3 ms·

That's not a representative example - those are extremely high profile pages (maybe the highest). Wiki pages for less-known polarizing figures are far below tha

That's not a representative example - those are extremely high profile pages (maybe the highest). Wiki pages for less-known polarizing figures are far below that standard.

roenxi 8y ago
A sample size of 1 is not overwhelming evidence, it is true, but the page being high profile is a point in favour not against the argument. But if polerization did reduce quality, I'd expect to see evidence of it on Trump's wiki page. That doesn't seem to be the case. Wiki pages for less-known figures being to a lower standard is consistent with the idea that popular interest + little consensus => high quality, rather than an alternative such as general consensus on topic => high quality.
- zone411 8y ago
  The edits to most popular pages will be most scrutinized. Obama's and Trump's talk pages have the most revisions out of all Wikipedia articles [1] and are second and third most viewed [2], so they are the hardest articles to edit in a way that won't have hundreds of eyes on them right away. The Wikimedia Foundation gets $100 mil in revenue per year and having these two pages look non-neutral would be awful for their fundraising. I think it's just that extremely high interest => usually high quality and polarizing topics have lower quality than average. The consensus was never established on some quite popular controversial articles e.g. [3] and this is heavily criticized by one side of the argument [4]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages_with_the_most_revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pag... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multiyear_ranking_of_most_viewed_pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multiyear_ranking_of... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy [4]https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9l30zj/how_i_joined_gamergate_a_wikipedia_gatekeeping/ https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9l30zj/how_...
  - burfog 8y ago
    That is hardly neutral. Right in the second full paragraph, Trump's page turns nasty. The fourth full paragraph is nasty too. OK, seen enough... Over on Obama's page, every one of the intro paragraphs is nice. I also note the large section on religion that does not even acknowledge that famous interview in which he slipped up and said "my Muslim faith".

That's not a representative example - those are extremely high profile pages (maybe the highest). Wiki pages for less-known polarizing figures are far below that standard.

roenxi 8y ago

A sample size of 1 is not overwhelming evidence, it is true, but the page being high profile is a point in favour not against the argument. But if polerization did reduce quality, I'd expect to see evidence of it on Trump's wiki page. That doesn't seem to be the case. Wiki pages for less-known figures being to a lower standard is consistent with the idea that popular interest + little consensus => high quality, rather than an alternative such as general consensus on topic => high quality.

zone411 8y ago
The edits to most popular pages will be most scrutinized. Obama's and Trump's talk pages have the most revisions out of all Wikipedia articles [1] and are second and third most viewed [2], so they are the hardest articles to edit in a way that won't have hundreds of eyes on them right away. The Wikimedia Foundation gets $100 mil in revenue per year and having these two pages look non-neutral would be awful for their fundraising. I think it's just that extremely high interest => usually high quality and polarizing topics have lower quality than average. The consensus was never established on some quite popular controversial articles e.g. [3] and this is heavily criticized by one side of the argument [4]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages_with_the_most_revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pag... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multiyear_ranking_of_most_viewed_pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multiyear_ranking_of... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy [4]https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9l30zj/how_i_joined_gamergate_a_wikipedia_gatekeeping/ https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9l30zj/how_...
- burfog 8y ago
  That is hardly neutral. Right in the second full paragraph, Trump's page turns nasty. The fourth full paragraph is nasty too. OK, seen enough... Over on Obama's page, every one of the intro paragraphs is nice. I also note the large section on religion that does not even acknowledge that famous interview in which he slipped up and said "my Muslim faith".