the parties to it, the Maratha Empire, did not even exist
at the time).*

That hoax remained listed as a Good Article for more than five years. The
Good Article reviewing guideline says,

*Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and
sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the
sources; this ideal is not often attained.*
*
*
In the wake of the Bicholim conflict story, another contributor was blocked
the other day by George William Herbert, "upon review of outstanding claims
of fabrication of sources and quotes. Damaging the integrity of Wikipedia
is not acceptable behavior."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#False_references_and_BLP_misquotes:_block_user_as_hoaxer.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legolas2186&diff=531375810&oldid=531295145

That editor has written or co-written 95 Good Articles, and 7 Featured
Articles, mostly on entertainers like Madonna and Lady Gaga. That included
a Featured Article on Madonna, which was then demoted, with lots of
material removed, after sourcing concerns were raised about the editor's
work. Editors who looked into the concerns say the chap made up sources and
put words into Madonna's mouth, making her say things in Wikipedia which
she had never said, and still getting his articles approved for GA and FA.

The English Wikipedia needs a wake-up call. It offers a playground to
vandals and petty officials, has people arguing interminably about civility
and waffling about the need to assume good faith, while encyclopedic core
skills are lacking, even in what is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work.

Andreas

*For a write-up and links, see
http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/09/wikipedias-new-year-begins-with-a-hoax/