5 ms·

Wikipedia does not even aim to be the best encyclopedia, just an encyclopedia. I've not read the actual article, as it seems that the host can't cope with the

Wikipedia does not even aim to be the best encyclopedia, just an encyclopedia. I've not read the actual article, as it seems that the host can't cope with the traffic, but if it was speedily deleted, it probably deserved it - most speedy deletions are genuine and helpful. However, as an experienced wikipedia editor, I have to say that you are wrong. A few years ago, I built up over 500 mainspace edits and received numerous barnstars. I worked to correct minor errors, source references for articles, rewrite articles to flow better, and even to reduce tensions amongst editors and promote the editing of wikipedia by experts. But in the end, the corrosive and bitter nature of the community drove me away, much as it drives away a lot of people who are both knowledgable in their field and able to write about it. "People seem to have a really hard time with the idea that Wikipedia imposes restrictions in order to make the lives of editors and maintainers easier." This idea is trivial to disprove. Firstly, the majority of articles do not need constant attention, and the number of articles is not directly proportional to the level of vandalism. The majority of editors focus on a few articles, and certain high-interest topics get the most attention. Very few editors actually go and work on random articles, so stating that there is any sort of diversion of energy by the presense of minority interest articles is false. If anything, removing minority interest kicks away the editors that supported those articles, editors who might otherwise have contributed to vandalism patrolling and other more widely helpful activities. Article-creep is an entirely imagined threat that simply does not exist. In fact, a lot of articles nominated for deletion for not being notable have been fairly stable, unvandalised, verifiable, and even maintaned by their creators and related community. No one had an issue with the presense of these articles beyond not being notable enough - as if a purely electronic encyclopedia had some pressing page limit about to be reached. You mention secondary sources, yet wikipedia editors as a whole can't understand how to use primary, secondary and tirtary sources correctly. It is a widely held (and enforced) belief that, when wanting to state that something was said in a book, only a secondary source can be cited. So they would prefer a newspaper's review to the actual book itself, for example. This is, for most cases, simply absurd. Let's consider the deletion process. Officially, Articles For Deletion is about concensus. In practice, it's typically just a vote by the in-croud, most of which never explain their opinion beyond a brief comment. It doesn't matter how much you source an article during this process - it will normally get culled anyhow if they have taken a dislike. Indeed, there is a distinct dislike of trying to improve articles - instead you should just nominate them for deletion (never mind the fact that a quick google search can often give useful references to shore up an article)! I could go on, but I'd be here all night.

tptacek 16y ago
I don't think you and I have that much to argue about. I found the community corrosive, competitive, political, hidebound, and litigious as well. I know it sounds like I'm sticking up for WP. I'm just addressing a misperception people clearly have about it. That said, I disagree with your view of the how the encyclopedia works. I, too, spent time a couple years ago accumulating mainspace edits, rewriting articles, and spending time on mop-and-broom tasks. Here's a link: http://j.mp/d0Ozh9 http://j.mp/d0Ozh9. I left for similar reasons as you (my experiment with WP ended and I decided it was a failure for me.) Article-creep is not an entirely imagined threat, as anyone who spends any time in AfD (where articles are nominated for "non"-speedy deletion) will attest. Articles are created for no-name bands with specious claims about regional influence. Articles are created for books that have not been written. Articles are created in constellations to document people's private role playing games. Articles are created to defame other people. Articles are created to copy company press releases onto Wikipedia. All these things happen every day, with tens of articles going through through the slow-path of AfD daily, each of which has to be scrutinized by 3-10 editors and adjudicated by an admin before it can be scrubbed off the site. Indeed, it's intuitively obvious to me why there must be article creep: articles in Wikipedia almost invariably appear at the top of Google SERPs, which is something that people pay significant amounts of money to achieve without Wikipedia. Also, people cite Wikipedia coverage in press releases and bios as evidence of notability. There's tremendous incentive for abuse. The harm this causes to the encyclopedia is straightforward. A subject that has not been covered in a reliable secondary source can't possibly be verifiable without relying on hearsay from editors. There's no mechanism in WP to distinguish between articles with "real" sourcing and articles that can be sourced only to some company's press release.
- mdisraeli 16y ago
  I see what you're saying, and broadly, I agree with you. I think we have different definitions of article creep. The things you talk about are real problems. The problem for me is that when I have encountered the term "article creep", it has mostly been with respect to articles about episodes from highly-notable television series. Really, we have two different types of article creep: Firstly, we have the pure vanity cruft, new articles created without any references which simply are impossible to verify, or have been created by sources too close to the origin. These genuinely do polute wikipedia, since they typically do not attract new editors, and rarely get linked to (both internal and external to wikipedia). Secondly, we have genuine quality writing that is well-researched, clearly verifiable, useful to a wide audience, and can be well-linked. This second category would attract editors, maintains itself, and is generally useful. Yet, for various reasons these can get accused of ruining wikipedia. Part of the issue is that most wikipedia editors have been untrained, and seeminly have not even had and understood something akin to GCSE history. A significant number joined to promote their point of view, rather than to develop a quality resource. The easiest solution to the problem, given this, is as you support. The best, however, is a different matter.

