Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Objections archive: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
add |
add |
||
Line 97:
:::I really don't think you can separate these issues the way you seem to want. Until you understand your purpose you can't set reasonable standards. Your standards will obviously be completely different depending on whether you want to develop an open source competitor to Britannica vs. producing a comprehensive historical atlas that lets people look up every important event that ever happened in a particular ___location (my idea above) vs. something else. This is a bit like someone saying "Right now I'm more interested in the route we're going to take rather than what destination we should pick". Cart is before horse!
==Spirit of wiki==
Stable articles? A paper encyclopaedia? Privileged editors? Is that what everyone did it for? [[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] 13:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: The only sense in which I want cerrtain editors to be "privileged" is either by a mutual consensus in which they reinforce each others decisions or by a consensus of the general Wikipedia population to privilege their edits. This all falls within the existing consensus model. As for stability: sure, in practice good articles already get pretty stable. Paper? Sure, and all sorts of other media as well.
: I edit a Seattle Crisis Resource Directory. We think of our online version as the master, but we still try to put out a paper edition every few years. Some people prefer that as a way of getting information. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 20:29, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Dr Zen is, like many people, treating the process as more important than the product. I agree that the open wiki method is an excellent process for generating large quantities of "raw material" for an encyclopaedia. It is less excellent at turning that raw material into articles of encyclopaedic standard - comprehensive, accurate, balanced, copyedited and ''stable''. Stability is an ''essential'' component of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia will not be trusted or worthy of being cited unless its articles say the same thing today as they said yesterday. The method of achieving that is what is being discussed here. It is ''not'' true that "in practice good articles already get pretty stable," at least not in the fields of politics and history. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 02:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Ah, but the process is all! I agree totally with Dr. Zen. The beauty of Wiki is its openness - Wiki is a dynamic process, not an archaic static ''encyclopedia''. It should not be reduced to just another encyclopedia - there are plenty of those. No paper - no CD version, that would spoil the beauty of it - and its value. ''Encyclopaedaic standards'' don't apply - this is a new universe. If ''stability'' requires ''articles say the same thing today as they said yesterday'' then the spirit of Wiki is dead. I don't think we want that. Forget the ''encyclopaedic standard'', that paradigm doesn't apply. -[[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 03:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::A print version doesn't have to be at the expense of an online version. The online version will always be (on the one hand) more current and (on the other) less reliable. They meet different needs. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 03:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
:: Nothing is lost by having a print version. All that says is "here are some good versions we like",and provide more coverage for the goal of spreading cheap/free knowledge to everyone we can. The online version does not need to change in response to this. [[User:Lyellin|Lyellin]] 04:43, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with [[user:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] and [[user:Vsmith|Vsmith]]. The apparent dichotomy between process and product is a false one, because it's the unique nature of the process that leads to the unique product, and it's the uniqueness of the product that makes the process exciting. Wikipedia is a living thing: like everything that's alive, it has infections, tumours, breakdowns, pretty bits and bits we feel ashamed of. But the essence of the project is that it lives, which means it's constantly changing. To produce a static version would be to lose its essence so that it becomes like any other encyclopaedia. Regarding the idea of printing it, who would pay for that? The aim of Wikipedia is to make knowledge free. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales, July 2004. It's a noble aim which shouldn't subverted or diverted. I disagree that a print version wouldn't affect the online version. It would affect it by tying up some good editors.
Wikipedia would benefit from an advisory group of academics who can make fast decisions about the quality of an article where there's a dispute involving academic vandals (I'm thinking here of the LaRouchies and the Stalinists) with the power to ban them instantly, rather than force editors through a time-consuming mediation process. I would see this advisory group as Wikipedia surgeons cutting out tumours before they spread too far. But I wouldn't want to see the open nature of the project changed, or a closed encyclopaedia spin-off with good editors giving up time to work on that instead. This is as revolutionary as [[Denis Diderot|Denis Diderot's]] [[Encyclopédie]] was in its time, except this is an infinitely greater watershed because the world is actually writing it, making it an unprecedented experiment in the democratization of knowledge. I hope the best editors will stick with it. [[User:SlimVirgin|Slim]] 05:24, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree completely with Slim's last comments, which is why I continue to devote time to Wikipedia despite frequent frustrations. It has the ''potential'' to the 21st century of Diderot's encyclopaedia - the sum total of human knowledge all in one place. That's why I am opposed to trying to produce a paper encyclopaedia. But to achieve that potential, there do have to be some changes, and achieving some degree of stability and quality control is the most important of those. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 09:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
#This specific project is not intended to spawn a privileged class of editors.
#I do agree that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process could stand to be improved.
#I see no way in which this specific project would detract from Wikipedia as it now exists. I don't see how it would tie up editors. We're essentially just editing and tracking the topics we deem most "encyclopedic."
#Regardless of the media, form and process, I think [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] and I, or maybe all of us, have at least some similar goals. I probably differ with Adam on the specifics of quality control.
