[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?

[Stephen Gilbert]

--- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> 
> > --- Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip to the end...>
> >
> > > Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with
> our
> > > policies of openness,
> > > to make the project more attractive to the
> > > best-qualified people, in the
> > > face of the above problem?
> > >
> > > --Larry
> >
> > I agree with KQ's suggestion. I think it's a
> matter of
> > trying to work together. As an expert, your
> natural
> > inclination is to replace an article that you
> don't
> > think very much of with your own writing. Fred's
> > natural reaction to this is to feel dismissed. The
> > problem escalates from there.
> 
> Here's the problem, though.  Again, I think KQ has
> the right approach, but
> it doesn't solve every problem along these lines. 
> With all due respect,
> in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's
> talking about on this
> topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to
> go through an article
> from someone who does not understand the subject
> (but thinks he does).

Perhaps Fred doesn't understand the subject; I really
can't say. After reading both versions of the article,
I can say that I found neither particularly helpful to
a philosophical layman, but of course you had just
started the new version, so it's hardly a completed
article.
 
> Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred
> has reacted, I think.
> Suppose I were to have written an article on
> something I know a little
> about, but which I am very far from being an
> expert--digital cameras, say.
> Then someone who were more of an expert were to came
> along and said,
> "Look, this article is totally garbage.  You didn't
> get half of the stuff
> right," and then replaced it with something that was
> better-informed, I'd
> like to think that I would totally understand. 
> Moreover, if the person
> took the time to go through, line by line, what was
> wrong with my article,
> I would probably be abjectly apologetic.

In general, I think generalists (like me) should defer
to people who have actively studied and specialized in
a certain field. However, it's much easier to see
mistakes in an article on [[digital camera]]s as
opposed to somethig like [[reality]].

> 
> > This isn't the same situation as, say, "working"
> on an
> > article with Helga Jonat. Fred (Hi Fred! Are you
> tuned
> > in to this thread?) is a good contributor to the
> > project, and isn't out to push a specific agenda
> all
> > through Wikipedia.
> 
> I'm not talking about the whole project.  In this
> article, he certainly
> has been trying to push a specific agenda, though
> it's possible he doesn't
> quite realize that.

If that's what you think, it might be best to assume
the latter.

> > Remember that you both have the same goal: to
> produce
> > a good article on "reality". It seems that there's
> a
> > clash of approaches here. "Reality" is an enormous
> > topic, and a truly good article is not going to
> take
> > shape in only a few weeks.
> 
> I appreciate the attention you're giving this,
> Stephen, but this doesn't
> help.  The problem decidedly *isn't* that we haven't
> spent enough time on
> it (the original, awful article was up there for
> many months).

We have lots of awful articles that have been up for
more than a year. "Time" may have been a poor word to
use; I'm thinking more about effort. Wikipedia's
broad, general subjects are of a much lower quality
than more specific ones, and I think this is because
of the time and effort it takes to write a good,
general article. I know I've been working offline on a
Communication article for months, and I just can't
drum up enough enthusiasm for it. It's a major
project.

You may be right that this doesn't touch on the
specific problem you bring up, but I do think it is a
factor in the larger problem of general articles. I'll
move on...
 
> Wikipedia should not *have to be* about *everyone*
> who wants to
> collaborate on an article gets an equal seat at the
> table on every
> article, with all of their views expressed.

Of course not.

> Sometimes, people can be
> wrong; and they don't know that they're wrong,
> because they just don't
> know enough about the topic.  That's my point.

Well, it comes dow to this: You have studied
philosophy extensively, and you say that the article
on reality is full of errors. Fred, who is interested
in the topic, doesn't see the article as being full of
errors. If neither of you can find common ground to
work on the article, the only solution is to recruit
more people who have studied the topic work on it.

Fred, if you are reading this, I encourage you to work
with Larry, not against him. He's not just pulling
things out of thin air, and taking the time to go
through an article line by line, point out problems,
takes an enormous amount of effort. Don't let that
effort go to waste.

> > We're starting to see the growth of Wikipedia
> > straining the sense of community. Take a look at
> the
> > Wiki Life Cycle
> >
> (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle).
> > It's a remarkably accurate guide to the rise and
> fall
> > of wiki communities. We are entering stage 17:
> > "Decline Of Civility -- there are more strangers
> than
> > friends, and assum[ing] good faith fails as
> reputation
> > is fleeting." As more and more Wikipedians
> contribute,
> > we have to be careful; it's getting easier to get
> into
> > heated arguments, and these fights will
> de-stabilize a
> > project that bases itself on openness.
> 
> Again, while I agree that it's important to be civil
> and I agree with the
> above sentiments, but I am skeptical that it's a new
> or growing problem.
> I mean, we've *always* had trouble of this sort. 
> You'd think I'd know how
> to deal with it by now...

I disagree. From my observations, it is a growing
problem in that we have more contributors who don't
really know each other. The Wiki Life Cycle describes
Wikipedia's evolution quite accurately; I'd rather
that changed before we hit the downswing.

Stephen G.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/