4 ms·

The author of the editorial comments, "Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in the scienc

The author of the editorial comments, "Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in the sciences, and you're likely to run into entries that are excessively technical and provide almost no context, making them effectively incomprehensible." I am a Wikipedian. I have been editing various articles since 2010. I have won the Million Award[1] twice for major improvements to high-traffic articles. In the sciences I follow most closely in my own research, the Wikipedia articles are even worse than "excessively technical and provide almost no context," and are often simply wrong. The worst part is that many Wikipedia articles about science are wrong more because of omission of things that every working scientist in each field knows than because of miscopying of correct statements about science. Most Wikipedia articles are still very thinly sourced, and most are based only on sources that appear online, and many of those sources are not from professionally edited publications. I think it would be a good idea for a rich philanthropist to fund a Free Online Encyclopedia X Prize to see what combination of organizational, technological, and other factors could build a team of encyclopedia-compilers that could put together a better free, online encyclopedia than Wikipedia. Right now, Wikipedia gets a lot of external funding, but it has a surprisingly tiny number of active editors,[2] and the Wikimedia Foundation strategic plan still calls for more improvement of content.[3] I think Wikipedia has exceeded everyone's expectations, and I see people who have access to better scholarly resources use it almost every time I'm with other scholars, but I also think Wikipedia today is like Excite or Lycos in 1998: the best available service in its category, but rather easily displaced by something as good as, say, AltaVista. There is still a lot of space to make a much better free, online encyclopedia, and some friendly competition might make Wikipedia a whole lot better too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Million_Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Million_Award [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Number_of_editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Number_o... [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Stra...

jessriedel 11y ago
> could build a team of encyclopedia-compilers OK, but if we want better science articles, we need to find a way to get practicing scientists to contribute. You can't improve the article on quantum memory without them. > ...that could put together a better free, online encyclopedia than Wikipedia What's the advantage of making it separate from Wikipedia? The only one I can think of is that you can put domain experts in charge who are allowed to appeal to their expertise rather than verifiability. But in this case, you want domain-specific encyclopedias rather than general purpose ones, like the celebrated Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Arguably, you want better science writers to contribute who may or may not be practicing scientists. After all, the goal probably shouldn't be to replicate physics journal depth in Wikipedia but, rather, to provide a mainstream source of information for those who may have some background but are not specialists on a given topic.
  - jessriedel 11y ago
    > ...you want better science writers to contribute who may or may not be practicing scientists. The practicing scientists don't necessarily need to be controlling the whole process, but if they aren't playing an integral roll then the encyclopedia will be bad. Even in the mainstream news, reporters know that they can't just read a few journal articles and then start writing up a popular piece. They have to interview scientists. In practice, I think the only way to do this for a reasonable price is to use non-monetary incentives (e.g., fame) to get the scientists to do at least some of the writing themselves. But maybe someone can figure out how to start a foundation that hires professional writers to interview scientists. (As an aside, this does make me wonder why, when there is a collaboration between skilled writers and skilled scientists, the writers are always in charge and use the scientists as a resource. You'd think there'd be room for a model where the scientist outlines all the bullet points and uses the writer as a resource.) > ...the goal probably shouldn't be to replicate physics journal depth in Wikipedia... The question of whether to purge all physics topics from Wikipedia that have no hope of being useful to laymen (of which there are many thousands) is more-or-less the inclusionist/deletionist debate. Personally, I don't see why you'd want to get rid of them.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      >As an aside, this does make me wonder why, when there is a collaboration between skilled writers and skilled scientists, the writers are always in charge and use the scientists as a resource. Probably because it's the writer who is publishing the book whereas most scientists are far more focused on journal articles. That said, I'm sure that many of the well-known working scientists who also publish books had plenty of editorial help--as, indeed, do most published writers. >is more-or-less the inclusionist/deletionist debate I'm actually mostly in the inclusionist camp myself. I think notability is pretty hard to define because it's so dependent on context. Pretty much everything/everyone is notable if you get local enough.
TrevorJ 11y ago
Let's think a bit broader: if you did truly solve that problem it's quite likely that the solution would have broad applications across a wide range of domains. Unrelated, but I am curious on your opinion on something: do you perceive the current shortcomings as something that stems from the tool (the wiki platform itself), the organizational structure (the people), or a combination of both?
- ghaff 11y ago
  It's a combination of the people and the realities of a crowdsourced platform. The problems in technical topics (beyond the, often, lack of coherent editing that can be a problem in general) include: - Editors who think they know a lot more about a topic than they do - Editors who are genuinely expert but aren't skilled at explaining the topic to someone who wasn't, say, a math major. (Or, indeed, it doesn't even occur to them that they should do so.)
- tokenadult 11y ago
  I am curious on your opinion on something: do you perceive the current shortcomings as something that stems from the tool (the wiki platform itself), the organizational structure (the people), or a combination of both? Thanks for your question. To keep down the total number of replies in this thread, I'll also refer to other questions posted in replies to my comment. I think that Wikipedia currently has a hostile editing culture that especially discourages participation in editing by subject-matter experts, who cannot count working on Wikipedia as "publishing" in the usual way that publishing is rewarded for academics, and who will find the willful ignorance of many Wikipedians more than a little tedious. I don't have any problems with the Wikipedia software. A wiki (a broadly editable collaboratively edited document) does seem to be the way to go to build a good, free, online encyclopedia--Wikipedia is proof of concept for that. I think Wikipedia's human culture around editing started out pathological and stayed pathological because there was too much domination of the culture by amateurs (in editing) at the beginning of the project. I think a philanthropist would do well to fund a Free Online Encyclopedia X Prize because there are many forms of editorial culture in online wikis that have not yet been tried, and it may be that Wikipedia itself will reform its culture if it is exposed to more competition. (The very small number of people who so far participate actively in editing Wikipedia are easily replaceable if a new project comes along with a culture more welcoming of subject matter experts and of editors with professional editorial experience.) I care not at all which organization wins if there is an X Prize competition, but I would like to see the experiment tried, because plainly people all over the world will continue to use online encyclopedias, and there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick for improving the existing online encyclopedias. I agree with the comment (a subcomment of another reply to my earlier comment) that says that what Wikipedia (or some other project) needs more of is more professional writers who are used to explaining technical concepts to the general public. Yes, Wikipedia needs much more of that, and more sound editorial judgment in general. Let's think a bit broader: if you did truly solve that problem it's quite likely that the solution would have broad applications across a wide range of domains. That's an important point. There are many projects besides building a free, online encyclopedia that would need to bring about very similar forms of collaboration, and you are correct that working on the online encyclopedia improvement project will probably turn up knowledge that will be applicable to other projects. AFTER EDIT: Some other comments mention Simple English Wikipedia. But Simple English is a controlled vocabulary, and it's not even clear as a matter of linguistics that Simple English is more understandable to second-language learners for general purposes than everyday English carefully written by a sensitive editor. I happened to look at some of the Simple English articles on the topics I research in the last year, after extensive editorial work on the main Wikipedia articles on the English language, and the whole Simple English Wikipedia has an even bigger problem than most versions of Wikipedia with thinly sourced, incomplete articles.
tacos 11y ago
Another option would be to get more scientific knowledge online. When I log into my local library with my library card and do a JSTOR search, the difference between those results and what Google hands back are night and day. "The Internet" returns the cheap, fast and crappy version of so, so many things. And people seem oblivious to it.
m0nty 11y ago
> surprisingly tiny number of active editors Nothing surprising about it, given the arcane rules and the likelihood of being told to "f--- off" if you try to edit an article someone has camped out on. Gave up trying to contribute years ago.
- developer2 11y ago
  I don't think Wikimedia understands just how many editors they have lost due to this problem. It is simply too late to fix. Wikipedia is dead to far too many people with knowledge that could have been shared.
golergka 11y ago
Lately I've been thinking about what it would take to implement fork/merge functionality on top of Wikipedia database, to allow people host their own versions of pages with specific changes, still updated with most of other edits from the original. Do you think that this would be a good idea to start several forks of Wikipedia with different rules of conduct and approaches to community to see how they compare?
- karmakaze 11y ago
  This is what I expected the article to be about: allowing the information to be distributed and democratized rather than belong to one organization's policies for all topics. As for the depth of scientific entries, I rather enjoy being out-of-my-depth and after numerous encounters with related topics am able to appreciate more and more of it.

