Wikipedia Unrecoverable, Alternative Created

[luchog]

It appears that one of Wikipedia's original founders agrees with it's detractors that, in its current model, it has too many problems and is not the utopian information resource that he intended. He has created an "alternative" to Wikipedia that relies more on experts, and far less on "common wisdom". Though anyone can contribute, control -- including final edits and publishing -- will be retained by the expert panel; making it far more like a traditional encyclopedia than the failed experiment he originally created.

So rather than try to fix the problem that has resulted in Wikipedia being a massive font of trivia and marginally useful information; he is forking the project.

Wikipedia founder forks Wikipedia (http://www.theregister.com/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/)

Excerpt:

Sanger set up Wikipedia six years ago with former bond trader Jimmy Wales, with money from Wales' titty portal Bomis underwriting the project. Sanger left in 2001, and in January this year announced a new project called Digital Universe, a web-based resource that employs domain experts, with $10m backing. (Wales has subsequently edited his own Wikipedia bio to diminish Sanger's contribution, anointing himself sole founder). Explaining the need for a companion project, Sanger said he thought that "humanity can do better" than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's shortcomings today were probably unsolvable.

"Wikipedia has already driven off no doubt thousands of would-be contributors, and there are thousands, if not millions, of people who never would think about contributing to Wikipedia in the first place. We want to set up, not a replacement, but an alternative to Wikipedia, a responsible constitutional republic that makes a special place for experts and invites the general public to work shoulder-to-shoulder with them," he wrote.

[Morrigan]

Interesting. When Wikipedia has a detailed article on w00t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W00t) (and a talk page twice as long), you know it's about damn time something like that happened, because Wikipedia is indeed an unrecoverable cesspool for the über-nerds.

[ponderingturtle]

I remember hearing a discussion about this(I think it was this) on NPR. They where saying that the problem is that he created wikipedia with out a way to generate money from it and was starting a new thing with enough differences and a plan to be able to generate money from it.

[Dark Jaguar]

What's wrong with a massive database of the mundane and trivial?

[Soapy Sam]

Hansard you mean?

[calebprime]

hansard--parliamentary debates?

I've observed the wiki to be completely unreliable for obscure subjects like advanced music theory--there are simply too few good people who care about some subjects; and stuff like cold fusion where the cranks can take over.

i think this would be a good thing. but probably much slower in the making.

[geni]

It appears that one of Wikipedia's original founders agrees with it's detractors that, in its current model, it has too many problems and is not the utopian information resource that he intended.

Wikipedia wasn't what he intened in a number of respects he left quite a while ago after he stoped being paid and had a run in with a few comunity memebers (which is fair enough those community members are a bit of a pain).



He has created an "alternative" to Wikipedia that relies more on experts, and far less on "common wisdom".


This is probably his thrid project to do that. Of the previous two the only one that has got anywhere is digital universe and that is still pretty small (although it has produced an impressive amount of bureaucracy).


Though anyone can contribute, control -- including final edits and publishing -- will be retained by the expert panel; making it far more like a traditional encyclopedia

Very much so. In fact a dead on description of a system Encarta is already useing.


than the failed experiment he originally created.


That would be nupedia. It wasn't very sucessful you can see what it produced here:

http://nupedia.8media.org/


So rather than try to fix the problem that has resulted in Wikipedia being a massive font of trivia and marginally useful information; he is forking the project.

Who are you to define what is and is not triva?

[geni]

Interesting. When Wikipedia has a detailed article on w00t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W00t) (and a talk page twice as long), you know it's about damn time something like that happened, because Wikipedia is indeed an unrecoverable cesspool for the über-nerds.

What is wrong with haveing an article on "w00t"? The encycopedia britanicia has rather a lot of articles on mildy notable 19th century people. I haven't seen anyone complaining about that.

[geni]

hansard--parliamentary debates?

I've observed the wiki to be completely unreliable for obscure subjects like advanced music theory

Not so much obscure (Biaxial nematic is a fairly decent article) but more areas geeks are not interested in such as the history of fashion or places outside western english speaking countries.


--there are simply too few good people who care about some subjects; and stuff like cold fusion where the cranks can take over.


Cold fusion has the problem that there are a number of non cranks who haven't given up on it.


i think this would be a good thing. but probably much slower in the making.

If it works it would be good but I tend to feel that it will be unlikely to get very far.

[geni]

I remember hearing a discussion about this(I think it was this) on NPR. They where saying that the problem is that he created wikipedia with out a way to generate money from it and was starting a new thing with enough differences and a plan to be able to generate money from it.

It was never planned that wikipedia would be for profit.

[Kaarjuus]

It appears that one of Wikipedia's original founders agrees with it's detractors that, in its current model, it has too many problems and is not the utopian information resource that he intended.
/../
Though anyone can contribute, control -- including final edits and publishing -- will be retained by the expert panel; making it far more like a traditional encyclopedia than the failed experiment he originally created.


Well, good luck to Sanger. He has tried to create a better wiki before, and failed. The main problem: finding enough willing AND qualified people to participate in controlling the quality of the articles.

If he can create a sustainable free encyclopedia that does not have the problems wikipedia has, then what can I say but w00t! :)

If I need an in-depth analysis of the characters in the Matrix trilogy, I can always return to wikipedia.

[Morrigan]

What is wrong with haveing an article on "w00t"? The encycopedia britanicia has rather a lot of articles on mildy notable 19th century people. I haven't seen anyone complaining about that.
If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope (with, mind you, a tribal African mask as "possible origin" of the word... riiiight) and a huge debate about it, is a stupid and undesirable aspect of a so-called compendium of human knowledge, then I don't think I can say anything to explain it.

[politas]

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope (with, mind you, a tribal African mask as "possible origin" of the word... riiiight) and a huge debate about it, is a stupid and undesirable aspect of a so-called compendium of human knowledge, then I don't think I can say anything to explain it.

Well, surely part of the point of Wikipedia is that there's so little filtering. Put everything in, and then anyone can find what they're interested in. If you aren't interested in discussions and debate and definition of "w00t", why do you care that other people are? Do you seriously think those people would be likely to put a similar level of interest and involvement in the sort of subjects you think should be in an encyclopedia? Do you think it would be helpful if they did?

I certainly find Wikipedia to be a very useful resource. Not for everything, perhaps, and I don't rely on it being completely accurate. Wikipedia's biggest problem as I see it is hotly debated topics, such as religion and alternative medicine. And even with those, you can generally get the impression that there is active debate.

[a_unique_person]

Does that mean I have to type in the article on "w00t" again? I don't know if I could be bothered.

[Kaarjuus]

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope

So is it ok to have articles on onomatopes of grown-ups?

Millions of teenagers and young grown-ups use this slang word daily. Abundantly.

How is having an article on an obscure 19th century writer more important?

It's a cultural phenomenon. Like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch!!).

Childish? Yes.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I completely disagree about his claims concerning wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a 'cesspool for mundane common facts'. Wikipedia's science articles are among the most extensive and detailed and factual on the net. Wikipedia has a database THOUSANDS of times larger than any other encyclopedia.

This monkey's new project will ultimately fail because of the fact that the end result relies on a few experts rather than hundreds of independent people with all sorts of points of view. Where the number of people controlling the final outcome is smaller then the bias is larger. That's simply how it works.

What will end up happening is these 'experts' will get many contributions and will likely not be able to shift through 10% of then and then will end up putting up what they in their points of view believe should be up.
When put in a place of authority most experts will use their point of view to squash other points of views of non-experts. However on wikipedia there are no authorities and experts must argue their case with everyone else objecting. (And it works) Just look at any scientific article on wikipedia and you will see how comprehensive and accurate they are.

For instance this article..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

No doubt composed almost exclusively by experts in the field or those with massive amounts of knowledge. Try to find an error in that article. Just one...


Found one?



Ok Great! Fix it!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So is it ok to have articles on onomatopes of grown-ups?

Millions of teenagers and young grown-ups use this slang word daily. Abundantly.

How is having an article on an obscure 19th century writer more important?

It's a cultural phenomenon. Like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch!!).

Childish? Yes.


But still something many people would like to know. (Like myself who read the article in the past). Therefore it belongs in an encyclopedia.

[geni]

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope (with, mind you, a tribal African mask as "possible origin" of the word... riiiight) and a huge debate about it, is a stupid and undesirable aspect of a so-called compendium of human knowledge, then I don't think I can say anything to explain it.

7.6 million hits on google looks like something quite a lot of people would like to know.

[Ian Osborne]

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope (with, mind you, a tribal African mask as "possible origin" of the word... riiiight) and a huge debate about it, is a stupid and undesirable aspect of a so-called compendium of human knowledge, then I don't think I can say anything to explain it.
Sorry, but that's just elitist. Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the article on w00t! isn't going to displace a scholarly treatise on the breeding habits of the Lord Howe Island stick insect. And is there any place more appropriate for a definition of internet slang than a populist internet encyclopedia?

[geni]

Sorry, but that's just elitist. Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the article on w00t! isn't going to displace a scholarly treatise on the Lord Howe Island stick insect. And is there any place more appropriate for a definition of internet slang than a populist internet encyclopedia?


Normaly urban dictionary.

[drkitten]

Just look at any scientific article on wikipedia and you will see how comprehensive and accurate they are.

Yeah, they've done that experiment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm). I think the answer is that the error rate on Wikipedia is about a third again that of Brittanica. Of course, a closer look at the data (http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf)suggestst that even that experiment was highly skewed in Wikipedia's favor and that a "fair" comparison would show it to be much, much less accurate.

[drkitten]

is there any place more appropriate for a definition of internet slang than a populist internet encyclopedia?

Yes. A populist internet dictionary, perhaps.

Part of the problem with Wikipedia is that they don't understand the actual role of an encyclopedia.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yeah, they've done that experiment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm). I think the answer is that the error rate on Wikipedia is about a third again that of Brittanica. Of course, a closer look at the data (http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf)suggestst that even that experiment was highly skewed in Wikipedia's favor and that a "fair" comparison would show it to be much, much less accurate.


Which is constantly improving and growing. Any errors found in wikipedia can be changed in a few seconds. Errors in Britannica take years to change.
The errors wikipedia might have are obviously accounted for by it's vast number of articles.

[drkitten]

Which is constantly improving and growing. Any errors found in wikipedia can be changed in a few seconds.

Can be -- but usually aren't. Again, that experiment has been done.


The errors wikipedia might have are obviously accounted for by it's vast number of articles.

That's not at all obvious to me or to most other observers. On a per-article basis, there are more errors in Wikipedia; it's not simply that there are the same number of errors scattered across more articles. To me, it's "obvious" that the quality control procedures on Wikipedia aren't as effective.

[Ian Osborne]

Part of the problem with Wikipedia is that they don't understand the actual role of an encyclopedia.
Why should that role not be expanded in its transition to new media? Sure, Wikipedia has its problems, and you'd be an idiot to take one of its entries as definitive, but for serious criticism you need to dig deeper than the fact that there's an entry for 'w00t'...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Can be -- but usually aren't. Again, that experiment has been done.


So?

That's not at all obvious to me or to most other observers. On a per-article basis, there are more errors in Wikipedia; it's not simply that there are the same number of errors scattered across more articles. To me, it's "obvious" that the quality control procedures on Wikipedia aren't as effective.


Evidence?

[drkitten]

Why should that role not be expanded in its transition to new media?

Because the role expansion detracts from its ability to fulfil the core role.

And part of the problem is that it's so much easier to make new articles of little consequence than it is to improve old ones of consequence.

It's similarly much easier simply to gush -- to add new and inconsequential facts ad nauseum -- than to edit and tighten.

But neither of those are in keeping with the core role of an encyclopedia.

The role of an encyclopedia is twofold -- first, to document topics that are worth documenting, and to provide a concise, informative, and accurate precis of scholarly, educated opinion about those topics. Please note the modifiers in the clause above -- "concise," "informative," "accurate," "scholarly," and "educated."

"Words" are not necessarily topics -- there's no need for a separate entry, for example, for every possible way to express the topic of drunkenness. And every need for there not to be, because different entries invariably will drift out-of-sync and become mutually inaccurate.

Similarly, public misconceptions about a topic need not be documented; there are always many more ways to get something wrong than to get it right -- and encyclopedias should present only what is right.

Most importantly, encyclopedias should be accessible; I should be able to read an article and in a few seconds or minutes understand the important aspects of that topic. If the encyclopedia article contains more than what is important -- arguably than what is essential -- then it's doing a disservice to the readers who are too busy to read a treatise. An encyclopedia is not a compendium-of-what-is-known. Any reader who finds an encyclopedia entry insufficiently detailed can hit the fuller literature (that's why the notes are there).

i've written for encyclopediae myself. And the hardest part is exactly what the Wiki model discourages -- getting to the core of the essential, uncontroversial, well-documented facts and setting them forth in a few hundred words or less.

[geni]

Yeah, they've done that experiment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm). I think the answer is that the error rate on Wikipedia is about a third again that of Brittanica. Of course, a closer look at the data (http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf)suggestst that even that experiment was highly skewed in Wikipedia's favor and that a "fair" comparison would show it to be much, much less accurate.

The problem is you have failed to describe the experiment correctly. The experiment compared the results produced by the two websites.

[Ian Osborne]

i've written for encyclopediae myself. And the hardest part is exactly what the Wiki model discourages -- getting to the core of the essential, uncontroversial, well-documented facts and setting them forth in a few hundred words or less.

Is an encyclopedia really part-defined by the brevity of its entries, or is this a function of the fact that due to space constraints, they couldn't be any longer? I see no reason why this practical restriction should be carried over to the internet.

Wikipedia is a great starting point for a reader who knows little or nothing about the subject matter. It shouldn't be the finishing point, but it's certainly providing a useful service.

[drkitten]

Is an encyclopedia really part-defined by the brevity of its entries

Yes. That's what makes an "encyclopedia" different from a "library," for one thing.



I see no reason why this practical restriction should be carried over to the internet.

