2 ms·

> Well written articles that contain no speculation shouldn't rot. And who is going to ensure that they are well-written and contain no speculation? > Vandali

> Well written articles that contain no speculation shouldn't rot. And who is going to ensure that they are well-written and contain no speculation? > Vandalism issues are a problem with the wikipedia software, not a problem with the concept of having lesser-trafficked pages. If you mean to say that any software explicitly written for the purpose of letting random people publish content instantaneously with no supervision is bad software, I might agree. Otherwise, no. Vandalism is a social problem resulting from lack of article oversight. And I'm not just talking about inserting 'PENIS' into pages, because that is basically solved already with edit filters. I am talking about hoaxes, I am talking about presenting speculation as fact, I am talking about fabricated citations, I am also talking about well-meaning people who inadvertently turn carefully written technical articles into Potato Jesus. A while ago, I've looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Screen_of_Death&oldid=754328375 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Screen_of_De... which contains this lovely sentence: > Windows 98 and early builds of Windows Vista displayed the red screen from a boot loader error raised by ACPI.[19][20][21] Cited to three sources. Looks great, doesn't it? But if you know anything about boot loaders, about ACPI or just about Windows, you understand this sentence is complete nonsense. You don't even need to look at the citations which obviously don't say any such thing. This is no doubt a result of shoddy copyediting by someone who didn't understand the subject. What is your answer to that?

Sir_Substance 10y ago
>What is your answer to that? That you should follow the links and see if the citation matches as part of routine anti-vandalism checks. >Cited to three sources. Looks great, doesn't it? But if you know anything about boot loaders, about ACPI or just about Windows, you understand this sentence is complete nonsense. All that says to me is that articles about computers should be reviewed by people who know about computers, which makes total common sense. An encyclopedia is defined as much by it's breadth as by it's depth. Cutting notable but lesser-trafficked chunks out of it to save on effort is a lazy-arse solution that lowers the usefulness of the wiki. I'm sure you could come up with a thousand reasons why it's too hard, but that's not how you make a good wiki. Hell, it's not how you make anything good. Ultimately, as the consumer of your product, I don't care about your troubles. Sympathetic customer fallacy applies. If wikipedia doesn't have the information I'm looking for, I won't use it. It really doesn't matter how lovely and maintainable the articles I'm not looking for are. If you wanna be proud of the work you do, you're gonna have to dig deep, maybe make some compromises, and figure it out.

Sir_Substance 10y ago

>What is your answer to that? That you should follow the links and see if the citation matches as part of routine anti-vandalism checks. >Cited to three sources. Looks great, doesn't it? But if you know anything about boot loaders, about ACPI or just about Windows, you understand this sentence is complete nonsense. All that says to me is that articles about computers should be reviewed by people who know about computers, which makes total common sense. An encyclopedia is defined as much by it's breadth as by it's depth. Cutting notable but lesser-trafficked chunks out of it to save on effort is a lazy-arse solution that lowers the usefulness of the wiki. I'm sure you could come up with a thousand reasons why it's too hard, but that's not how you make a good wiki. Hell, it's not how you make anything good. Ultimately, as the consumer of your product, I don't care about your troubles. Sympathetic customer fallacy applies. If wikipedia doesn't have the information I'm looking for, I won't use it. It really doesn't matter how lovely and maintainable the articles I'm not looking for are. If you wanna be proud of the work you do, you're gonna have to dig deep, maybe make some compromises, and figure it out.