tptacek 16y ago

I don't think you and I have that much to argue about. I found the community corrosive, competitive, political, hidebound, and litigious as well. I know it sounds like I'm sticking up for WP. I'm just addressing a misperception people clearly have about it. That said, I disagree with your view of the how the encyclopedia works. I, too, spent time a couple years ago accumulating mainspace edits, rewriting articles, and spending time on mop-and-broom tasks. Here's a link: http://j.mp/d0Ozh9 http://j.mp/d0Ozh9. I left for similar reasons as you (my experiment with WP ended and I decided it was a failure for me.) Article-creep is not an entirely imagined threat, as anyone who spends any time in AfD (where articles are nominated for "non"-speedy deletion) will attest. Articles are created for no-name bands with specious claims about regional influence. Articles are created for books that have not been written. Articles are created in constellations to document people's private role playing games. Articles are created to defame other people. Articles are created to copy company press releases onto Wikipedia. All these things happen every day, with tens of articles going through through the slow-path of AfD daily, each of which has to be scrutinized by 3-10 editors and adjudicated by an admin before it can be scrubbed off the site. Indeed, it's intuitively obvious to me why there must be article creep: articles in Wikipedia almost invariably appear at the top of Google SERPs, which is something that people pay significant amounts of money to achieve without Wikipedia. Also, people cite Wikipedia coverage in press releases and bios as evidence of notability. There's tremendous incentive for abuse. The harm this causes to the encyclopedia is straightforward. A subject that has not been covered in a reliable secondary source can't possibly be verifiable without relying on hearsay from editors. There's no mechanism in WP to distinguish between articles with "real" sourcing and articles that can be sourced only to some company's press release.

mdisraeli 16y ago
I see what you're saying, and broadly, I agree with you. I think we have different definitions of article creep. The things you talk about are real problems. The problem for me is that when I have encountered the term "article creep", it has mostly been with respect to articles about episodes from highly-notable television series. Really, we have two different types of article creep: Firstly, we have the pure vanity cruft, new articles created without any references which simply are impossible to verify, or have been created by sources too close to the origin. These genuinely do polute wikipedia, since they typically do not attract new editors, and rarely get linked to (both internal and external to wikipedia). Secondly, we have genuine quality writing that is well-researched, clearly verifiable, useful to a wide audience, and can be well-linked. This second category would attract editors, maintains itself, and is generally useful. Yet, for various reasons these can get accused of ruining wikipedia. Part of the issue is that most wikipedia editors have been untrained, and seeminly have not even had and understood something akin to GCSE history. A significant number joined to promote their point of view, rather than to develop a quality resource. The easiest solution to the problem, given this, is as you support. The best, however, is a different matter.