The reader's attention span has not been increased by the invention of the Internet, I'm afraid.

[geni]

Because the role expansion detracts from its ability to fulfil the core role.

Not really. Haveing articles on Bulbasaur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur) and Heavy metal umlaut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_umlaut) doesn't stop us covering say the Algerian Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War)


And part of the problem is that it's so much easier to make new articles of little consequence than it is to improve old ones of consequence.


It's getting pretty hard to find stuff we don't have.


It's similarly much easier simply to gush -- to add new and inconsequential facts ad nauseum -- than to edit and tighten.

But neither of those are in keeping with the core role of an encyclopedia.

The role of an encyclopedia is twofold -- first, to document topics that are worth documenting, and to provide a concise, informative, and accurate precis of scholarly, educated opinion about those topics. Please note the modifiers in the clause above -- "concise," "informative," "accurate," "scholarly," and "educated."

Ironic. you do know that britianicas entry on "encyclopaedia" is rather longers than wikipedia's?


"Words" are not necessarily topics -- there's no need for a separate entry, for example, for every possible way to express the topic of drunkenness. And every need for there not to be, because different entries invariably will drift out-of-sync and become mutually inaccurate.

This is why we have redirects.


Similarly, public misconceptions about a topic need not be documented; there are always many more ways to get something wrong than to get it right -- and encyclopedias should present only what is right.

Oh good. What is the correct name for the capital of Ukraine? What is the name of the capital city of Saudi Arabia's Makkah province?



Most importantly, encyclopedias should be accessible; I should be able to read an article and in a few seconds or minutes understand the important aspects of that topic.

No encycopedia does this.


If the encyclopedia article contains more than what is important -- arguably than what is essential -- then it's doing a disservice to the readers who are too busy to read a treatise. An encyclopedia is not a compendium-of-what-is-known. Any reader who finds an encyclopedia entry insufficiently detailed can hit the fuller literature (that's why the notes are there).


Or they can look for other related articles.


i've written for encyclopediae myself. And the hardest part is exactly what the Wiki model discourages -- getting to the core of the essential, uncontroversial, well-documented facts and setting them forth in a few hundred words or less.

That is in theory what the opening paragraph of wikipedia aritices is meant to do.

[drkitten]

That is in theory what the opening paragraph of wikipedia aritices is meant to do.

And like most of the "theory" governing Wikipedia -- it's not well borne-out in practice.

In theory, Wikipedia is a great resource. There's even a term for that. "Eventualism."

In practice, Wikipedia is the greatest bane of my teaching existence, and the eventualists are nitwits that rule 8 prevents me from describing in fuller detail.

[geni]

Yes. That's what makes an "encyclopedia" different from a "library," for one thing.

Not really. Part of the problem is that before wikipedia came along there doesn't appear to have been a vast amount of disscussion over what is an encyclopedia. The limit you talk about probably only exists due to the limitations of paper. It wasn't posible to cover every town in the US or railway station in the UK you would have run out of paper.



The reader's attention span has not been increased by the invention of the Internet, I'm afraid.

And yet Wikipedia has no shortage of readers. You might want to read this it is probably the best essay to date on the relationship between Wikipedia and academia:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42

[geni]

And like most of the "theory" governing Wikipedia -- it's not well borne-out in practice.

Well it is a bit hard to have a summery in a stub. For example Gas syringe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_syringe) would look a bit silly with a summery paragraph added on.


In theory, Wikipedia is a great resource. There's even a term for that. "Eventualism."

Um no eventualism is the belife that it doesn't mater that a part or even all of wikipedia is in alpha at the moment as long as it moves towards beta.


In practice, Wikipedia is the greatest bane of my teaching existence,


Perhaps you should put more effort into teaching your students to use journals of whatever rather than turning to an encyclopedia of any type. After all if wikipedia is long winded and packed with irrelivancies surely that means they wont use it. Or perhaps the search databases for journals are even more of a mess (the chemistry ones certianly are).


and the eventualists are nitwits that rule 8 prevents me from describing in fuller detail.

Open source software only exists becuase of eventualists.

[drkitten]

Perhaps you should put more effort into teaching your students to use journals of whatever rather than turning to an encyclopedia of any type.

No. Because encyclopedias are useful. Good encyclopedias, at least, are.

What I try to teach them is that journals are the first line for authoritative reference. Good encyclopedias are the first line for quick fact-checking. (If I just need to know the atomic mass of cesium, I'm not going to check the chemistry journals.)

And Wikipedia is good if you don't have access to anything with a better-than-chance probability of being correct.


After all if wikipedia is long winded and packed with irrelivancies surely that means they wont use it.

That's my hope, yes. Long-winded, packed, with irrelevancies, and too often inaccurate.

Open source software only exists becuase of eventualists.

No. Open source software only exists because of immediatists who actually complete useful work. Open source vaporware exists because of eventualists.

DId you read the page on Eventualism (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism)? There's a very good summary of the problem there.


There is a question about convergence versus divergence: if new silly articles and stubs keeping getting added and there are more adders (people who add extra marginal pages) than vipers (people who vipe things out and tidy up: excuse the pun about adders and vipers) then we will end up with a hopeless mess.

That's the problem. I see no evidence that adding more badly-written, badly-researched articles to a collection of badly-written, badly-researched articles is actually "moving it towards beta."

[Morrigan]

So is it ok to have articles on onomatopes of grown-ups?

Millions of teenagers and young grown-ups use this slang word daily. Abundantly.

How is having an article on an obscure 19th century writer more important?

It's a cultural phenomenon. Like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch!!).

Childish? Yes.
An encyclopedia, or any source or website for that matter, should not be full of childishness if it wants to be taken seriously. (And no, I don't think it should have articles about any onomatopes, period. It's completely out of place.)

7.6 million hits on google looks like something quite a lot of people would like to know.
Not really. It just means the word is written often on the web, and so Google manages to index it. I just typed in the word "toto" in Google and found 4 million hits. It doesn't mean many people search for it.

Sorry, but that's just elitist. Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the article on w00t! isn't going to displace a scholarly treatise on the breeding habits of the Lord Howe Island stick insect. And is there any place more appropriate for a definition of internet slang than a populist internet encyclopedia?
Elitism is not a bad thing, especially not for databases of information that want to be taken seriously. Urbandictionary.com would be far more appropriate for that.

Which is constantly improving and growing. Any errors found in wikipedia can be changed in a few seconds. Errors in Britannica take years to change.
The errors wikipedia might have are obviously accounted for by it's vast number of articles.
In theory, yes. In practice, errors corrected by experts often get reverted by populist idiots in the name of NPOV (apparently, "populist" means "neutral" and knowing what you are talking about means you're spreading a POV of "elitism" :rolleyes:), "notability" and other nonsense. I can only think about the various metal music-related articles on Wiki to shudder in revulsion at the disinformation it contains. And despite the fact that I know metal better than those who wrote this nonsense (and others who know far more than I and since much longer would agree with me), my changes were reverted almost instantly. By, of course, someone who knew very little about metal and whose sources were not specialised in metal but in mainstream music. Go figure.

Also, the errors were calculated by ratio, not by the sheer number, so it's not due to the number of articles. Though, of course, as others have said, it'd probably be better if people focused more on fixing errors in interesting articles rather than creating new but vapid articles about the latest Internet trend.

[geni]

Not really. It just means the word is written often on the web, and so Google manages to index it. I just typed in the word "toto" in Google and found 4 million hits. It doesn't mean many people search for it.


Well lets look at how much it is searched for:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=W00T%2C+Ingushetia&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Ingushetia is next to Chechnya and in a somewhat simular situation. It is unquestionable encyclopedic

[geni]

No. Because encyclopedias are useful. Good encyclopedias, at least, are.[quote]

Not really becuase they provide no traceabilty. you can't find out why they makethe claims they do.

[quote]
What I try to teach them is that journals are the first line for authoritative reference. Good encyclopedias are the first line for quick fact-checking. (If I just need to know the atomic mass of cesium, I'm not going to check the chemistry journals.)

No you would check your text book or the periodic table on the wall.


And Wikipedia is good if you don't have access to anything with a better-than-chance probability of being correct.


I assume your teaching establishment has access to journals.


That's my hope, yes. Long-winded, packed, with irrelevancies, and too often inaccurate.

Well wikipedia has had a pretty steady alexa rank for quite a while now. We are not going anywhere soon.



No. Open source software only exists because of immediatists who actually complete useful work. Open source vaporware exists because of eventualists.


Eventualists accept useful but not complete. Firebird, the GIMP neither started out exactly complete.


DId you read the page on Eventualism (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism)? There's a very good summary of the problem there.


I've read it.


That's the problem. I see no evidence that adding more badly-written, badly-researched articles to a collection of badly-written, badly-researched articles is actually "moving it towards beta."

Article creation rates appear to have fallen.

[davefoc]

I have read drkitten's anti-wikipedia ideas in several different threads.

Before this, they came across to me as thoughtful and balanced.

I happen to be a big wikipedia fan but I think drkitten's previous criticisms were within the range of valid criticism.

Here, it just seems that she has gone too far. Wikipedia isn't a primary source and if people are using it as a primary source this isn't Wikipedia's fault. Wikipedia is on balance an amazing comependium of reasonably balanced articles that can often satisfy someone who is looking for an overview of a topic.

I don't understand the ciriticism at all about too many topics. Would wikipedia be better if it was divided into sections for artilcles that drkitten would classify as serious and sections for drkitten feels are too trivial to be associated with a serious encyclopedia? I don't see how. I have read hundreds of wikipedia articles, generally on what I think drkitten would think are serious encyclopedia type topics and not once was I bothered because w00t was a topic.

I was interested in the history of the early Christian church recently. The most organized, straightforward place that I found to get background information on something was Wikipedia. Sure there were articles that obviously showed the signs of editing by Christian ideologs, but there were less than one might think and the discussion pages on the articles generally suggested the presence of an interested individual who was working to make the articles objective.

[drkitten]

Here, it just seems that she has gone too far. Wikipedia isn't a primary source and if people are using it as a primary source this isn't Wikipedia's fault.

What do you mean by "primary source" in this context? Most high school students, for example, do not have access to what a research scientist would consider to be primary sources -- and if they have access (e.g. through the Internet), they usually can't understand them.

That's one of the functions of an encyclopedia -- to provide an accessible and accurate source of information to people who for one reason or another can't or don't wish to access the research lit. And contrary to geni's claim, a good encyclopedia does explain "why they makethe claims they do"; the explanations are called "footnotes," and they're usually selected to be the novices' best point of entry into the primary literature.

That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. And it serves this job better by telling a few truths than by telling lots of lies.

Wikipedia is on balance an amazing comependium of reasonably balanced articles that can often satisfy someone who is looking for an overview of a topic.

We can disagree about "on balance"; in my (teaching) experience, the accuracy rate of wikipedia is unacceptably low. There is too much misinformation there. (The rule of thumb I give my students is to believe nothing that they find in Wikipedia unless they find it confirmed by two other, independent, sources.)

Would wikipedia be better if it was divided into sections for artilcles that drkitten would classify as serious and sections for drkitten feels are too trivial to be associated with a serious encyclopedia?

No. It would be better if the articles themselves were better.

Unfortunately, people have limited time and energy. And the time and energy that the wikipedians are spending arguing over the origins of "w00t" is time they're NOT spending fixing the substantive articles.

The effect is that of an accumulation of badly-written, badly-researched, badly-edited articles.

To use the termnology from above, there are too many "adders," not enough "vipers." And many of the "vipers" that are out there -- to echo Morrigan's complaint -- don't actually know what they're talking about.

I would rather read a single article on black holes written by Stephen Hawking than twenty-five related ones written by high school physics students.

Let me ask you this -- would you rather see Wikipedia double in size, or have all the articles there now double in quality? Because the current software and culture encourages the former.... and a good encyclopedia encourages the latter.

[geni]

What do you mean by "primary source" in this context? Most high school students, for example, do not have access to what a research scientist would consider to be primary sources -- and if they have access (e.g. through the Internet), they usually can't understand them.

That's one of the functions of an encyclopedia -- to provide an accessible and accurate source of information to people who for one reason or another can't or don't wish to access the research lit.

Have you any idea how hard it is to describe certian mathmatical concepts in an accurate manner to people who don't know calculus?


And contrary to geni's claim, a good encyclopedia does explain "why they makethe claims they do"; the explanations are called "footnotes," and they're usually selected to be the novices' best point of entry into the primary literature.

Please be provideing a list of what you consider good encyclopedias.




We can disagree about "on balance"; in my (teaching) experience, the accuracy rate of wikipedia is unacceptably low. There is too much misinformation there. (The rule of thumb I give my students is to believe nothing that they find in Wikipedia unless they find it confirmed by two other, independent, sources.)


Do sources linked to from wikipedia articles count as independant?



No. It would be better if the articles themselves were better.

Unfortunately, people have limited time and energy. And the time and energy that the wikipedians are spending arguing over the origins of "w00t" is time they're NOT spending fixing the substantive articles.


However since we have not evidence that they would chose to work on anything else there is little point in stopping them. The people writeing about pokemon are unlikely to be writeing about say the Sherman-Morrison formula.


The effect is that of an accumulation of badly-written, badly-researched, badly-edited articles.

To use the termnology from above, there are too many "adders," not enough "vipers." And many of the "vipers" that are out there -- to echo Morrigan's complaint -- don't actually know what they're talking about.

I would rather read a single article on black holes written by Stephen Hawking than twenty-five related ones written by high school physics students.


Most of our phyisics articles tend not to be written by high school physics students.


Let me ask you this -- would you rather see Wikipedia double in size, or have all the articles there now double in quality? Because the current software and culture encourages the former.... and a good encyclopedia encourages the latter.

Various praticle reasons disscourage the former. As I said people are running out of things to write about.

