Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Objections archive

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Goal and process

It's probably more useful to start by defining what we want 1.0 to be, and then discuss what means might be adopted for getting there. My definition of 1.0 is an online (not paper) encyclopaedia which consists of a body of articles which are (a) comprehensive (b) reliably accurate (c) properly edited and proofread and (d) stable (ie, don't change all the time). One way to achieve this is to have a class of articles which are declared to be finished and then protected from general editing. There may be other ways to achieve this objective. Perhaps other users can suggest some. Adam 06:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is precisely the "open cabal" I was joking about: a group of editors, operating openly, watchlisting "1.0" articles, and who will generally defend "1.0" articles against detrimental edits. I think it's a strength of Wikipedia that nothing is ever really finished -- even on an obscure historical subject there can always be new evidence -- but there are (even now) plenty of articles where most edits are detrimental.

This does not mean that every change to a "1.0" article should be reverted, but it certainly means that a "1.0" version can be identified and it presumably means that new material should be held to the same high standard already applied to the old. This last is the hardest. It probably means that new material should be clearly identified as such; if it is inserted without references, such references should be sought; if it it inserted with references, those references should be checked (although there may be such a thing as editors sufficiently trusted that there is no need to check their references: I think most of us recognize some this way on an ad hoc basis). I do a good bit of this already, watchlisting a lot of articles, sometimes actually going out and finding references for other people's additions, other times just flagging in the talk page (for example) that a particular statement was inserted anonymously without references and I consider it suspect, other times reverting. I try not to do too much of the last, at least not without discussion, because it really pisses people off.

If we can be confident that a given article has been thoroughly fact-checked, then it's a lot easier to know that from then on when an anonymous person comes along and (for example) changes a date without making a comment, this is vandalism, not a legitimate correction.

Over on the "forum" it could be really valuable to build up more of an identified pool of mutually respectful editors who trust each other's intellectual honesty and expertise in certain areas. Probably each of us who has done a lot of editing on Wikipedia has come to have our trusted people we turn to when we need expertise on a given subject-matter area where our own knowledge is substantial but not expert. It would be great if we can build up more of a "web of trust" in this respect. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:34, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel.

I have some agreement with Adam. For example: I believe that defining a goal is useful. I value accuracy and editing. As a practical matter, articles would protected when, for example, any product is at a printer. But overall, I disagree with protecting articles from general editing. Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Language style, etc.

Jguk's questions copied from the project page.

Am I right in saying that Version 1.0 is a hard copy (ie book) of Wikipedia articles? If so, would the book not need to use consistent formatting, words, style, etc. etc.? Does this mean some form of International English is to be imposed on certain articles, or am I mistaken? jguk 22:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Version 1.0 might be a paper book. It might be a disk. The final media is not important to me right now.
Are you really asking about British or Commonwealth English? I think varieties of English in Wikipedia needs its own discussion page somewhere, but not here.
I don't see any reason why we wouldn't follow the current Wikipedia style guide. Maurreen 01:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also don't see any relation between the media used and style for the language. Maurreen 02:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Only that a CD, or a book even more, would probably want a consistent style throughout on matters where the web site is laissez faire. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:36, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  - Hmm...I agree with Maurreen here; I don't really see that we need to make a print/CD edition any more consistent in style than the edition on the Web. — Matt 09:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - I think you're wrong. I think in a static medium it's rather annoying to the consumer to have a lack of consistency. You're not after all going to be presenting it as an ever evolving project that the consumer themselves can be part of. I feel that a consumer who can be a participant might feel "Well, I can live with inconsistencies because I can lay a brick or two myself" but a consumer who is just a consumer is liable to think "That house has not been built with any regard to standards".Dr Zen 13:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      - I don't think style inconsistencies are that big a deal. (We do, of course, have a basic style guide which can be adhered to). When researching, we switch between dozens of sources at a time, all of which use totally different styles — it's not something that really bothers us, right? I think consistency of style is an aesthetic property that is secondary to other features such as completeness, accuracy and neutrality. I agree that it's desireable; what I doubt is whether it would be worth the massive effort. — Matt 13:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with Matt. Who wants a hard copy encyclopaedia that has its articles in a variety of styles of written English. One article in US English, the next in UK, then the next adopting another style, etc? It would look like a confusing mish-mash - which is exactly why publishers have prescriptive style guides that require one acceptable style over another. If Version 1.0 does not ensure consistency of style, it will be a very poor read - I can imagine the reviewers' critiques already! I'm surprised by Maurreen, does she think all her work on the Raleigh News and Observer is unnecessary as any old written style should really suffice? :) jguk 19:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Dr Zen and jguk: Do you have any practical suggestions on how to accomplish what you want? Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- I respond to this, by asking what I see to be a very pertinent question, below. jguk 10:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- Sorry for the late answer. Yes, I do. Don't make a paper or CD version. Dr Zen 00:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - This seems just silly. That fact that you don't have any interest in a project is not a reason for others not to do it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Who would want to buy our beautiful roses?