[[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would like to further the support of Dr Zen. A small number of people choosing which articles are the 'best', however they define the criteria, is contrary to the whole objective of Wikipedia. The best possible way of choosing articles is the '''wiki''', ie one of peer review by thousands of individuals. The current existing method is '''the''' most democratic you can possibly create, with our current technology. If you see the desire to publish the encyclopedia in any way other than its current electronic format, go ahead, but do it wholesale. Publish the whole thing! The quality of the vast quantity of articles would FAR outweigh the occasional discovery by the casual user of a dodgy article, and would in fact encourage their participation in the development of the most up to date (online) version. The great beauty of wikipedia is that its errors and failings spur each and every one of us onto greater efforts to improve it. Don't destroy that simply to produce a copy of Encyclopedia Brittannica. [[User:Mark Lewis|Mark Lewis]] 18:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Do I understand this correctly as opposition to the "Version 1.0" idea, and a preference for making no formal distinction between poorly written, under-researched, and even sometimes wildly biased articles and those which meet criteria such as those under development on this project page? -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
::No, what I am saying is I would go so far as to prefer a minute number of poorly written, under-researched, and even sometimes wildly biased articles as opposed to stringent criteria open to systemic abuse by a select few. I think that the whole point is that Wikipedia will never be complete to a standard to which all members agree, and selecting a smaller number of 'agreeable' articles contradicts what so many people joined up for. Articles will never remain poorly written, under-researched and wildly biased if they are allowed to be freely edited in a widely-accessible format. I feel terrible for having given the impression that I would like to remove the whole idea as I appreciate the effort and dedication that has already been made, but I '''do''' have some basic principles which do not agree with a small number of non-specialists deciding which articles fill criteria upon which primarily they have decided. If the publication of 'acceptable' Wikipedia articles were to be made, a far wider process must be adopted. Also, on a practical note, internet access to what is almost completely up-to-date information is infinitely more valuable than a quickly dated article on a subject that, at the time of selection, may have passed the criteria with flying colours. Thanks, [[User:Mark Lewis|Mark Lewis]] 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::Mark, I think you misunderstand what we're doing. We have no intention of "stringent criteria open to systemic abuse by a select few" or not allowing articles to be "freely edited in a widely-accessible format". Concerning wider processes, we're as open and wide as Wikipedia is. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 06:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an analogy - the wikipedia is the code base for an open source project, and any trusted version would be a "distribution". That is, a selection of that code base that has been more rigorously tested. In information use, there are many users of information that are risk adverse - they would rather not know everything that is right, so long as they can be sure that what they have is right. This is equivalent to testing the drivers that come with a [[Gnu-Linux]] distribution before release. What we should be looking for then is a way to create "distributions" from the source code.
Looked at this way, one prong is to find ways of rating articles for their trustworthiness, and the other creating a system for rating editors for their trustworthiness. Editors rate particular articles, and the more trusted an editor is, the more weight their vote carries. This would provide a way for emergent standard of wikicredibility to emerge, and give others a way of creating their own editing or checkings strategies. Yes there would have to be a class of editors who work on making sure that wiki is "distributable". Yes it is more cumbersome conceptually than appointing people.
Articles can be rated for content, level of technical expertise and controversy - as already are being so ranked informally by the various means - and this could form the basis for an activity which would make "articles" into "distributable" articles. Essentially a clean up stage, and the cleaned up article goes into the distribution area. As is the case in most of wiki - the policy should be to widely extend the privilege, and then revoke it for those that abuse it. My suggestion is to set some lower bound on number/bandwidth of edits - because such editors have established some degree of credibility.
Make it a tab on the page tool bar, and have a list of steps that are required to reach distribution status, and then, when these are done, have a way of voting, just as we do for featured article status.
This will mean that the distribution process will be piggy backed on the current editing process, and, over time, people will make edits with the view towards making the article distributable more easily.
[[User:Stirling Newberry|Stirling Newberry]] 01:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Stirling, that has potential. You might be interested in [[Wikipedia:Approval mechanism]]. Several methods have been suggested and it appears none have gained much steam. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 06:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. As far as I can see, what we need is a second-order approval system, as we already have the first - the editability of wikipedia. The vital thing is, I feel, that it should be just as democratic. Because of that, I support Stirling's suggestion. Perhaps another tab on the top of every article allows an individual to rate the article on certain aspects, for example neutrality, completeness, accuracy, quality of writing, necessity of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Those with ranking above a certain cut-off point (eg 9/10?) are automatically noted as included articles.
:There are several problems that I see. This does raise the question of broken links (CD-ROM version), and controversial subjects which may be arguably essential for a complete encyclopaedia being absent. Also, I do not necessarily agree with the 'vote-weighting' as everybody should have an equal right to vote.
: NB - I would dearly love to see a time when the entire wikipedia could be published as CD-ROM or other form, but readers could note the quality of any article they have selected as voted by Wikipedia editors/users. This avoids the need of a cut-off point or any final selection procedure, as readers can select it themselves, whilst being well aware of the risks. Thanks, [[User:Mark Lewis|Mark Lewis]] 23:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Blanket response to disagreement with essence of project==
The goal of this specific project is to collaborate essentially to find, screen, develop or maintain (or all of those) articles appropriate for a paper or "release" version of Wikipedia.
So far, our plan is to:
#Start at articles corresponding to top-level categories.
#Work through them alphabetically.
#Branch out from there.
#List the articles we work on here, with their status.
For the people who are against a paper or "release" version: It's not even a given that such a thing will happen. But my intention is to work toward having a subset of articles that is worthy of such a thing. I cannot fathom how that can in any way be a bad thing to do.
For anyone with disagreement about the essence of this specific project: Wikipedians all work on Wikipedia in their own way. The people who choose this way don't need justification. The people who choose another way don't need justification. I cannot understand any conflict between the two. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 11:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
| |||