[Almo]

I like Wikipedia for what it is. I don't consider it an Encyclopedia. I look stuff up there, and sometimes it's very interesting. I've contributed a little, in that I correct grammar and typos. I never look up controversial subjects there, unless I'm interested in seeing how the system has dealt with it.

[Dark Jaguar]

Wikipedia is flawed and it's accuracy is... not what I would call great to put it mildly.

Wikipedia is a great tool if you have absolutely no idea what something is or where to even start getting information on it (a random concept you heard or read somewhere else). That's what I use it for.

They have a lot of trivial and meaningless information, and I wouldn't have it any other way. The mistake you are making, at least in this regard (your other criticisms are pretty well valid) is that people concentrating on fixing the article on Fraggle Rock actually COULD contribute in any other way to the more relevant articles. If they were not doing that, they are likely to not even care, or have any information at all, on other articles. These are people that just drop in and say "hey I think I have some information" and dump that right in there. In other words, the only thing having such articles detracts from is site bandwidth, not worker's time and effort, because they don't have workers, just random people showing up, and the more articles, the more random people show up.

If you have no idea what the American Civil War is, you can get a general idea of what it is from Wikipedia. This at least can't be denied. I've yet to see an article get a concept so completely and utterly wrong that I can't even depend on it for my "rough synopsis" purposes.

You are perfectly right to demand a source other than "wikipedia". I myself do reading it, but it's a great start for getting information, especially on topics I really never would find. I don't think I would have ever found out about the movie Jacob's Ladder if I hadn't found it. I at least found out enough that I knew it was a movie and it was some sort of psychological thriller.

Personally, I'd like to see more stringent "source" requirements for all the information there. That could get things a little more up to spec. As it is, even when a source is supplied, often it's for only a part of hte information which you only discover when reading about it. This attests to it's weakness in terms of getting anything definitive. That's not it's purpose though, at least to me. It's purpose is to give someone an idea of what the heck someone's talking about.

[Morrigan]

For the record, I generally like Wikipedia and use it a lot to look up stuff quickly. On the other hand, I support an endeavour to make a more serious, credible, expert encyclopedia. Wikipedia is too full of stupid nerds who are horribly full of themselves just because they know the "system" and how to exploit it and will revert any change they see that don't fit their agenda and spend hours nitpicking on whether or not this or that Pokemon is canon. It's downright embarassing.

Well lets look at how much it is searched for:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=W00T%2C+Ingushetia&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Ingushetia is next to Chechnya and in a somewhat simular situation. It is unquestionable encyclopedic

What the hell? You used Google Trends results to determine if something is encyclopedic? :boggled: Makes no sense whatsoever...

[Jeff Corey]

I don't accept Wiki as references in student papers. Nor graffiti on the walls of a local loo.

[BPScooter]

One thing I really like about Wikipedia are the copious links. I'm with Dr. K in that I warn my students not to rely on it as a primary source. But as a place to find out, say, Gaugin's birthday and be able to see a couple of his paintings, and find out how he related to other artists, how his intellectual life fit into a greater stream of cultural history, Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any, I think. I just made that one up, checked the page, and it seems pretty true.

But the "external links" and such seem to be really useful, in my experience. I like the ones that point you to a Project Gutenberg text of something, or a really super-authoritative source or bibliography. I use it a lot, as a quick time-saver for things I don't know much about.

[Dark Jaguar]

I don't accept Wiki as references in student papers. Nor graffiti on the walls of a local loo.

Wikipedia has a higher rate of accuracy than graphitti. Wikipedia alone as reference? No, good place to start on your way to finding out good and credible sources of informaiton? Sure thing. Don't discount it altogether.

[UserGoogol]

An encyclopedia, or any source or website for that matter, should not be full of childishness if it wants to be taken seriously. (And no, I don't think it should have articles about any onomatopes, period. It's completely out of place.)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to compile as much of human knowledge as is possible, not to be taken seriously. If Wikipedia were to contain all human knowledge but be treated as a joke by the entire world, it would be exactly what it is supposed to be.

[geni]

For the record, I generally like Wikipedia and use it a lot to look up stuff quickly. On the other hand, I support an endeavour to make a more serious, credible, expert encyclopedia. Wikipedia is too full of stupid nerds who are horribly full of themselves just because they know the "system" and how to exploit it and will revert any change they see that don't fit their agenda and spend hours nitpicking on whether or not this or that Pokemon is canon. It's downright embarassing.

How else would you suggest we find out if a particular pokemon is canon?


What the hell? You used Google Trends results to determine if something is encyclopedic? :boggled: Makes no sense whatsoever...

I think the problem you are haveing is that you belive that people should not be given what they want but what they ought to want.

[rats]

I believe Wikipedia is fantastic. It is a great repository of a huge variety of subjects, providing links to enable verification and expansion of knowledge. It is not perfect.

Encyclopædia Britannica has been around for nearly 240 years. Of course it’s in better shape than a publicly edited, 5 year old online reference site! However, I think Wikipedia has succeeded most completely over Britannica by making knowledge easily accessible to everyone with access to the internet. I am not going to spend my lunch-time finding sources to back this up, but I’m sure more people world-wide have access to the internet than a bunch of stuffy books in a library. It’s a sad fact of the world, especially if you like your acquisition of knowledge to smell.

If the people complaining about Wikipedia’s inaccuracies would spend their complaining time correcting articles instead of complaining, Wikipedia would become even better than the great starting point it already is.

[drkitten]

If the people complaining about Wikipedia’s inaccuracies would spend their complaining time correcting articles instead of complaining, Wikipedia would become even better than the great starting point it already is.

Er,... no.

That experiment's been done -- see Morrigan's description upthread.

The theory behind Wikipedia is that good information will drive out bad information; a high school student will write something up on a topic, and later a domain expert will clean it up and correct it.

The practice, unfortunately, is that popular information often drives out unpopular information, regardless of accuracy. Ten high school seniors can write gibberish faster than a domain expert can write meaningful prose. And they can revert ten times as fast as well.

[Morrigan]

How else would you suggest we find out if a particular pokemon is canon?
Uh, there are zillions of Pokemon fansites out there.


I think the problem you are haveing is that you belive that people should not be given what they want but what they ought to want.
Maybe. I am merely giving my opinion on the sad states of humanity considering that the knowledge we apparently treasure the most are Pokemon and porn stars. Is this really the kind of legacy we want to leave behind for future generations?

Then again, it could just be that because of its free-content Internet format, that it attracts more virgins and nerds who obsess over that kind of crap and want to plaster their ego all over the net, than experts on meaningful subjects, so the results are skewed... :P

[geni]

Uh, there are zillions of Pokemon fansites out there.

So? If it appears elsewhere it shouldn't be on wikipedia?


Maybe. I am merely giving my opinion on the sad states of humanity considering that the knowledge we apparently treasure the most are Pokemon and porn stars.

Um no. Currently people are aparently more interested in Steve Irwin and Stingray. Ok after that they are interested in List of sex positions, sex in general, certian types of manga, internet celebs, major countries, major wars, and various geek stuff (that is based on number of views). Pokemon are aparently slightly less popular than cats although there error margins get quite big at that level


Is this really the kind of legacy we want to leave behind for future generations?


We have other stuff:

astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_asteroids
chemistry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Reagents_for_organic_chemistry
maths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mathematical_theorems
physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Quantum_mechanics
history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_of_the_United_Kingdom
Geography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Yorkshire
Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English-language_films
Engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Engineering


Then again, it could just be that because of its free-content Internet format, that it attracts more virgins and nerds who obsess over that kind of crap and want to plaster their ego all over the net, than experts on meaningful subjects, so the results are skewed... :P

Please be defineing "meaningful subjects".

[Dava]

I think the problem with this new project is that it will only increase one of the main problems with Wiki, and that is elitism. There is already a problem with articles being deleted from Wikipedia due to bias, and with a panel of "experts," this is sure to become worse.

I spent a good two weeks writing and editing an article for Wiki. Other users tinkered with it, adding disambiguation links and adding links in other, related articles. Then, some other users swooped in, decided the subject was "girly" and therefore unimportant, and deleted the article.

Also, I'm acquainted with a notable sci-fi author, who is well-known for his biographies of people like Robert E. Howard. He's something of a comics guru, and wrote an excellent article on The Clockwork Storybook. TCS was like a comic equivalent to The Yardbirds, in that it was a seminal project that launched the careers of four notable figures in the industry. (Although, yes, more people have heard of Eric Clapton than Bill Willingham.) His article was also deleted as unimportant. One would think that a site with an article on w00t! would keep an article about comics written by a comics expert, rather than deeming it unimportant.

[drkitten]

Then again, it could just be that because of its free-content Internet format, that it attracts more virgins and nerds who obsess over that kind of crap and want to plaster their ego all over the net, than experts on meaningful subjects, so the results are skewed... :P

Well, that's certainly one factor. There's little incentive for an expert to participate in Wikipedia, and in fact, some substantial disincentives.

In brief -- I get paid to write "real" encyclopedia articles. Not much; it's more a token of the editor's esteem than an actual wage. More importantly, it can go on my c.v. as a service activity, and the dean will be suitably impressed and (one hopes) give me the appropriate salary increases, promotion, tenure, etc.

I still don't get much from the encyclopedia -- the real benefits come from writing survey papers for reputable journals and from writing books, of course. Those are the blue chips in the game of academic status. A peer-reviewed encylopedia article is considered light-enough weight that it's maybe a white chip.

But a Wikipedia article is pocket lint.

Part of the reason for that is that, by design, Wikipedia authors do not have much control over their articles (and by extension, don't get much credit). Part of the reason is that the Wikipedia culture frowns on "elitism," as you pointed out. (or see above : " I think the problem with this new project is that it will only increase one of the main problems with Wiki, and that is elitism.") And another factor is the "writing on sand" nature, since any errors you eliminate in this draft will be put back by exactly the same yahoo who wrote them in in the first place.

So if I'm going to spend twenty hours researching, writing, and editing a survey of my area of expertise.... why toss it away on Wikipedia?

[geni]

So if I'm going to spend twenty hours researching, writing, and editing a survey of my area of expertise.... why toss it away on Wikipedia?

Becuase there is a slighter higher chance of it being read by people oside your immediate area.

[drkitten]

Becuase there is a slighter higher chance of it being read by people oside your immediate area.

In some cases that is true.

In most cases it's at best unproven and in some cases demonstrably untrue.

Because what I write is not necessarily what will be read tomorrow (or ten minutes from now). At least in an encyclopedia/survey article/book I have the confidence that the words that are read from the printed page will be the ones I put there. If my confidence is violated -- for example, if the editor makes substantial changes without my knowledge or consent -- there will be hell to pay. In extreme cases, this can go as far as legal action. (I've never had to invoke the law on any of my writings. I have gotten unsolicited letters of apology from senior editors who had to whip their officious juniors back to the kennels, and I suspect the consequences for the careers of said juniors were not altogether positive.)

And, of course, this confidence doesn't just extend to the printed page. E-journals strive to offer the same confidence.

Wikipedia offers exactly the opposite. It not only doesn't support the sanctity and unity of my writings, but it actively warns me that I am involved in a collaborative process in which my authority and expertise may be overruled without basis or warning at any time.

At least the journal article will still be there tomorrow.

[geni]

At least the journal article will still be there tomorrow.

So will your edits (see the history tab). In practice unless you chose to write about something high profile it is unlikely to will run into anything other than cosmetic edits within any reasonable time frame.

The journal article may still be there but you know as well as I do that rather a lot of academic stuff tends to be write only.

[Dava]

Then again, it could just be that because of its free-content Internet format, that it attracts more virgins and nerds who obsess over that kind of crap and want to plaster their ego all over the net, than experts on meaningful subjects, so the results are skewed... :P

Spoken like a true neurotypical, bashing nerds while sitting at a keyboard, enjoying the fruits of their labor.

:rolleyes:

[Ian Osborne]

If my confidence is violated -- for example, if the editor makes substantial changes without my knowledge or consent -- there will be hell to pay. In extreme cases, this can go as far as legal action. (I've never had to invoke the law on any of my writings. I have gotten unsolicited letters of apology from senior editors who had to whip their officious juniors back to the kennels, and I suspect the consequences for the careers of said juniors were not altogether positive.)

If you don't like being edited, you shouldn't be writing anything that's not self-published.

[drkitten]

If you don't like being edited, you shouldn't be writing anything that's not self-published.

I don't like being incompetently edited. (I suspect neither do you.) For that matter, senior editors don't like it when incompetent editing happens on their watch. I welcome the input of competent and knowledgeable editors. And the quality of editing is one factor I -- like most people -- take into account when I decide where to send my writings.

You've just given one of the best reasons that could be listed for not writing for an open-editing collection like Wikipedia. If you don't like the quality of editing of a journal, you shouldn't submit there. The quality of editing at Wikipedia is widely recognized as being atrocious. Ergo, don't submit there. And many (most?) professionals don't.

[ponderingturtle]

It was never planned that wikipedia would be for profit.

ANd that was the point of the business new peice I heard. Creating popular non profits only doe so much for your bank account

[UserGoogol]

Uh, there are zillions of Pokemon fansites out there.


Maybe. I am merely giving my opinion on the sad states of humanity considering that the knowledge we apparently treasure the most are Pokemon and porn stars. Is this really the kind of legacy we want to leave behind for future generations?

One of Wikipedia's policies and one which I think is fairly obviously sensible is the Neutral Point of View position. That is, an encyclopedia should be as free of bias as possible and instead should simply present the facts objectively. By saying "we shouldn't have an article about Raichu because it's a glorified item from a stupid kid's game," you are making an subjective judgement, and therefore are introducing bias into Wikipedia. Of course, people very often exclude articles from being on Wikipedia for being something nobody cares about (such as writing an article about a high school student in Idaho with no especially notable qualities) but that's something fairly objective.

[drkitten]

One of Wikipedia's policies and one which I think is fairly obviously sensible is the Neutral Point of View position.

