4 ms·

I think that the main argument that isn't simply a matter of storage costs (which probably does kick in at some point) is simply a matter of brand-management. I

by astine 6y ago

I think that the main argument that isn't simply a matter of storage costs (which probably does kick in at some point) is simply a matter of brand-management. If the average Wikipedia article is a discussion an incomplete and poorly sourced article about Pokemon then Wikipedia gets a reputation as poor source of information. It actually had the reputation pretty strongly early on, but it's reputation for reliabity has actually improved over the years. I suppose that there is also the inverse problem where poor articles can use Wikipedia's relatively good reputation to give visibility to some pseudoscience or conspiracy theory. If it's really obscure, the only people who will be writing articles about are will be proponents who will then link to the article from their closed Facebook groups. It won't necessarily be obvious to non-experts what's going on so deleting certain kinds of articles could be a protection against that as well. (I'm not any kind of Wikipedian btw; just speculating off of the top of my head.)

domador 6y ago
If that's the case, I'd prefer a two-tiered Wikipedia over a deletionist Wikipedia. In such a Wikipedia, each page could be clearly-labeled as either an encyclopedia-quality entry or as a "wannabe" encyclopedia entry. (A better term would be needed for the lower tier.) Such labeling should be very noticeable and visible when you open an entry, at least for the lower-tier entries.
- smogcutter 6y ago
  But this is contradictory. If you don’t care about credibility, why are you posting the content on wikipedia to begin with? Anyone can start a wiki, or a blog, or whatever.
- astine 6y ago
  They used to use the term "Stub" for brief pages that weren't full articles yet and they do put warnings on articles that don't meet certain quality standards, though I think that's different that what you're talking about here.
  - domador 6y ago
    There's some overlap, though not full equivalency. Stubs presumably fall in line with Wikipedia's editorial vision, even if they haven't been fleshed out into full entries. The entries I'm referring to are mostly ones which would run afoul of Wikipedia's notability criterion. Going back to the brand management issue, I'd be OK with deleted articles and their history being moved to another wiki with a different URL, with a name that is not "Wikipedia". Cookies or some other mechanism could be used to manage user/session preferences so that users who want to to be redirected to this other, questionable-page wiki can be redirected when they try to access pages that don't fall in line with Wikipedia's editorial vision. I'd be fine with having huge in-your face warnings about the likely lack of quality or veracity of such entries... just as long as I can access that content.
- kbenson 6y ago
  What about additional information on encyclopedia quality pages that would normally have been excluded? It seems like anyone could make an extension site to wikipedia where articles that aren't allowed at wikipedia could find a home, and the search there could also search wikipedia. The issue seems that nobody wants to put the hard work into making this happen, marketing it, and managing it. They just want wikipedia to do it for them, using the limited resources wikipedia has at their disposal, for free.

by astine 6y ago

domador 6y ago

If that's the case, I'd prefer a two-tiered Wikipedia over a deletionist Wikipedia. In such a Wikipedia, each page could be clearly-labeled as either an encyclopedia-quality entry or as a "wannabe" encyclopedia entry. (A better term would be needed for the lower tier.) Such labeling should be very noticeable and visible when you open an entry, at least for the lower-tier entries.

smogcutter 6y ago
But this is contradictory. If you don’t care about credibility, why are you posting the content on wikipedia to begin with? Anyone can start a wiki, or a blog, or whatever.
astine 6y ago
They used to use the term "Stub" for brief pages that weren't full articles yet and they do put warnings on articles that don't meet certain quality standards, though I think that's different that what you're talking about here.
- domador 6y ago
  There's some overlap, though not full equivalency. Stubs presumably fall in line with Wikipedia's editorial vision, even if they haven't been fleshed out into full entries. The entries I'm referring to are mostly ones which would run afoul of Wikipedia's notability criterion. Going back to the brand management issue, I'd be OK with deleted articles and their history being moved to another wiki with a different URL, with a name that is not "Wikipedia". Cookies or some other mechanism could be used to manage user/session preferences so that users who want to to be redirected to this other, questionable-page wiki can be redirected when they try to access pages that don't fall in line with Wikipedia's editorial vision. I'd be fine with having huge in-your face warnings about the likely lack of quality or veracity of such entries... just as long as I can access that content.
kbenson 6y ago
What about additional information on encyclopedia quality pages that would normally have been excluded? It seems like anyone could make an extension site to wikipedia where articles that aren't allowed at wikipedia could find a home, and the search there could also search wikipedia. The issue seems that nobody wants to put the hard work into making this happen, marketing it, and managing it. They just want wikipedia to do it for them, using the limited resources wikipedia has at their disposal, for free.