3 ms·

>> these topics probably don't deserve a Wikipedia article: Me, my cat, my cat's water bowl, the water in the bowl on May 5, 2020 etc. > But what is the cost o

by ardy42 7y ago

>> these topics probably don't deserve a Wikipedia article: Me, my cat, my cat's water bowl, the water in the bowl on May 5, 2020 etc. > But what is the cost of having them? 0. Volunteer time may be cheap, but it's not infinite. Without standards, the volume of articles could become so large it will be an impossible task to fact check and edit them all. 1. Malicious, unscrupulous, or misguided actors co-opting Wikipedia's reputation for their own purposes (e.g. Jack's snake oil has been scientifically proven to cure all disease by all these articles in fake medical journals). 2. Useless garbage in search results that you'd have to wade through. Literally thousands of high school students every year would put up pages about their bands, cartoons, and art which are of no value to anyone but themselves. Why host all that if you're just going to have to build your search to exclude it?

andrewla 6y ago
(Late reply, so you'll probably never see this, but oh well) > 0. Volunteer time may be cheap, but it's not infinite. Without standards, the volume of articles could become so large it will be an impossible task to fact check and edit them all. The importance of fact-checking and verification are in my opinion proportional to notability, and editors will naturally flock to verify articles that they have an interest in or are generally notable. So what if the Bulbasaur article has some inaccuracies? And frankly, the problem is unsolved -- read the wikipedia article on "hypnosis" and cringe at what appears to be the script for a poorly made thriller. At least we could splinter that article into multiple articles talking about the treatment in fiction, which has notability in itself compared to the semi-mystical ravings on the main page. The other complaints are related to notability as well. I'm not saying that we should treat all articles as definitive -- we don't even do that now. The correctness of the article is a function of the dedication of contributors which is a function of the notability of the subject; this reinforcement happens organically. Frankly, I'd welcome more skepticism approaching wikipedia content because that skepticism forms the basis for people becoming editors rather than seeing editing being something reserved for an elite class of self-diagnosed "experts".

by ardy42 7y ago

andrewla 6y ago

(Late reply, so you'll probably never see this, but oh well) > 0. Volunteer time may be cheap, but it's not infinite. Without standards, the volume of articles could become so large it will be an impossible task to fact check and edit them all. The importance of fact-checking and verification are in my opinion proportional to notability, and editors will naturally flock to verify articles that they have an interest in or are generally notable. So what if the Bulbasaur article has some inaccuracies? And frankly, the problem is unsolved -- read the wikipedia article on "hypnosis" and cringe at what appears to be the script for a poorly made thriller. At least we could splinter that article into multiple articles talking about the treatment in fiction, which has notability in itself compared to the semi-mystical ravings on the main page. The other complaints are related to notability as well. I'm not saying that we should treat all articles as definitive -- we don't even do that now. The correctness of the article is a function of the dedication of contributors which is a function of the notability of the subject; this reinforcement happens organically. Frankly, I'd welcome more skepticism approaching wikipedia content because that skepticism forms the basis for people becoming editors rather than seeing editing being something reserved for an elite class of self-diagnosed "experts".