Well, yes and no. The problem with NPOV is that it is an encyclopedia should not be neutral with respect to matters of fact. To its credit, most Wikipedians recognize this (although there are a number of areas in which the recognition lags, and that's one reason that the SkepticWiki was created).

But a biography of Elvis Presley should not be "neutral" with respect to the claim that he has been working as a fry cook in Otumwa, Iowa for the past thirty years.

There's nothing wrong with subjectivity, either. Neutral and objective are not synonymous.

That is, an encyclopedia should be as free of bias as possible and instead should simply present the facts objectively. By saying "we shouldn't have an article about Raichu because it's a glorified item from a stupid kid's game," you are making an subjective judgement, and therefore are introducing bias into Wikipedia.

There's nothing wrong with subjective judgements; in fact, the judgement that a statement is not neutral is often a subjective judgement. More generally, Wikipedia itself makes several statements about "what Wikipedia is not" and has a number of rules about "what not to put in" that are not objectifiable.

E.g.


Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
Wikipedia is not a directory
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information


Let's look more closely at "w00t" with this in mind. From Wikipedia:


The term "w00t" (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, "woot"; IPA pronunciation: [wuːt]) is a slang interjection used to express happiness or excitement, most often expressed via the Internet. The expression has been used in Usenet posts [1], multiplayer computer games (especially first-person shooters), the IRC and SILC chat protocols, instant messages, weblogs, and web forums, and even spoken aloud. It is considered as leet speak (l337).

I'm sorry. That's not an encyclopedia article. That's a dictionary entry. Head word, pronunciation, part of speech, and definition. that's a dictionary entry. And whatever Wikipedia is -- "Wikipedia is not a dictionary."

It's also "not an indiscriminate collection of information."

By its own guidelines (the article on "notability")


Based on several sections in the policy on what Wikipedia is not, it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must exceed a certain threshhold of notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia. The term "importance" is also in use, and for practical purposes on Wikipedia the two can be considered synonymous.

Several guidelines (see table on the right) have been created, or are under discussion, to define more precisely what these thresholds should be. They generally assert that a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself.

So let's look at "w00t" again. Has anyone written about this work in "multiple non-trivial published works"?

Let's now look at specifically how this "notability" criterion is supposed to apply to "trivia."


General approach

Wikipedia's recommendations regarding trivia follow from what is said about "Space and balance" in the NPOV tutorial:


Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.

This comes down to: if something is not interesting on any level, it is not included in wikipedia. In other words: "zero interest" equals "zero amount of space".

Similarly, "zero importance" results in "zero amount of space": even if a topic would be interesting, if it has no importance whatsoever, it is not included in Wikipedia. This excludes trivia from Wikipedia, when trivia are defined as information that is interesting without being important.

So what's the importance of "w00t"?

Now, of course, there may be some deep underlying importance lending notability to the dictionary entry for "w00t" of which I'm unaware. Perhaps there really is some substance to that word that escapes me -- although in that case it also escapes the author of the Wikipedia article itself, so I don't feel too badly.

But Wikipedia itself recognizes that the NPOV does not mean "incorporate everything willy-nilly." Being neutral with respect to inclusion and exclusion means that you need to have a firm basis in reason and evidence to exclude -- or to include -- a proposed topic.

And one explicit reason listing for exclusion is triviality and unimportance.

Wikipedia does not want -- according to its own guidelines -- to be a repository of all knowledge. But individual Wikipedians collectively want to make it so. Because, of course, "w00t" is of tremendous importance to the three dedicated scholars of internet slang (Morrigan's "virgins and nerds who obsess over that kind of crap and want to plaster their ego all over the net, than experts on meaningful subjects.")

I find it interesting and ironic that I'm not considered competent to judge whether or not I'm of sufficient importance to justify inclusion in Wikipedia ("Vanity" domains), nor am I considered competent to judge whether or not my research is worthy of inclusion. I can't even cite my personal knowledge to justify my edits. ("No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources.) On the other hand, any fanboy who likes can decide that the Quantum Weather Butterfly is worth a three thousand word article.

[Morrigan]

So? If it appears elsewhere it shouldn't be on wikipedia?

:rolleyes: No. You asked a question, "Where else would one find this information?", and I answered. Stop moving the goalposts.


Um no. Currently people are aparently more interested in Steve Irwin and Stingray. Ok after that they are interested in List of sex positions, sex in general, certian types of manga, internet celebs, major countries, major wars, and various geek stuff (that is based on number of views). Pokemon are aparently slightly less popular than cats although there error margins get quite big at that level

Don't be disingenuous. You know full well what I meant; that people are interested in worthless stuff instead of serious academic topics, and your own list (sex positions, sex, manga, celebs, geek stuff) amply demonstrates it.


We have other stuff:
"We"? Haha. Anyway, yes, I do recognize that there are good articles and categories on Wikipedia, I never said otherwise. What we are discussing here is Wikipedia's shortcomings.


Please be defineing "meaningful subjects".
Hell, why don't you head over to Wikipedia's own guidelines on the subject. Even their own rules say they don't want any kind of vanity page or pet article there. Still, while I'm no good at definitions, I can give you examples of what's "meaningful": the sciences, the arts, history, culture, philosophy, engineering, politics, economy, hell, any academic subject, to name but a few. Examples of "not meaningful": lists of porn stars, list of fictitious cats, teenager slang, penis size, criticism of Family Guy, anime characters, Internet trends... you get the idea. If you don't, too bad.


I spent a good two weeks writing and editing an article for Wiki. Other users tinkered with it, adding disambiguation links and adding links in other, related articles. Then, some other users swooped in, decided the subject was "girly" and therefore unimportant, and deleted the article.

Usually articles have to be voted for deletion. Not that I don't find it a dubious method since anyone can vote, but still, it's usually not immediately deleted. If you don't mind me asking, what was the subject about?

Also, I'm acquainted with a notable sci-fi author, who is well-known for his biographies of people like Robert E. Howard. He's something of a comics guru, and wrote an excellent article on The Clockwork Storybook. TCS was like a comic equivalent to The Yardbirds, in that it was a seminal project that launched the careers of four notable figures in the industry. (Although, yes, more people have heard of Eric Clapton than Bill Willingham.) His article was also deleted as unimportant. One would think that a site with an article on w00t! would keep an article about comics written by a comics expert, rather than deeming it unimportant.
Do you mean this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Willingham
I agree with you generally, though.

Spoken like a true neurotypical, bashing nerds while sitting at a keyboard, enjoying the fruits of their labor.

:rolleyes:
I assure you, petty sarcastic comments like that have little effect on me. By the way, I make a distinction between a geek and a nerd. I work as a web developer, so I actually PRODUCE part of those "fruits" you refer to. I'm not talking about programmers, computer geeks and the likes when I refer to "virgin obsessed nerds". I think the distinction is quite clear. If you don't find it so, please go hang out at the GameFAQs or IGN message boards, or various anime forums, and then you might see what I mean.

One of Wikipedia's policies and one which I think is fairly obviously sensible is the Neutral Point of View position. That is, an encyclopedia should be as free of bias as possible and instead should simply present the facts objectively. By saying "we shouldn't have an article about Raichu because it's a glorified item from a stupid kid's game," you are making an subjective judgement, and therefore are introducing bias into Wikipedia. Of course, people very often exclude articles from being on Wikipedia for being something nobody cares about (such as writing an article about a high school student in Idaho with no especially notable qualities) but that's something fairly objective.

You are incorrect and misinterpreting the NPOV clause. See drkitten's post. I'll add that the so-called NPOV rule is very frequently abused and misused on Wikipedia.


Wikipedia does not want -- according to its own guidelines -- to be a repository of all knowledge. But individual Wikipedians collectively want to make it so.
Exactly. Wikipedia is a cesspool for teenage Internet nerds whose ego outstrip their common sense.


I find it interesting and ironic that I'm not considered competent to judge whether or not I'm of sufficient importance to justify inclusion in Wikipedia ("Vanity" domains), nor am I considered competent to judge whether or not my research is worthy of inclusion. I can't even cite my personal knowledge to justify my edits. ("No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources.) On the other hand, any fanboy who likes can decide that the Quantum Weather Butterfly is worth a three thousand word article.
I know how you feel. Still, the Wikipedia rules, as taken literally, have good reasons of being. I think Wikipedia's biggest failure is, in fact, its lack of elitism. It's incredibly populist, and thus allows the most insipid kind of crap to be added. Not only that, but many of those completely insipid "topics" are, in fact, seemingly their most popular (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?ns=articles&limit=100&month=08%2F2006&wiki=enwiki). If I weren't already so cynical, it'd make me weep for humanity.

Still, I can relate. My own website has a Wikipedia entry, and one of my staff member got caught up in an Edit/Revert war with some complete imbecile who got away with adding slant and outrageously false claims, but since he had "evidence" (either from a crappy source, or completely irrelevant as such), he almost won out before some unsatisfying compromise was reached. For example of dubious evidence, he wanted the article to say that my site (which is about heavy metal music) is "biased in favour of extreme metal" and is an "extreme metal site". He also accused the owners (incidently, me and my boyfriend) of being "extreme metal kids". His "evidence"? One, that we didn't list Led Zeppelin as metal, and AllMusic did (even though we showed him time and time again that AMG was one of the worst possible source for metal-related music - but hey, it feeds iTunes, it's popular and big and mainstream, it must be right! nevermind the specialized websites out there!), and two, that the majority of the band entries on the site happen to be... extreme metal. So, you see, we must be biased... :rolleyes: (Even though both of us are often more partial to traditional rather than extreme metal...)

For a comparative case, imagine the following: an article about your favourite pseudo-science or woo-woo topic. Now imagine someone trying to add positive slant to the subject, giving it credibility, and sourced it with a famous, popular, non-specialised magazine such as L'Actualité (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27actualit%C3%A9) (sorry, don't know many English magazines). You want to correct this article, and use a skeptical, but specialized source instead. Or perhaps your source is also a general content magazine, but happens to have more articles featuring skeptics than pseudo-scientists. Your changes are reverted, you are accused of skeptical bias, and your source is considered as biased and useless and the popular magazine is considered more reliable on the subject. You try to demonstrate many mistakes and bias L'Actualité has made on this subject before thus rendering it a poor source, and you are ignored because "L'Actualité has over a million readers, after all". Frustration ensues.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens more often than I'd like. :|

[geni]

:rolleyes: No. You asked a question, "Where else would one find this information?", and I answered. Stop moving the goalposts.


Not the question was how else would wikipedia find this information


Don't be disingenuous. You know full well what I meant; that people are interested in worthless stuff instead of serious academic topics, and your own list (sex positions, sex, manga, celebs, geek stuff) amply demonstrates it.


No that is what our readers are interested in. We have far more articles on say species of plants than we do on sex.


"We"? Haha.


By any reasonable standards I'm a member of the wikipedia community/hivemind/cabal (select whichever).


Anyway, yes, I do recognize that there are good articles and categories on Wikipedia, I never said otherwise. What we are discussing here is Wikipedia's shortcomings.

Wide coverage is not a short comming.


Hell, why don't you head over to Wikipedia's own guidelines on the subject.


Because I know most of them and was involved in writeing some of them.


Even their own rules say they don't want any kind of vanity page or pet article there.

Yes the problem is that that leaves hudge grey areas.

Consider schools. Now you might try to claim that no schools should have articles however someone will point out Eton and Columbine. So that position doesn't hold. Now you have the problem of decideing where exactly to draw the line.


Still, while I'm no good at definitions, I can give you examples of what's "meaningful": the sciences, the arts, history, culture, philosophy, engineering, politics, economy, hell, any academic subject, to name but a few.


Examples of "not meaningful": lists of porn stars,


That would be culture (academic subject sexology)


list of fictitious cats,


that would be literature widely accepted as part of culture (more correctly that would be the index)


teenager slang,


Culture anthropology


penis size,


biology.


criticism of Family Guy


Literary criticism


anime characters


culture and if done properly art.


Internet trends


culture anthropology sociology in a few years


... you get the idea. If you don't, too bad.


I've have been involved in the debate on notability for long enough to have given it rather a lot of thought. I doubt you have.


Usually articles have to be voted for deletion.


Only in questionable cases. Most deletions are speedies of one type or another.


Exactly. Wikipedia is a cesspool for teenage Internet nerds whose ego outstrip their common sense.


Nah due to the time to project has been going we have rather a lot of people in there early 20s as well as plently of older ones


Even though both of us are often more partial to traditional rather than extreme metal...

So state that next time someone interviews you or whatever.


For a comparative case, imagine the following: an article about your favourite pseudo-science or woo-woo topic. Now imagine someone trying to add positive slant to the subject, giving it credibility, and sourced it with a famous, popular, non-specialised magazine such as L'Actualité (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27actualit%C3%A9) (sorry, don't know many English magazines). You want to correct this article, and use a skeptical, but specialized source instead. Or perhaps your source is also a general content magazine, but happens to have more articles featuring skeptics than pseudo-scientists. Your changes are reverted, you are accused of skeptical bias, and your source is considered as biased and useless and the popular magazine is considered more reliable on the subject. You try to demonstrate many mistakes and bias L'Actualité has made on this subject before thus rendering it a poor source, and you are ignored because "L'Actualité has over a million readers, after all". Frustration ensues.


Generaly the trick would be to find something published that dissagress with the L'Actualité article. Or you could put down general magazine X says A for reasons S, D and F and specialist magazine z says B for reasons J,K and L.

[davefoc]

geni, I didn't realize how involved with wikipedia you are. As someone who reads it often, I'd just like to say thanks.

I think the amzaing thing is not how many problems there are. The amazing thing is what a good job wikipedia does most of the time.

I haven't read it recently, but the wikipedia article on the Palesitinan/Israeli conflict was outstanding. I read throgh the discussion page and that was really something. A person who seemed to be serving as something of a moderator was finding common ground between a rabid pro Israeli and a rabid pro Palestinian writer. If wikipedia succeeded at nothing else I'd say it had done enough with that.

