4 ms·

> if the pages are up to the standard there is no reason for not being included. Pages are not free, they come with a maintenance cost. If everything (or even

> if the pages are up to the standard there is no reason for not being included. Pages are not free, they come with a maintenance cost. If everything (or even a significant percentage of everything) was allowed most of it would grow to be low quality. Which would make it less useful, which would make less people use/improve it, which leads to death spiral. We already have a something with "everything" it's called the Internet. Wikipedia is (and should be) a limited subset of that. I do think their notability requirements are maybe too high and vague. But, I don't have a better alternative.

Panoramix 11y ago
It is user generated content, so I don't see a clear relation between the number of articles and "low quality". Furthermore, as I understand it what you write goes against the Wikimedia vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Also, you don't "browse" wikipedia, you go there seeking specific knowledge. If that knowledge is not there, you move on.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Wikipedia GA, A, and FA articles aren't typically just contributed by a single user. They're a team effort, built up by barely-coordinated teams of strangers. The point of the project is to build a system that generates "A" articles based solely on volunteer effort.
- vacri 11y ago
  > Also, you don't "browse" wikipedia The Wikipedia homepage, the 'random article' link on the sidebar, and the XKCD strip (https://xkcd.com/214/ https://xkcd.com/214/) all directly oppose this notion.
- njharman 11y ago
  I create an article on "bob", my pet cat. It says "bob" is a domesticated feline owned by Norman. Because I'm lazy I never update it when "bob" gets run over. Because it is such obscure topic, no one else updates it either. No one thinks to link it to accident report (one that killed poor bob). Non one ever expands on the life of "bob". No one updates it with link to cat species page, or the Norman page, or pets page. That is very, very "low quality". It becomes wrong over time and never had much info to begin with. That is obviously extreme end of spectrum. But the same issues occur for many, many topics for long ways along spectrum away from obscurity. Wikipedia works causer there is a critical mass of people willing to create, expand, keep up to date any given topic. Topics need to be "notable" enough to reach that critical mass or else they rot. And rot reduces the value of entire thing. I "browse" wikipedia, both the random link some else mentioned and by following links. Some, when they find knowledge is not there, try to add it.
j-pb 11y ago
The regular internet doesn't have the ease of entry and uniform data structure. Hosting articles costs nothing from a technical standpoint. It also costs nothing if if they are irrelevant, because nobody will care to work on them. The only possible downside could be readers that are unaware of the bad quality of some articles, but this could easily be solved by introducing a quality metric for articles.

Panoramix 11y ago

It is user generated content, so I don't see a clear relation between the number of articles and "low quality". Furthermore, as I understand it what you write goes against the Wikimedia vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Also, you don't "browse" wikipedia, you go there seeking specific knowledge. If that knowledge is not there, you move on.

tptacek 11y ago
Wikipedia GA, A, and FA articles aren't typically just contributed by a single user. They're a team effort, built up by barely-coordinated teams of strangers. The point of the project is to build a system that generates "A" articles based solely on volunteer effort.
vacri 11y ago
> Also, you don't "browse" wikipedia The Wikipedia homepage, the 'random article' link on the sidebar, and the XKCD strip (https://xkcd.com/214/ https://xkcd.com/214/) all directly oppose this notion.
njharman 11y ago
I create an article on "bob", my pet cat. It says "bob" is a domesticated feline owned by Norman. Because I'm lazy I never update it when "bob" gets run over. Because it is such obscure topic, no one else updates it either. No one thinks to link it to accident report (one that killed poor bob). Non one ever expands on the life of "bob". No one updates it with link to cat species page, or the Norman page, or pets page. That is very, very "low quality". It becomes wrong over time and never had much info to begin with. That is obviously extreme end of spectrum. But the same issues occur for many, many topics for long ways along spectrum away from obscurity. Wikipedia works causer there is a critical mass of people willing to create, expand, keep up to date any given topic. Topics need to be "notable" enough to reach that critical mass or else they rot. And rot reduces the value of entire thing. I "browse" wikipedia, both the random link some else mentioned and by following links. Some, when they find knowledge is not there, try to add it.

j-pb 11y ago

The regular internet doesn't have the ease of entry and uniform data structure. Hosting articles costs nothing from a technical standpoint. It also costs nothing if if they are irrelevant, because nobody will care to work on them. The only possible downside could be readers that are unaware of the bad quality of some articles, but this could easily be solved by introducing a quality metric for articles.