jessriedel 11y ago

> could build a team of encyclopedia-compilers OK, but if we want better science articles, we need to find a way to get practicing scientists to contribute. You can't improve the article on quantum memory without them. > ...that could put together a better free, online encyclopedia than Wikipedia What's the advantage of making it separate from Wikipedia? The only one I can think of is that you can put domain experts in charge who are allowed to appeal to their expertise rather than verifiability. But in this case, you want domain-specific encyclopedias rather than general purpose ones, like the celebrated Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

ghaff 11y ago
Arguably, you want better science writers to contribute who may or may not be practicing scientists. After all, the goal probably shouldn't be to replicate physics journal depth in Wikipedia but, rather, to provide a mainstream source of information for those who may have some background but are not specialists on a given topic.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  > ...you want better science writers to contribute who may or may not be practicing scientists. The practicing scientists don't necessarily need to be controlling the whole process, but if they aren't playing an integral roll then the encyclopedia will be bad. Even in the mainstream news, reporters know that they can't just read a few journal articles and then start writing up a popular piece. They have to interview scientists. In practice, I think the only way to do this for a reasonable price is to use non-monetary incentives (e.g., fame) to get the scientists to do at least some of the writing themselves. But maybe someone can figure out how to start a foundation that hires professional writers to interview scientists. (As an aside, this does make me wonder why, when there is a collaboration between skilled writers and skilled scientists, the writers are always in charge and use the scientists as a resource. You'd think there'd be room for a model where the scientist outlines all the bullet points and uses the writer as a resource.) > ...the goal probably shouldn't be to replicate physics journal depth in Wikipedia... The question of whether to purge all physics topics from Wikipedia that have no hope of being useful to laymen (of which there are many thousands) is more-or-less the inclusionist/deletionist debate. Personally, I don't see why you'd want to get rid of them.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    >As an aside, this does make me wonder why, when there is a collaboration between skilled writers and skilled scientists, the writers are always in charge and use the scientists as a resource. Probably because it's the writer who is publishing the book whereas most scientists are far more focused on journal articles. That said, I'm sure that many of the well-known working scientists who also publish books had plenty of editorial help--as, indeed, do most published writers. >is more-or-less the inclusionist/deletionist debate I'm actually mostly in the inclusionist camp myself. I think notability is pretty hard to define because it's so dependent on context. Pretty much everything/everyone is notable if you get local enough.