[BrianSI]

I like Wikipedia for what it is. But no source, not even a "real" encyclopedia should get authority status. After all, they are a snapshot if they are printed. Knowledge progresses. And seekers of information should always understand the weaknesses of whatever source they are using.

[rockoon]

For what its worth I checked wikipedia on an subject I am especialy well versed in, Data Compression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression), and the main item and the sub-catagories seems to be spot-on accurate. I didnt examine every word of every sub-catagory but the main topics and related issues are completely accurate.

[geni]

geni, I didn't realize how involved with wikipedia you are. As someone who reads it often, I'd just like to say thanks.


not a problem but the catch is my main involvement this month has been deleting stuff. Slightly over 800 items so far.

[davefoc]

not a problem but the catch is my main involvement this month has been deleting stuff. Slightly over 800 items so far.

Could you give us a feel for what you deleted? Maybe a few obvious examples and then some close calls.

[geni]

Could you give us a feel for what you deleted? Maybe a few obvious examples and then some close calls.

Well my deletion log is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Geni&page=

Mostly speedies with some copyvio stuff thrown it. Speedies are meant to be obvious. you can normaly find examples at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAT:CSD

"X is teh gay" or "me and my frieds have just formed a band and have a myspace page" makes up rather a lot of it.

Next up is prod these are meant to be sort of obvious. examples can be found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_deletion_as_of_20_September_2006


For the boarderline stuff there is AFD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_21

[Morrigan]

Geni, you must be joking. An interview? I have to source MYSELF? *dies of laughter*

In any case, in the talk page an anonymous user posted a link to my own Last.fm page, where one can easily see that trad metal dominates my playlist (as well as a forum post that quoted me saying I liked all styles of metal, and didn't favour one so much over the others). But of course the imbecile ignored it.

And it's cute that you can fit every inane topic under an academic veil, but really, it's just rhetoric at this point - you could do that with anyone. Someone's "Myspace band" could fit under culture: music, some random high school could fall under Academia/Academic Institutions (and does), and so on. When does it stop being rationalisation and begin being a real justification?

[geni]

Geni, you must be joking. An interview? I have to source MYSELF? *dies of laughter*

Certianly. Otherwise it is original research. (you wouldn't want cranks or politicians sourceing themselves now would you).


In any case, in the talk page an anonymous user posted a link to my own Last.fm page, where one can easily see that trad metal dominates my playlist. But of course the imbecile ignored it.


Last.fm isn't the worlds greatest source though.


And it's cute that you can fit every inane topic under an academic veil, but really, it's just rhetoric at this point - you could do that with anyone. Someone's "Myspace band" could fit under culture: music,


Yes fortunetly we have the principle of verifiability to play with which rather shoots that one down.


some random high school could fall under Academia/Academic Institutions (and does), and so on.

This is the case. The pro school articles people won.


When does it stop being rationalisation and begin being a real justification?

Currently the deletionsists have fallen back to the concept of verifiability.

[Morrigan]

Certianly. Otherwise it is original research. (you wouldn't want cranks or politicians sourceing themselves now would you).

...Original research? The guy literally *invents* a claim about me and my boyfriend's musical tastes, out of thin air, and I have to prove him wrong, and being quoted (or hell telling him myself) on the talk page isn't enough?
If someone invented a claim that George Bush listens to heavy metal (and perhaps used the absurd horns \m/ picture as evidence!) I certainly wouldn't mind if Dubya himself posted to say, "that's complete bollocks".

What the bloody hell is wrong with you people?


Last.fm isn't the worlds greatest source though.

*lol* What IS? If my own word isn't good enough, then surely a log of all my playlist should work. Oh wait... I guess there's no proof that I didn't queue all those songs in Winamp just to pretend I'm not extreme-metal biased, right? :rolleyes:


Yes fortunetly we have the principle of verifiability to play with which rather shoots that one down.

A MySpace band can demonstrate a recording/demo of actual music, as well as dates and venues of gigs played and so on. The truth isn't verifiability, it's notability.

[geni]

...Original research? The guy literally *invents* a claim about me and my boyfriend's musical tastes, out of thin air, and I have to prove him wrong, and being quoted (or hell telling him myself) on the talk page isn't enough?
If someone invented a claim that George Bush listens to heavy metal (and perhaps used the absurd horns \m/ picture as evidence!) I certainly wouldn't mind if Dubya himself posted to say, "that's complete bollocks".

What the bloody hell is wrong with you people?

Well to star with you could accuse him of orignal research


*lol* What IS? If my own word isn't good enough, then surely a log of all my playlist should work. Oh wait... I guess there's no proof that I didn't queue all those songs in Winamp just to pretend I'm not extreme-metal biased, right? :rolleyes:

Pretty much remeber we have rahter a lot of experence with politicians.


A MySpace band can demonstrate a recording/demo of actual music, as well as dates and venues of gigs played and so on. The truth isn't verifiability, it's notability.

Most myspace bands can't demonstrate that. they certianly can't useing reliable sources.

[Morrigan]

"Original research" again...

Jesus mighty Nyarlathotep, it looks like Wikipedia apologists have completely lost touch with reality. I give up.

PS: Off-topic but... how does one manage to still type like an AOLer after making nearly twelve thousand posts? Huh. *scratches head*

[Ian Osborne]

A thought for Wikipedia's detractors:

If entries on w00t, Pokémon and porn stars were removed, would the site go up in your estimation? If so, why not read from the rest of it and ignore the parts you consider beneath you?

And what were those inaccurate metal pages anyway? I'm a fan of trad metal myself, and would be interested to read them.

[drkitten]

Well to star with you could accuse him of orignal research

Geni, at this point, I have only to conclude that you've gone off the rails.

The only solution to someone making stuff up - writing fiction and publishing as an encyclopedia -- is to "accuse him of orignal research."

Speaking as someone who does original research.... I find that insulting.

[drkitten]

If entries on w00t, Pokémon and porn stars were removed, would the site go up in your estimation? If so, why not read from the rest of it and ignore the parts you consider beneath you?


Depends on the process by which they were removed. The problem is not with w00t per se, but with the fact that the mere existence of w00t violates a half-dozen of Wikipedia's own rules about quality control. Which means that it's a smoking gun to indicate that the quality control rules aren't followed elsewhere, either.

Let me give you an analogy -- one that has actually happened to me. I was eating at a very nice Italian restaurant a few years back, when I glance down at my plate and something is swimming in my pasta sauce. I'm no entymologist, but I think it was a maggot of some sort.

When the waiter wanted to know what was wrong -- I pointed at the maggot and said that it was a problem. He took a fork and removed the maggot.

Do I want to order anything else at that restaurant? Do I want to return to that restaurant?

Why not eat the rest of the pasta and ignore the parts that are maggot-filled?

[Darat]

...snip...

When the waiter wanted to know what was wrong -- I pointed at the maggot and said that it was a problem. He took a fork and removed the maggot.


...snip...

You didn't need the waiter to edit your pasta source for you - you could have just edited it yourself... That's the Wikipedia way!


;)

[Ian Osborne]

Not a fair comparison. Wikipedia is put together by a huge number of people, and as has already been pointed out, the people responsible for the w00t piece are extremely unlikely to be the prime movers behind a more serious article. Do you ever want to eat in that restaurant again? No way, but why would you boycott every restaurant in the city?

[drkitten]

Not a fair comparison. Wikipedia is put together by a huge number of people, and as has already been pointed out, the people responsible for the w00t piece are extremely unlikely to be the prime movers behind a more serious article.

I disagree. The people responsible for the w00t article are Wikipedia. They're presenting it as a unified product that is credited to the Wikipedia coilective authorship. (you'll notice that there's no indication of individual authorship on the individual pages as presented -- if you want to know who actually wrote a given paragraph, you have to check the history yourself. Even then, you need to do the legwork; they won't tell you.)

If Wikipedia, the collective, is presenting the information, Wikipedia, the collective, is responsible for it. And I'm supposed to believe that the same collective that can't figure out whether or not 'w00t' is suitable for inclusion is going to magically become responsible when it comes to more technical information?

Do you ever want to eat in that restaurant again? No way, but why would you boycott every restaurant in the city?

I'm not boycotting every restaurant in the city. But I might well boycott every restaurant under that management. Even if the person who messed up was the junior prep cook, it's still the chef's and owner's responsibility to make sure that there aren't maggots on anything coming out of his kitchen.

[drkitten]

Depends on the process by which they were removed. The problem is not with w00t per se, but with the fact that the mere existence of w00t violates a half-dozen of Wikipedia's own rules about quality control. Which means that it's a smoking gun to indicate that the quality control rules aren't followed elsewhere, either.

Let me give you an analogy -- one that has actually happened to me. I was eating at a very nice Italian restaurant a few years back, when I glance down at my plate and something is swimming in my pasta sauce. I'm no entymologist, but I think it was a maggot of some sort.


I should point out, as a followup, that there probably are actions that restaurant could take that would restore my faith and willingness to eat there, since that point may have been lost. I don't know what they are exactly, but a key would be some action on the part of management to address the underlying causes of my maggot-ridden pasta. Basically, to make sure not only that that individual maggot is no longer in my individual dish, but to do something to make it clear that no vermin of any sort will get into the food.

So simply deleting 'w00t' wouldn't do it. Deleting 'w00t' as part of a major "all right, guys, it's time to clean the septic tank" initiative would be more helpful. Deleting 'w00t' and installing major new fact-checking initiatives -- essentially, what the counter-proposal in the OP was suggesting, yes? -- would probably encourage me to trust Wikipedia as far as I trust,.... well maybe not Britannica, but certainly one of the smaller ones like World Book or Americana.

[Gbob]

In defense of the so-called trivial, I'm currently working on a historical novel and the lack of trivial knowledge is fustrating. What did these people eat? What were their jokes? What was the focus of their everyday discussions? There's not a scholar of history that wishes there were less source materials available.

I agree that a list of porn stars is pretty banal and has no place in a scholary work. That being said, how can we know that this information may not be important to a scholar of 21st century culture down the road? As long as the material is searchable and archived, it's a treasure trove for future historians and writers. There's no reason to learn about some wrestler today, but a thousand years from now it may be as informative as a detailed history of the lives of Roman gladiators would be for us today.

As for bias, that's something historians have always had to deal with. Look at Herodotus. He's full of bias, full of trivia and we have to filter his history. Are you saying you wouldn't prefer a thousand works like this?

Now accuracy is a different issue, but one that seems to be sorting itself out with better moderatrion.

[geni]

"Original research" again...

Jesus mighty Nyarlathotep, it looks like Wikipedia apologists have completely lost touch with reality. I give up.

Or we have considered the posibilty that people might lie about themselves. Uri Geller for a start. Rather a lot of people in the public eye


PS: Off-topic but... how does one manage to still type like an AOLer after making nearly twelve thousand posts? Huh. *scratches head*

Dyslexia. Just be glad I'm not writeing in wikipedia cult speak.

[drkitten]

In defense of the so-called trivial, I'm currently working on a historical novel and the lack of trivial knowledge is fustrating.

But that's not the sort of stuff that you go to an encyclopedia to find.

There's certainly space in the archives of all-that-is-archivable for collections of banal and uninteresting matters against the possibility that historians will someday be interested in it. But Wikipedia -- by its own policy, I might add -- is not supposed to be the archives of everything; the garbage tip of the Internet.



There's no reason to learn about some wrestler today, but a thousand years from now it may be as informative as a detailed history of the lives of Roman gladiators would be for us today.

But, again you wouldn't go to an encyclopedia for the detailed lives of Roman gladiators. That's what books -- like The Life of a Roman Gladiator (http://www.amazon.com/Way-People-Live-Roman-Gladiator/dp/1590182537/sr=1-1/qid=1158933667/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2222532-0319109?ie=UTF8&s=books), or perhaps The Gladiators (http://www.amazon.com/Gladiators-Historys-Most-Deadly-Sport/dp/0312348746/sr=1-6/qid=1158933667/ref=sr_1_6/104-2222532-0319109?ie=UTF8&s=books) -- are for.

[geni]

Geni, at this point, I have only to conclude that you've gone off the rails.

The only solution to someone making stuff up - writing fiction and publishing as an encyclopedia -- is to "accuse him of orignal research."

Well you could demand reliable sources. In fact there are probably a dozen things you could do but they would probably take longer or require you have exceptional social skills.


Speaking as someone who does original research.... I find that insulting.

As someone who does original research I'm sure you would agree than an encycopedia is not the place to publish it. Equaly I'm sure you are aware of cases of stuff being published as original reasearch that were not to put made up.

[geni]

I disagree. The people responsible for the w00t article are Wikipedia. They're presenting it as a unified product that is credited to the Wikipedia coilective authorship. (you'll notice that there's no indication of individual authorship on the individual pages as presented -- if you want to know who actually wrote a given paragraph, you have to check the history yourself. Even then, you need to do the legwork; they won't tell you.)

Um no due to the way wikipedia uses the GFDL wikipedia is credited at the article level.


If Wikipedia, the collective, is presenting the information, Wikipedia, the collective, is responsible for it. And I'm supposed to believe that the same collective that can't figure out whether or not 'w00t' is suitable for inclusion is going to magically become responsible when it comes to more technical information?

Except we can figure out whether or not 'w00t' is suitable for inclusion (in this case it is and it gets it's own article in order to keep the Leet article down to a length that is only mildy insane).

While "technical information" is a hard to define area if you mean areas related to technology then we have rather more people who know about that area than say linguistics.

[geni]

But that's not the sort of stuff that you go to an encyclopedia to find.

Why not?


There's certainly space in the archives of all-that-is-archivable for collections of banal and uninteresting matters against the possibility that historians will someday be interested in it. But Wikipedia -- by its own policy, I might add -- is not supposed to be the archives of everything; the garbage tip of the Internet.

And it isn't see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=

[drkitten]

Um no due to the way wikipedia uses the GFDL wikipedia is credited at the article level.

Wrong. Look at wikipedia again.