Let me ask a fundamental question. Is a paper or CD-ROM version of Wikipedia anything anyone will actually want to buy/use? There are many good detailed encyclopaedias out there. Why would I want Wikipedia1.0 written in a mish-mash of eclectic styles instead of one of the already established fully researched and generally consistent tomes? For me, the answer would be no.

Wikipedia's advantage is in its breadth and instant adaptability. It is not known for its good writing and consistency of style. This is not a problem for a website: I look at the good bits and I try to improve the bad bits. I do not see how it would be possible to transfer the best bits from Wikipedia to hard copy form whilst not merely exaggerating the worst bits. (By the way, I don't want to be a party pooper, but I do wish to question, before you get carried away, as to whether this project is actually worthwhile.)

At the moment, we only have about 450 articles worthy of "featured" status, and about a dozen or so of those are "featured article removal candidates". It would be better if we worked up more. On one point I do agree, it would be good if the main category headings such as "Culture" were properly worked up to featured status. May I suggest the project looks more towards making "featured articles" of these first? jguk 10:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Featured articles

So what's the difference between marking up as suitable for release and marking up as a featured article? jguk 20:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right now, we don't mark a particular version as featured.
I think we are leaning toward a higher standard of citation of sources, but with less concern for things like every article having a picture.
The FAC process as it stands right now requires something close to unanimity across anyone who wants to get involved; we might have a smaller consensus group.
Some articles might be rock solid but without potential for a long article. There is generally a presumption against featuring a very short article. See, for example, Apopudobalia.

There's probably more, that's off the top of my head. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:51, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism is necessary for improvement - Don't get trapped in groupthink!

Hey, I think it's OK for people to critique the concept - responding to objections helps refine the concept and improve it. In that spirit, let me raise some thoughts:
- Wikipedia's strengths are breadth and cross-linking. Take advantage of that. For example, robots have added almost every ___location in the United States to Wikipedia. Most articles link to every ___location of interest in them. Consider this option:
  1. Add functionality to links so they can be annotated
  2. Request that all locations be linked and where possible annotated with a date
  3. Add functionality to the edit pages to ask people to annotate ___location links with dates when they save an article without date annotation
  4. Go back and fix all the old articles that have unannotated ___location links
  5. Use the back link functionality to publish an atlas of all locations in the United States, no matter how small, complete with a history of every event of note that ever occurred in them based on back links
- Wikipedia is unlikely to ever be able to compete with publications like Encyclopaedia Brittanica on depth or quality of individual articles... so why try?
- Physical media - including DVDs - is really obsolete. Instead of going for physical media why not think about ways to have a different view of the online Wiki with just your selected content and organized in the way you think best?
Mike Friedman 03:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right now, I am more interested in the quality of the articles (such as the accuracy, comprehensivenss, references, and writing). Maurreen 07:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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!