TrevorJ 11y ago

Let's think a bit broader: if you did truly solve that problem it's quite likely that the solution would have broad applications across a wide range of domains. Unrelated, but I am curious on your opinion on something: do you perceive the current shortcomings as something that stems from the tool (the wiki platform itself), the organizational structure (the people), or a combination of both?

ghaff 11y ago
It's a combination of the people and the realities of a crowdsourced platform. The problems in technical topics (beyond the, often, lack of coherent editing that can be a problem in general) include: - Editors who think they know a lot more about a topic than they do - Editors who are genuinely expert but aren't skilled at explaining the topic to someone who wasn't, say, a math major. (Or, indeed, it doesn't even occur to them that they should do so.)
tokenadult 11y ago
I am curious on your opinion on something: do you perceive the current shortcomings as something that stems from the tool (the wiki platform itself), the organizational structure (the people), or a combination of both? Thanks for your question. To keep down the total number of replies in this thread, I'll also refer to other questions posted in replies to my comment. I think that Wikipedia currently has a hostile editing culture that especially discourages participation in editing by subject-matter experts, who cannot count working on Wikipedia as "publishing" in the usual way that publishing is rewarded for academics, and who will find the willful ignorance of many Wikipedians more than a little tedious. I don't have any problems with the Wikipedia software. A wiki (a broadly editable collaboratively edited document) does seem to be the way to go to build a good, free, online encyclopedia--Wikipedia is proof of concept for that. I think Wikipedia's human culture around editing started out pathological and stayed pathological because there was too much domination of the culture by amateurs (in editing) at the beginning of the project. I think a philanthropist would do well to fund a Free Online Encyclopedia X Prize because there are many forms of editorial culture in online wikis that have not yet been tried, and it may be that Wikipedia itself will reform its culture if it is exposed to more competition. (The very small number of people who so far participate actively in editing Wikipedia are easily replaceable if a new project comes along with a culture more welcoming of subject matter experts and of editors with professional editorial experience.) I care not at all which organization wins if there is an X Prize competition, but I would like to see the experiment tried, because plainly people all over the world will continue to use online encyclopedias, and there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick for improving the existing online encyclopedias. I agree with the comment (a subcomment of another reply to my earlier comment) that says that what Wikipedia (or some other project) needs more of is more professional writers who are used to explaining technical concepts to the general public. Yes, Wikipedia needs much more of that, and more sound editorial judgment in general. Let's think a bit broader: if you did truly solve that problem it's quite likely that the solution would have broad applications across a wide range of domains. That's an important point. There are many projects besides building a free, online encyclopedia that would need to bring about very similar forms of collaboration, and you are correct that working on the online encyclopedia improvement project will probably turn up knowledge that will be applicable to other projects. AFTER EDIT: Some other comments mention Simple English Wikipedia. But Simple English is a controlled vocabulary, and it's not even clear as a matter of linguistics that Simple English is more understandable to second-language learners for general purposes than everyday English carefully written by a sensitive editor. I happened to look at some of the Simple English articles on the topics I research in the last year, after extensive editorial work on the main Wikipedia articles on the English language, and the whole Simple English Wikipedia has an even bigger problem than most versions of Wikipedia with thinly sourced, incomplete articles.

tacos 11y ago

Another option would be to get more scientific knowledge online. When I log into my local library with my library card and do a JSTOR search, the difference between those results and what Google hands back are night and day. "The Internet" returns the cheap, fast and crappy version of so, so many things. And people seem oblivious to it.

m0nty 11y ago

> surprisingly tiny number of active editors Nothing surprising about it, given the arcane rules and the likelihood of being told to "f--- off" if you try to edit an article someone has camped out on. Gave up trying to contribute years ago.

developer2 11y ago
I don't think Wikimedia understands just how many editors they have lost due to this problem. It is simply too late to fix. Wikipedia is dead to far too many people with knowledge that could have been shared.

golergka 11y ago

Lately I've been thinking about what it would take to implement fork/merge functionality on top of Wikipedia database, to allow people host their own versions of pages with specific changes, still updated with most of other edits from the original. Do you think that this would be a good idea to start several forks of Wikipedia with different rules of conduct and approaches to community to see how they compare?

karmakaze 11y ago
This is what I expected the article to be about: allowing the information to be distributed and democratized rather than belong to one organization's policies for all topics. As for the depth of scientific entries, I rather enjoy being out-of-my-depth and after numerous encounters with related topics am able to appreciate more and more of it.