If Wikipedia seriously thinks that the GFDL requires credit at the article level, then Wikipedia is in violation of its own licence.

Let's look at 'w00t' again. According to the (current) history, the most recent revision is due to an unnamed contributor at 159.53.110.142.

Now look at the 'w00t' page.

At the head of the page it says : "W00t : From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

In the HTML source of the page, it says (slightly emended) "[title>W00t - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title]"

And, of course, the Wikipedia logo appears in the upper-left hand corner.

Where exactly does 159.53.110.142 get mentioned on the w00t page?

The GFDL requires copyright to be granted to the original author, not credit.



Except we can figure out whether or not 'w00t' is suitable for inclusion (in this case it is

Why? It's a dictionary entry. Wikipedia, by its own standards, is not a dictionary! The article violates Wikipedia's own inclusion criteria!

Why is it suitable?

[geni]

Wrong. Look at wikipedia again.

If Wikipedia seriously thinks that the GFDL requires credit at the article level, then Wikipedia is in violation of its own licence.

This has been claimed I belive the general legal opinion is that there is a lack of case law and that the GFDL sucks.


Let's look at 'w00t' again. According to the (current) history, the most recent revision is due to an unnamed contributor at 159.53.110.142.

Now look at the 'w00t' page.

At the head of the page it says : "W00t : From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

In the HTML source of the page, it says (slightly emended) "[title>W00t - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title]"

And, of course, the Wikipedia logo appears in the upper-left hand corner.

Where exactly does 159.53.110.142 get mentioned on the w00t page?


Through the history link. Fortuently the lisence doesn't define what the title page has to be called.


The GFDL requires copyright to be granted to the original author, not credit.



It requires you to give credit to at least 5 significant authors.


Why? It's a dictionary entry. Wikipedia, by its own standards, is not a dictionary! The article violates Wikipedia's own inclusion criteria!

Why is it suitable?

Becuase clearly it should be mentioned in the [[Leet]] article however the leet article is too long to include it.

[davefoc]

drkitten brought up an issue that I was curious about.

Why does wikipedia allow edits by people that aren't even logged in? Using the IP address to track the author seems inadequate given that (I think) most people log into the web with DHCP and get a new IP address any time they release and renew their IP address.

[davefoc]

It is too bad that the JREF forum doesn't have an award for the most entertaining use of analogy to make a point. I think drkitten's maggot analogy would be an easy winner.

Based on the analogy, it is clear that I don't want the w00t article in. Who wants maggots in their pasta sauce? But then I think about maybe the w00t article isn't so bad because Darat says I can edit it myself since rather than eat the maggots I can pick them out. But still I am wondering it the w00t article should be there at all, because I don't really think I want maggots in my pasta sauce in the first place.

But I don't even have to read the w00t article at all because as Ian Osborne points out there are other restaurants in town, so now I am thinking the w00t article isn't such a bad thing.

Ah, but drkitten says it isn't just one restaurant that is the problem, wikipedia manages them all and all the restaurants might serve maggots in their pasta if one of them serves maggots.

Fortunately, drkitten has provided an out to wikipedia they should improve their quality control and stop serving maggots.

So I think the bottom line here is that even the wikipedia apologists would agree with: wikipedia should not serve maggots in its restaurants.

[Morrigan]

And what were those inaccurate metal pages anyway? I'm a fan of trad metal myself, and would be interested to read them.

There are many. But I'm sure I will be accused of elitism or pro-underground if I list some... oh well.

The page on heavy metal music mentions nu-metal (which really isn't metal, but that's a lost fight) and a so-called hipster "revival" trend, which are completely irrelevant, and fails to mention doom, black and death metal, which are far, far more important to the genre's history and culture. It's a complete aberration that an article on heavy metal lists trendy novelty bands like Children of Bodom or Dragonforce, but not, say, Manilla Road, Morbid Angel, Emperor, Angel Witch or King Diamond. The paragraph about the underground is smaller than the one on nu-metal - absolutely galling (and not because I'm "elitist" or whatever) since metal today survives thanks to the underground.

In the thematics, the anti-religious (mostly anti-Judeo Christian), pagan, and nihilist aspects (very predominent in various forms of metal) are completely ignored.

Black Sabbath's influence is understated. In truth, they invented what we now call heavy metal. Before them, you had clearly influential artists such as Led Zeppelin and Iron Butterfly, but Sabbath's debut album was completely unlike anything else before it - incredibly dark, violent, bleak, which set it apart from other classic rock artists. They also created doom metal, but in the doom metal page both Sabbath and Pentagram are mentioned as a "proto-doom", which is complete nonsense: "neither band is generally considered an actual doom metal band" (any seriously dedicated metal fan will laugh at this).

In the page listing genres, you have "troll metal" (which isn't even close to being a real subgenre), "celtic metal" (redundant with folk metal - there are subgenres of folk metal itself, celtic is just one of them), rapcore (not metal), "epic metal" (not a genre), "christian metal" (not a genre), grindcore (subgenre of punk, not metal - though to be fair, death/grind hybrids are very common - still, that falls under death metal, and grind should be separate). In the classic metal page, Stratovarius is mentioned (WTF). Judas Priest is referred to as NWOBHM, when they preceded the movement. Agalloch, Bal-Sagoth, Children of Bodom, Cradle of Filth, Einherjer, Finntroll, Moonsorrow, Otyg, Skyfire, and many others, are on the list of black metal bands, where they certainly don't belong (I just removed them, let's see how long before it gets reverted - which is why I stopped bothering with the corrections).

The list goes on and on. It's really a lost battle at this point...

[geni]

drkitten brought up an issue that I was curious about.

Why does wikipedia allow edits by people that aren't even logged in?


To make it easy to contribute.


Using the IP address to track the author seems inadequate given that (I think) most people log into the web with DHCP and get a new IP address any time they release and renew their IP address.

Exactly how often IP's shift is a rather complex matter. With the exception of AOL they tend to be stable enough.

[drkitten]

Becuase clearly it should be mentioned in the [[Leet]] article however the leet article is too long to include it.

Er, why? By which, of course, I mean "why should it be mentioned in the [[Leet]] article?" The article on Bantu doesn't mention every Bantu word in existence. The article on the Icelandic language doesn't include every Icelandic vocabulary item.

More to the point, the article on "Cockney rhyming slang" does not include a complete list of every slang item known to exist -- and in fact, it punts to a dictionary.

So it's not at all clear to me that 'w00t' deserves more than a passing mention as yet-another lexical item in l33t-speak.

[geni]

There are many. But I'm sure I will be accused of elitism or pro-underground if I list some... oh well.

The page on heavy metal music mentions nu-metal (which really isn't metal, but that's a lost fight) and a so-called hipster "revival" trend, which are completely irrelevant, and fails to mention doom, black and death metal, which are far, far more important to the genre's history and culture.

Source?


It's a complete aberration that an article on heavy metal lists trendy novelty bands like Children of Bodom or Dragonforce, but not, say, Manilla Road, Morbid Angel, Emperor, Angel Witch or King Diamond. The paragraph about the underground is smaller than the one on nu-metal - absolutely galling (and not because I'm "elitist" or whatever) since metal today survives thanks to the underground.

Source?


In the thematics, the anti-religious (mostly anti-Judeo Christian), pagan, and nihilist aspects (very predominent in various forms of metal) are completely ignored.

Or no one has got around to mentioning them.


Black Sabbath's influence is understated. In truth, they invented what we now call heavy metal. Before them, you had clearly influential artists such as Led Zeppelin and Iron Butterfly, but Sabbath's debut album was completely unlike anything else before it - incredibly dark, violent, bleak, which set it apart from other classic rock artists.

Source?


(any seriously dedicated metal fan will laugh at this).


That soulds like weasel words.


The list goes on and on. It's really a lost battle at this point...

Lots of opinions but no sources. Which tends to be the problem with Music genres in general. At leas the balkans crowd can provide sources even if they can never agree over which ones are acceptable.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Depends on the process by which they were removed. The problem is not with w00t per se, but with the fact that the mere existence of w00t violates a half-dozen of Wikipedia's own rules about quality control. Which means that it's a smoking gun to indicate that the quality control rules aren't followed elsewhere, either.

Let me give you an analogy -- one that has actually happened to me. I was eating at a very nice Italian restaurant a few years back, when I glance down at my plate and something is swimming in my pasta sauce. I'm no entymologist, but I think it was a maggot of some sort.

When the waiter wanted to know what was wrong -- I pointed at the maggot and said that it was a problem. He took a fork and removed the maggot.

Do I want to order anything else at that restaurant? Do I want to return to that restaurant?

Why not eat the rest of the pasta and ignore the parts that are maggot-filled?



I don't consider an article on an internet phenomena to be the same as a 'maggot' in your soup. You may disagree about wikipedia being a true encyclopedia but that doesn't mean it isn't a massive information depository.

Having an article on 'woot' violates many wikipedia rules? So what? Did you know that wikipedia also has a rule called "Ignore all rules". Where editors ignore all rules when they feel the rules might hold back an article or ignoring the rules could improve wikipedia?

[geni]

Er, why? By which, of course, I mean "why should it be mentioned in the [[Leet]] article?"


It is a somewhat nostandard part of leetspeak (which normaly sticks to english) that has been around for sometime a bit like Pwn.

The article on Bantu doesn't mention every Bantu word in existence. The article on the Icelandic language doesn't include every Icelandic vocabulary item.

On the other hand we have at least two articles about "the".

[Dustin Kesselberg]

encyclopedia
n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty [syn: cyclopedia (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cyclopedia), encyclopaedia (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encyclopaedia), cyclopaedia (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cyclopaedia)]


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/encyclopedia

Wikipedia fits this definition.

[drkitten]

It is a somewhat nostandard part of leetspeak (which normaly sticks to english) that has been around for sometime a bit like Pwn.

Yeah, and?

What makes this particular word noteworthy in its own right?

Still not seeing it, I'm afraid.

[drkitten]

Wikipedia fits this definition.

I don't think that anyone's arguing that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, broadly defined.

I'm arguing that, as encyclopediae go, Wikipedia is not very good, because it's so badly-edited.

You're right that the Wikipedia editors can individually and collectively ignore any rules they like. But this can be a Bad Thing, because the rules are there to enforce a certain level of quality.

Similarly, the chef can make pasta sauce without bothering to see if there are maggots in the ingredients. But if I know he does that, I won't eat there....

[drkitten]

On the other hand we have at least two articles about "the".

Which part of this is supposed to convince me that Wikipedia is good?

That sounds like the sort of point I would bring up if I wanted to illustrate yet again how Wikipedia is making itself into the garbage tip of the Internet.

[Ian Osborne]

DrK, have you ever read an encyclopedia which hasn't made you wonder why certain entries are in and others are left out? I'll bet you haven't. Wikipedia - or indeed any reference work - wasn't written for you personally, y'know...

[drkitten]

DrK, have you ever read an encyclopedia which hasn't made you wonder why certain entries are in and others are left out?

Of course not.

But it's not just my opinion. Issues of quality control, bad editing, and poor judgement about article structure have been floating around Wikipedia for years -- and the Wikipedia collective has never addressed them.

I'd feel a lot worse about my concerns if I were the only one who had them.

[Ian Osborne]

There are many. But I'm sure I will be accused of elitism or pro-underground if I list some... oh well.

Categorisation is a boring subject, and there's an awful lot of grey areas where the validity of a given categorisation is a matter of opinion rather than fact. When I used to read Kerrang! many moons ago, it used to really bug me when a band said, "we don't like to call ourselves heavy metal as we don't want to be restricted by the term". The term is only restrictive if every band which does something interesting disowns it. But that's just my soap box...

For the record, with the exception of Nu-Metal (I can't see why this isn't a valid metal sub-genre), and the paragraph on Black Sabbath which I think needs a little qualification, I agree with pretty-much everything you've said. But apart from your rightly identifying Judas Priest as predating NWOBHM, it's based on opinion, rather than fact. Endlessly creating new sub-genres is annoying (what the buggery is "troll metal"?), but this doesn't mean it doesn't go on.

For my money, I'm sure you could write a much better article than the one currently online, but I'm equally sure there's endless spotty geeks in Slipknot hoodies who would say you can't.

[geni]

Which part of this is supposed to convince me that Wikipedia is good?

Well you complain about the lack of simular coverage in other languages.


That sounds like the sort of point I would bring up if I wanted to illustrate yet again how Wikipedia is making itself into the garbage tip of the Internet.


Do I need to link to the deletion log again?

[drkitten]

Well you complain about the lack of simular coverage in other languages.

Er, no. I hold the other languages up as models about what should and shouldn't be in there.


Do I need to link to the deletion log again?

Not unless you're also going to show me that 'w00t' and the rest of the trivialities of the -- what was the phrase? -- "endless spotty geeks in Slipknot hoodies" have been placed there.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm arguing that, as encyclopediae go, Wikipedia is not very good, because it's so badly-edited.

So fix it where you see problems. That's how it works.

You're right that the Wikipedia editors can individually and collectively ignore any rules they like. But this can be a Bad Thing, because the rules are there to enforce a certain level of quality.

Quality is interpreted by the reader who can improve it if he likes.

Similarly, the chef can make pasta sauce without bothering to see if there are maggots in the ingredients. But if I know he does that, I won't eat there....


Wikipedia isn't a restaurant with one chef in charge. Wikipedia is like a community where everyone works together for a greater goal. If 1 person sees a problem then that 1 person should fix it.

