5 ms·

Is unmaintained article worse than no article at all?

• akolbe 5y ago
  That's a good point. At any rate, this is one thing people can't blame the WMF for.
  • theknocker 5y ago
    Why tf not?
• The_Colonel 5y ago
  Yes, since it may be completely wrong.
  • adolph 5y ago
    Isn't that the point of all Wikipedia? Worse is better?
    • The_Colonel 5y ago
      No? Wikipedia's goal is to be an accessible comprehensive encyclopedia.
      • greggman3 5y ago
        seems to fail the "accessible" part. Pretty much every math topic is written for path professors.
        • zepto 5y ago
          Isn’t it great that you have access to math articles by math professors?
          • pbhjpbhj 5y ago
            They said "written for". Yes, maths articles written by professors are good, but there is definitely a problem of Wikipedia being over-academic and so not being good as a general encyclopedia. I'm surprised they don't appear to have articles structured by depth (ie academic level). Where there's a relatively comprehensive article that you need at least a graduate level of understanding to read then there's an _encyclopedia_ article missing that targets someone of more moderate learning/intelligence.
            • zepto 5y ago
              When you say ‘encyclopedia’, are you referring to those old collections of books that we’re obsoleted 40 years ago?
              • pbhjpbhj 5y ago
                I'm referring to a collection of introductory articles covering a wide range of concepts/objects/people, etc. Deep introductions to a subject are great, but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? There's clearly space with web media to include more comprehensive articles, but IMO this should be _as well_. It's kinda the "if I had more time I'd have written more briefly" concept writ large (at web scale, if you will).
                • zepto 5y ago
                  > Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? Seems like it. As another commenter wrote: “Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work.”
              • The_Colonel 5y ago
                @pbhjpbhj > but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work. There's also a Wikimedia's project called Wikibooks which is aimed at producing learning material.
        • The_Colonel 5y ago
          "Accessible" as in not being behind a paywall.
      • adolph 5y ago
        goal != point, where point is path to perceived consumer value To achieve accessible, Wikipedia accepts lower quality (arguably, often argued within itself), establishes methods to evaluate quality (with parenthetical comments, links to "sources," etc.).
      • bacchusracine 5y ago
        >Wikipedia's goal is to be an accessible comprehensive encyclopedia. I'm afraid these days I can't make out those goals over the shouting and shrieking of their actions.
  • fsflover 5y ago
    It depends on the subject. Sometimes things don't change in certain fields.
  • Gormo 5y ago
    There's no concept of deleting an article because it isn't being "maintained" -- the article existing and being gradually modified over time is its "maintenance". If it was wrong when it was originally posted, then that should ideally have been worked out and corrected early on. If not, then it was a case of new information still being wrong, which is always a risk with a mass collaboration project like Wikipedia, regardless of how old each particular article is. If the information is merely outdated, that's immediately discernible by looking at the age of the most recent edit. In either case, the way a wiki works is to gradually accumulate improvements in accuracy, detail, and and thoroughness over time. Deleting content prevents this from happening.
    • The_Colonel 5y ago
      What you're saying is correct, Wikipedia doesn't really have any "maintenance" criteria anyway. > Deleting content prevents this from happening. If somebody creates an article about their sock collection, they might be somewhat increasing detail and thoroughness, but possibly decreasing overall accuracy. Wikipedia might send a representative to verify this fact, but I'm not sure if the Wikipedia's budget would be sufficient for that. If not, then I think deleting would actually contribute to and not impair the overall goal.