[Morrigan]

Source?
Source?
Source?
That soulds like weasel words.
Lots of opinions but no sources.
Blah blah blah

I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't writing an article for Wikipedia. Ian Osbourne asked me a question and I answered. I -could- have given sources, but I didn't feel like writing a huge essay in just this reply, okay?
A lot of the things I said that you quoted are not easily documented by a simple link that says, "doom, black and death metal are more important than hispter metal" or "King Diamond is more relevant to metal than Dragonforce". I would need to write an actual essay/research to demonstrate that to someone who doesn't know metal one bit (but then, original research is frowned upon...). How do I demonstrate that Morbid Angel is influential? I'd have to quote not one, but many interviews of many "notable" death metal bands that list Morbid Angel as an influence. You can see how tedious that could get to document and can't be done with a simple link. But by simple experience, metalheads recognize that Morbid Angel is influential. (Hell, even the wiki Morbid Angel page says so. But <gasps> that very claim has no source, oh noes!! :rolleyes:)
How the hell does one "source" that Black Sabbath is darker than any rock band before it? Just listen to the freaking music...

You have to realize that art and culture are not like science. They don't always have quick facts that can determine if something is true or not in the blink of an eye. So the "source this, source that" Wikipedia mentality doesn't work well in these cases, especially not for underground subcultures. Even in literature; how do you "source" that some author is influential? You have to draw parallels with other authors, and in turn prove that these other authors are notable themselves, and you can't necessarily do that with a simple "source" - you need a complex essay. If the information is too research-like, then it can't be on Wikipedia, right? Only, it's not true at all, large portions of some metal articles (among others) are based in (often bad) research... go figure.


But since you insist, here's what I can give, very quickly, to support some of the points I said - I'll even use Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacken (www.wacken.com) - the largest heavy metal festival in the world, where I find ONE mallcore (aka "nu-metal") band amongst all the rosters since the beginning (Soulfly), and not a single hipster/"revival" band. The predominent genres of those bands are traditional, thrash, doom, black, death, and folk metal. Of course, you'd have to check almost every single band to make sure my claim is true, but trust me, it is.

Other large metal festivals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuska_Open_Air_Metal_Festival
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_Metal_Festival
Very, very few mallcore/hipster bands in there. In fact, I see none, but there are some bands I don't know well so to be safe I say "few" in case I missed one or two.

Hipster bands are not influenced by metal, but come from the Indie rock scene. Even the hipster bands themselves distance themselves from metal. For example: The Sword is not influenced by Sabbath (http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/0628/thesword.php). Wolfmother lists no metal band as influence (http://www.myspace.com/wolfmother), and claim they are not influenced by 70's metal (http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=55470). The metal scene does not recognize this "phenomenon", but more as an invention of out-of-touch mainstream media. More details can be found here (http://angryjerk.blogspot.com/2006/06/surging-tide-of-hipster-metal.html) and here (http://www.lotfp.com/content.php?editorialid=55).

Well, I could dig further, but really, I don't think it's worth all that effort. Obviously little can satisfy you, since you're a loony who thinks I should get myself interviewed to refute a claim about myself. *snickers*

Or no one has got around to mentioning them.
I wish you were right, but I'm sure it'd get reverted for "lack of sources" or something, nevermind its ubiquitousness :P


For the record, with the exception of Nu-Metal (I can't see why this isn't a valid metal sub-genre)

Because it's firmly rooted in hardcore and hip/hop, has no influence from the pioneers of metal, does not share the same themes as metal, does not share the same fans, the same scene, etc. (see Wacken/Tuska/etc above) I could go on and on, but I think I've ranted enough, haha...


, and the paragraph on Black Sabbath which I think needs a little qualification,

Meaning?

I agree with pretty-much everything you've said. But apart from your rightly identifying Judas Priest as predating NWOBHM, it's based on opinion, rather than fact. Endlessly creating new sub-genres is annoying (what the buggery is "troll metal"?), but this doesn't mean it doesn't go on.
Not exactly. It's pretty much a fact that Otyg isn't black metal. :P Some bands are more debatable/borderline, yes, but those I removed were too obvious (I let the "debatable" ones there). And troll metal really, seriously, doesn't exist. It's too absurd, it's like saying there's "unicorn" metal and the bands of that style are Gamma Ray, Rhapsody, and any other band that has one sung about unicorns.


For my money, I'm sure you could write a much better article than the one currently online, but I'm equally sure there's endless spotty geeks in Slipknot hoodies who would say you can't.
Thanks. But they'd be wrong, too. ;)

Anyway, I didn't intend to threadjack this into a metal subgenre discussion, really. I just picked this subject because it's one I am very familiar with, and myself and many other metalheads (most of them far more experienced than I) have rolled our collective eyes many, many times at many of Wikipedia's inaccuracies and misinformation about the genres, history, culture and themes of heavy metal. I don't want to imagine what it's like for articles about other specialized music genres... or any other underground/obscure sub-culture, really. Mainstream media have shown time and time again they are completely out of touch and clueless about those things. :(

[Morrigan]

So fix it where you see problems. That's how it works.
No, those get reverted. :P

[geni]

Er, no. I hold the other languages up as models about what should and shouldn't be in there.

Inconsistancies can be delt with in more than one way.


Not unless you're also going to show me that 'w00t' and the rest of the trivialities of the -- what was the phrase? -- "endless spotty geeks in Slipknot hoodies" have been placed there.

Interesting. How are you decideing what is trivial?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, those get reverted. :P



Mine don't. They only get reverted if you don't know how to edit or it's simply false and has already been discussed on the talk page.

[geni]

I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't writing an article for Wikipedia. Ian Osbourne asked me a question and I answered. I -could- have given sources, but I didn't feel like writing a huge essay in just this reply, okay?
A lot of the things I said that you quoted are not easily documented by a simple link that says, "doom, black and death metal are more important than hispter metal" or "King Diamond is more relevant to metal than Dragonforce".


So you don't say that. Instead you say critic X has stated that "doom, black and death metal are more important than hispter metal" or that critic Y has stated that "King Diamond are a critical metal band metal while Dragonforce have only a slightly greater relationship to metal than ABBA"


How do I demonstrate that Morbid Angel is influential? I'd have to quote not one, but many interviews of many "notable" death metal bands that list Morbid Angel as an influence. You can see how tedious that could get to document and can't be done with a simple link. But by simple experience, metalheads recognize that Morbid Angel is influential. (Hell, even the wiki Morbid Angel page says so. But <gasps> that very claim has no source, oh noes!! :rolleyes:)

Well either you look at record sales or the record sales of bands that have credited them as an influnce.


How the hell does one "source" that Black Sabbath is darker than any rock band before it? Just listen to the freaking music...


Critic V has stated that "Black Sabbath make any previous rock band look pearly white" while a servey publish by magazine U reported that 98% percent of respondants took the position that Black Sabbath was 10¹⁴ times darker than any previous rock band.


You have to realize that art and culture are not like science. They don't always have quick facts that can determine if something is true or not in the blink of an eye. So the "source this, source that" Wikipedia mentality doesn't work well in these cases, especially not for underground subcultures. Even in literature; how do you "source" that some author is influential?

Find some critics who have made that statement or look for serveys of critics.


You have to draw parallels with other authors, and in turn prove that these other authors are notable themselves, and you can't necessarily do that with a simple "source" - you need a complex essay. If the information is too research-like, then it can't be on Wikipedia, right? Only, it's not true at all, large portions of some metal articles (among others) are based in (often bad) research... go figure.

Yes theyu do need to improve but adding more unverified research is not the way to do that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacken (www.wacken.com) - the largest heavy metal festival in the world, where I find ONE mallcore (aka "nu-metal") band amongst all the rosters since the beginning (Soulfly), and not a single hipster/"revival" band. The predominent genres of those bands are traditional, thrash, doom, black, death, and folk metal. Of course, you'd have to check almost every single band to make sure my claim is true, but trust me, it is.

So you would add to the article that only one nu-metal band has ever appeared at Wacken (and if you know how many bands have appeared add whatever percentage this makes up).


Other large metal festivals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuska_Open_Air_Metal_Festival
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_Metal_Festival
Very, very few mallcore/hipster bands in there. In fact, I see none, but there are some bands I don't know well so to be safe I say "few" in case I missed one or two.

So you make simular points


Hipster bands are not influenced by metal, but come from the Indie rock scene. Even the hipster bands themselves distance themselves from metal. For example: The Sword is not influenced by Sabbath (http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/0628/thesword.php). Wolfmother lists no metal band as influence (http://www.myspace.com/wolfmother), and claim they are not influenced by 70's metal (http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=55470). The metal scene does not recognize this "phenomenon", but more as an invention of out-of-touch mainstream media. More details can be found here (http://angryjerk.blogspot.com/2006/06/surging-tide-of-hipster-metal.html) and here (http://www.lotfp.com/content.php?editorialid=55).


so you say that Dave Burns in the "The Financial and Farcical Return of Heavy Metal" has argued that "nu-metal" is not heavy metal for reasons X Y and Z.


Well, I could dig further, but really, I don't think it's worth all that effort. Obviously little can satisfy you, since you're a loony who thinks I should get myself interviewed to refute a claim about myself. *snickers*


No logical. Would you want Geller to be able to do what you want to do?

[drkitten]

Interesting. How are you decideing what is trivial?

Well, in this case, I can simply apply Wikipedia's own criteria. By its own statement, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The 'w00t' article is clearly a dictionary entry, and hence is inappropriate.

Beyond that, Wikipedia's criteria for 'important' suggest that to be important, the topic of an article should be the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works," but the only supporting "external links" given are to an dictionary definition and a song that uses the word (misspelled -- or by courtesy, undocumented variant spelling) in the title. So, no, "w00t" doesn't make the listed standards for importance.

And, of course, Wiki's own guideline about not being a repository of all knowledge -- "not an indiscriminate collection of information."

Dustin would have me note that one of Wikipedia's meta-rules is to "Ignore All Rules." But, of course, that really means that the rules should be ignored when there's a good reason to. For example, when ignoring a particular rule will improve the quality of a specific article or of the Wiki. But I'd also suggest that in that case, the argument that should be made is why the rules don't apply, not why they do. The default should be to follow the rules -- that's why they're rules, yes?

I'm rather happy with the "multiple independent non-trivial published sources" criterion myself. But let me put it this way. I have on my computer wordlists of, literally, tens of millions of words from dozens of languages. I could easily write a little Perl script or something that went through the lists, created a new "article" from a template, and plugged it into Wikipedia. Would you like me to do that?

Of course not. I'd probably be banned within hours for attempted vandalism. But what's the difference between plugging in every word in the Finnish language -- and plugging in every word in l33t?

[geni]

Mine don't. They only get reverted if you don't know how to edit or it's simply false and has already been discussed on the talk page.

That depends on where you edit. there are a number of long running fights going on about metal and a number of other types of music

[drkitten]

So fix it where you see problems. That's how it works.

Or, as Darat put it,


You didn't need the waiter to edit your pasta source for you - you could have just edited it yourself... That's the Wikipedia way!

When someone tells me that the maggots in the pasta are the customer's problem, not the kitchen's, and that he can "improve it if he likes"....

[geni]

Well, in this case, I can simply apply Wikipedia's own criteria. By its own statement, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The 'w00t' article is clearly a dictionary entry, and hence is inappropriate.

"clearly a dictionary entry" Not really. Pronunciation is pretty common on wikipedia articles. It also includes posible origins


Beyond that, Wikipedia's criteria for 'important' suggest that to be important, the topic of an article should be the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works," but the only supporting "external links" given are to an dictionary definition and a song that uses the word (misspelled -- or by courtesy, undocumented variant spelling) in the title. So, no, "w00t" doesn't make the listed standards for importance.

You could probably put together reasonable grounds for deletion based on that. Nothing stoping you from listing it on AFD if you feel that is the case.


And, of course, Wiki's own guideline about not being a repository of all knowledge -- "not an indiscriminate collection of information."

Dustin would have me note that one of Wikipedia's meta-rules is to "Ignore All Rules." But, of course, that really means that the rules should be ignored when there's a good reason to. For example, when ignoring a particular rule will improve the quality of a specific article or of the Wiki. But I'd also suggest that in that case, the argument that should be made is why the rules don't apply, not why they do. The default should be to follow the rules -- that's why they're rules, yes?

I would advise against trying to sum up the process vs IAR argument that has been going on for the last few months in a single paragraph.


I'm rather happy with the "multiple independent non-trivial published sources" criterion myself. But let me put it this way. I have on my computer wordlists of, literally, tens of millions of words from dozens of languages. I could easily write a little Perl script or something that went through the lists, created a new "article" from a template, and plugged it into Wikipedia. Would you like me to do that?

No unauthorized bots.


Of course not. I'd probably be banned within hours for attempted vandalism. But what's the difference between plugging in every word in the Finnish language -- and plugging in every word in l33t?

From your description they would probably fail under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#A3

And wikipedia does not have an article for every word in leet there is no article on "Suxxor"

[drkitten]

"clearly a dictionary entry" Not really. Pronunciation is pretty common on wikipedia articles. It also includes posible origins

Um, yeah. So do dictionary enties.




You could probably put together reasonable grounds for deletion based on that. Nothing stoping you from listing it on AFD if you feel that is the case.

Nothing was stopping me from pulling my own damn maggot out of the pasta, either.

The problem is the process. If there are maggots in the pasta, the real solution isn't to remove the maggot, but to clean the kitchen -- and possibly to make some staffing and policy changes -- yes?


No unauthorized bots.

IAR.


From your description they would probably fail under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#A3

No, they wouldn't. The articles would have template-driven content about their uses, meanings, and distributions.

And even if they did -- IAR.

[geni]

Um, yeah. So do dictionary enties.



Nothing was stopping me from pulling my own damn maggot out of the pasta, either.

But the article doesn't polute other atricles


The problem is the process. If there are maggots in the pasta, the real solution isn't to remove the maggot, but to clean the kitchen -- and possibly to make some staffing and policy changes -- yes?


Wikipedia very few staff. Depend on exactly how you define it somewhere between 3 and 10.


IAR.


Wont work. We have enough pro-process admins to make sure bots without permission get blocked rather fast.


No, they wouldn't. The articles would have template-driven content about their uses, meanings, and distributions.


Either copyvio or transwiki to wikisource.


And even if they did -- IAR.

How shall I put this. I'm rather in the pro-process camp so trying to use IAR against me doesn't work to well

[drkitten]

But the article doesn't polute other atricles

The maggot wasn't polluting any other person's plate.

The problem is that if I've got one maggot that I know about -- how many others are there that I don't? What plates have them, what plates don't, and how can I trust anything produced in that kitchen?

Saying "fix that article" isn't a solution. The problems with that article are a symptom of an underlying problem in process.

The underlying problem being -- visibly poor quality control. (In both the kitchen and the encyclopedia).

In this case -- Wikipedia demonstrably has process that should, in theory, keep stuff like that off the Wiki. I've cited some of the rules. But they're obviously not being applied widely and/or evenly. One possible process change would simply be to start enforcing the rules. But the present culture -- and particular, relying on {{sofixit}} obviously doesn't work, perhaps because there aren't enough "fixers" to balance the "writers," or perhaps because the fixers are being actively blocked (as Morrigan suggests).

That's a spot where your specific expertise would come in handy -- you know, or can figure out, how many "adders" and "vipers" there are, and you can make a guess at how many might actually be needed to make a significant quality difference. This is something that you, specifically, can do.

And so here is where I get to abuse you personally, as a high-ranking representative of Wikiculture. Because you don't even recognize the existence of a problem, when potential writers -- experts, even -- tell you that they won't work for your project because of the following attributes of Wikipedia, which they consider problematic. I refer, here, of course, to both Morrigan and myself in this very thread.

I tell you that I won't write for Wikipedia because it's badly edited, and you tell me "no, it isn't." I point out examples of bad editing, and you say "that's not bad editing." I point out Wikipedia's editing guidelines, and show that the article under discussion violates them shamelessly, and someone -- to be fair, not you -- says "the rules are there to be ignored." I repeat that the guidelines are there for a reason, because they improve the content of the project, and I point to other, better-written examples; you go hunting for other examples of bad editing for me. Finally, when you actually read the contents of my complaint, you realize that I might have a point and that I could "probably put together reasonable grounds" for deletion of that specific article.

Which, I note, isn't the same as saying "Oh, right, I'll just delete that." It isn't even a statement that it will be deleted, because the Wikipedia community will have to vote -- and the "endless spotty geeks in Slipknot hoodies" get to decide whether they want a quality product, or an ego boost. As you might suspect, I'm fairly confident about which way that vote will go.

But let's say that I'm wrong, and the article does get deleted. Now how long will I have to fight to get the article on "the" deleted?

And how long until they're re-created?

And how many errors would there have to be (hypothetically) to acknowledge that there's a quality control problem in general?

[geni]

The maggot wasn't polluting any other person's plate.

The problem is that if I've got one maggot that I know about -- how many others are there that I don't? What plates have them, what plates don't, and how can I trust anything produced in that kitchen?

The problem with that ananolgy is that excess article on wikipedia have very little to do with trust


Saying "fix that article" isn't a solution. The problems with that article are a symptom of an underlying problem in process.

My experence of people trying to solve things through messing about with process is that it doesn't normaly work.


The underlying problem being -- visibly poor quality control. (In both the kitchen and the encyclopedia).


depends on the type of quality control you are looking for.


In this case -- Wikipedia demonstrably has process that should, in theory, keep stuff like that off the Wiki. I've cited some of the rules. But they're obviously not being applied widely and/or evenly. One possible process change would simply be to start enforcing the rules.

A million inclusionists swarm out of nowhere and eat your face. Game over. new game Y/N (no I'm not kidding inclusionists are a pain).


But the present culture -- and particular, relying on {{sofixit}} obviously doesn't work, perhaps because there aren't enough "fixers" to balance the "writers," or perhaps because the fixers are being actively blocked (as Morrigan suggests).

People with strong opinions who are not prepared to negotate and provide sources may have problems.


That's a spot where your specific expertise would come in handy -- you know, or can figure out, how many "adders" and "vipers" there are, and you can make a guess at how many might actually be needed to make a significant quality difference. This is something that you, specifically, can do.

That is a very complex question because most writers are not regular wikipedians. There is also the question of do you improve average quality by deleting or editing.


And so here is where I get to abuse you personally, as a high-ranking representative of Wikiculture. Because you don't even recognize the existence of a problem, when potential writers -- experts, even -- tell you that they won't work for your project because of the following attributes of Wikipedia, which they consider problematic. I refer, here, of course, to both Morrigan and myself in this very thread.

Problem is that the wikipedias you want are either not wikis (your case you would probably be happier with everything2 or digital universe) or would require wikipedia to have an even weaker policy on sourceing than at the moment. Your two ideals are not really compatible.


I tell you that I won't write for Wikipedia because it's badly edited, and you tell me "no, it isn't." I point out examples of bad editing, and you say "that's not bad editing." I point out Wikipedia's editing guidelines, and show that the article under discussion violates them shamelessly, and someone -- to be fair, not you -- says "the rules are there to be ignored." I repeat that the guidelines are there for a reason, because they improve the content of the project, and I point to other, better-written examples; you go hunting for other examples of bad editing for me. Finally, when you actually read the contents of my complaint, you realize that I might have a point and that I could "probably put together reasonable grounds" for deletion of that specific article.

No you take a rather extream deletionist position. Nothing wrong with that I'm generaly viewed as a deletionist myself (probably true although for rather non standard reasons). You then make a number of really poor arguments revolveing around what appear to be gut instinct standards. The arguments the deletionists camps gave up on well over a year ago. You then get smarter and start to understand how to frame your argument in wikipedia terms. Good. now you understand wky wikipedia has to have articles on pokemon.


Which, I note, isn't the same as saying "Oh, right, I'll just delete that."


I can't. At least not without lieing.

It isn't even a statement that it will be deleted, because the Wikipedia community will have to vote -- and the "endless spotty geeks in Slipknot hoodies" get to decide whether they want a quality product, or an ego boost.


For all I know there are half a dozen papers talking about "w00t". However I don't have acess to the relivant jounals.

(me I would probably start by trying to use prod to avoid a !vote. Probably wouldn't work though).


As you might suspect, I'm fairly confident about which way that vote will go.


I'm not. The deletionist camp have been getting stronger lately. Termed proberly a detion could well get through. I'd really wouldn't like to try and call it.


But let's say that I'm wrong, and the article does get deleted. Now how long will I have to fight to get the article on "the" deleted?


Depends. How long do you think it will take to remove every discucsion of the word "the" from every academic text ever?


And how long until they're re-created?


In theory intill it gets voted back into existance through deletion review which with the normal atitute means about never.


And how many errors would there have to be (hypothetically) to acknowledge that there's a quality control problem in general?

Errors of what type? Articles that shouldn't exist? About 27,952

[Morrigan]

Mine don't. They only get reverted if you don't know how to edit or it's simply false and has already been discussed on the talk page.
You're lucky. Or perhaps the subjects you dealt with were not ambiguous or controversial.

So you don't say that. Instead you say critic X has stated that "doom, black and death metal are more important than hispter metal" or that critic Y has stated that "King Diamond are a critical metal band metal while Dragonforce have only a slightly greater relationship to metal than ABBA"
:rolleyes: And in return, we have to demonstrate that critic X is notable, right? And to prove he's notable, we have to identify his credentials (e.g. the magazine he writes for), and demonstrate that his credentials we have to post his resume, and analyse his entire essay to make sure his points are valid. It gets endless.


Well either you look at record sales or the record sales of bands that have credited them as an influnce.

Record sales are correlated with influence, but not equated. Manilla Road and Angel Witch were extremely influential but were never big sellers. It's never that simple.

Critic V has stated that "Black Sabbath make any previous rock band look pearly white" while a servey publish by magazine U reported that 98% percent of respondants took the position that Black Sabbath was 10¹⁴ times darker than any previous rock band.

Find some critics who have made that statement or look for serveys of critics.

:rolleyes:


So you would add to the article that only one nu-metal band has ever appeared at Wacken (and if you know how many bands have appeared add whatever percentage this makes up).
Interesting. I'll consider it. However, I have a feeling it wouldn't stay there.


No logical. Would you want Geller to be able to do what you want to do?
Depends. If he wrote "Uri Geller bent spoons with the sheer power of his mind", yeah, I'd demand some proof. If he wanted to write "Uri Geller enjoys pop ska music and playing the didjeridoo. He is not overly fond of canned tomatoes.", then NO, I wouldn't demand a source from him. :rolleyes: What is the bloody difference if he wrote that himself in the article, or wrote it on a forum for someone else to link to?

Here's a chat log with a friend of mine from the other day:

[21:46] Morrigan: I brought up the EM case, and its absurdity. I mentioned how the accusations of extreme metal bias were empty, neither me nor my boyfriend are more partial to extreme metal than traditional metal. His response?
[21:46] Morrigan: "So state that next time someone interviews you or whatever."
[21:46] Morrigan: I have to source... myself. :O
[21:47] Vile Rancour: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[21:47] Vile Rancour: Yes, it's more wiki-worthy if it's an interview
[21:47] Morrigan: Me: "you must be joking. An interview? I have to source MYSELF? *dies of laughter*"
Him: "Certianly. Otherwise it is original research. (you wouldn't want cranks or politicians sourceing themselves now would you)."
[21:47] Morrigan: "Original research" .... *boggled*
[21:48] Vile Rancour: Hey, I'm interviewing you now. So, tell me, I was wondering, being the webmistress on one of the biggest metal websites around... which do you prefer? more traditional or more extreme metal?
[21:49] Morrigan: I have no preference for either, good sir. I like most forms of metal equally! But I do own more trad metal albums than otherwise.
[21:49] Vile Rancour: AHA! *sources this entire conversation [1] [2] [3]*
[21:49] Vile Rancour: There you go


:P

[geni]

Depends. If he wrote "Uri Geller bent spoons with the sheer power of his mind", yeah, I'd demand some proof. If he wanted to write "Uri Geller enjoys pop ska music and playing the didjeridoo. He is not overly fond of canned tomatoes.", then NO, I wouldn't demand a source from him. :rolleyes:
What is the bloody difference if he wrote that himself in the article, or wrote it on a forum for someone else to link to?

Wikipedia is not a primary source. Forums are not a reliable source. However if Geller was interviewed by gulible marks monthly then we could use the interview as a source for him liking "ska".



Here's a chat log with a friend of mine from the other day:

[21:46] Morrigan: I brought up the EM case, and its absurdity. I mentioned how the accusations of extreme metal bias were empty, neither me nor my boyfriend are more partial to extreme metal than traditional metal. His response?
[21:46] Morrigan: "So state that next time someone interviews you or whatever."
[21:46] Morrigan: I have to source... myself. :O
[21:47] Vile Rancour: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[21:47] Vile Rancour: Yes, it's more wiki-worthy if it's an interview
[21:47] Morrigan: Me: "you must be joking. An interview? I have to source MYSELF? *dies of laughter*"
Him: "Certianly. Otherwise it is original research. (you wouldn't want cranks or politicians sourceing themselves now would you)."
[21:47] Morrigan: "Original research" .... *boggled*
[21:48] Vile Rancour: Hey, I'm interviewing you now. So, tell me, I was wondering, being the webmistress on one of the biggest metal websites around... which do you prefer? more traditional or more extreme metal?
[21:49] Morrigan: I have no preference for either, good sir. I like most forms of metal equally! But I do own more trad metal albums than otherwise.
[21:49] Vile Rancour: AHA! *sources this entire conversation [1] [2] [3]*
[21:49] Vile Rancour: There you go


:P

IRC logs fail [[WP:RS]].

Yes I know this can seem odd (yes sir I know you can see the tanks shelling the parliment building but wikipedia needs to wait until it has been been reported by an RS feel free to submit to wikinews and please take pics) but encyclopedias are not primary sources.

[Morrigan]

Um, the source would be Uri, or myself, or whoever, not "Wikipedia". :boggled: Besides, Wikipedia is used as a source all the time on talk page. For example, in the debate on my page's entry, mister "Morrigan is an extreme metal kid" imbecile claimed various things about metal music, and used Wikipedia articles to back up his claims.

Again, seeing the tanks is not the same thing. This is empirical, verifiable information that does need to be corroborated. A person's own preferences is not the same thing at all. I know what I bloody listen to as music, and it's absurd to demand of ME a source backing up this claim - who else would anyone ask, including the required "interviewer"?. If Uri tells Wikipedia he doesn't like canned tomatoes, there is no logical reason to doubt this more than if he had told some interviewer. :boggled:

[geni]

Um, the source would be Uri, or myself, or whoever, not "Wikipedia". :boggled: Besides, Wikipedia is used as a source all the time on talk page. For example, in the debate on my page's entry, mister "Morrigan is an extreme metal kid" imbecile claimed various things about metal music, and used Wikipedia articles to back up his claims.

Not within policy he didn't.


Again, seeing the tanks is not the same thing. This is empirical, verifiable information that does need to be corroborated. A person's own preferences is not the same thing at all. I know what I bloody listen to as music, and it's absurd to demand of ME a source backing up this claim - who else would anyone ask, including the required "interviewer"?. If Uri tells Wikipedia he doesn't like canned tomatoes, there is no logical reason to doubt this more than if he had told some interviewer. :boggled:

Some interview is likely to be able to probe him if he has made past statements that he is the biggest fan of canned tomatoes ever and took a million of them with him to exeter football club.

Or in the fun case we had someone trying to claim that while their businnes letters claimed they were one thing they were not in fact that thing.

We try to avoid publishing original research.

[Morrigan]

I have no idea what you just said. What does "exeter" mean? Not only that but the whole thing is idiotic.

I guess there's no point arguing with a hardcore Wikipedia apologist...

[geni]

I have no idea what you just said. What does "exeter" mean? Not only that but the whole thing is idiotic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exeter_City_F.C.


I guess there's no point arguing with a hardcore Wikipedia apologist...

It is going to be difficult trying to argue from a cold start a subject I have been debateing for the better part of a year.

[darnold]

This was very interesting- thanks for this, OP.

[darnold]

Doh, sorry, double post.