3 ms·

I think Wikipedia is mostly good contentwise. Of course there are two extremes where there are problems: disputed topics (especially contemporary political top

I think Wikipedia is mostly good contentwise. Of course there are two extremes where there are problems: disputed topics (especially contemporary political topics) and niche topics receiving little to no attention. I think for both an improvment can be made by improving the view on the editing history. Showing what kind of editors (new accounts or ong term members? Editing only few articles or across the board? etc.) do what kind of editing. Maybe even broken down to article sections ("this section sees lots of change by new editors, while that section is stable") But not sure how that would really look like to be usable more or less intuitively.

ethbr0 5y ago
(Reparented from another content thread) Agreed. Wikipedia's strength is its long tail of niche articles. However, once one gets off "popular" articles, the quality bounds rapidly spread. But that seems inherent to having an article for which there are only 1-2 editors, as opposed to 10+ frequently reviewing. So better UX is probably the best "solution." I.e. pulling editor count, frequency, and reputation into the reader-visible part of the page.
- actuator 5y ago
  > However, once one gets off "popular" articles, the quality bounds rapidly spread The issues I have seen are mostly with these sorts of articles itself. Popular articles tend to be overall much more fair because of massive participation. But once you go into articles which are about less popular things or contentious topics or from highly polarised areas, there is either frequent vandalism or chokehold control by few editors which makes it impossible to have even a good discussion if you think the content can be presented better.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Yeah, the smaller articles are usually written by a single person who has spent an inordinate amount of time in the domain of the article and the article is good. I started this article recently and was very impressed by how everyone came together to reach a consensus on a very niche topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qeqertaq_Avannarleq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qeqertaq_Avannarleq But then the other day I noticed that a page about a certain very popular K-Pop band was missing one of their major releases, so I added it, but then got into a pissing war with an editor of that niche who argued that the band's own Instagram page was not a valid source for information on their releases?!
  - Jiro 5y ago
    The reason that someone said the band's Instagram page isn't a valid source for information about the band is because of the rules about self-published sources. The rules were patched at some point with a narrow exception, to allow sources for things like a band listing their own releases (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ABOUTSE... ) but it's easy for rules lawyers to insist that that patch doesn't apply. And people with OCD really don't like narrow exceptions.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> Of course there are two extremes where there are problems: disputed topics (especially contemporary political topics) and niche topics receiving little to no attention. An unusual third extreme, where things are so wrong, so entrenched and so unchecked that they have the potential to not just misrepresent truth but also change it. I refer you to the story of the Scots Language Wikipedia: https://www.engadget.com/scots-wikipedia-230210674.html https://www.engadget.com/scots-wikipedia-230210674.html
zamalek 5y ago
> I think Wikipedia is mostly good contentwise. Wikipedia politics is insane[1], and this power hunger can lead to objectively incorrect information being defended and sustained. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals
- sss111 5y ago
  What exactly is this? What are cabals? I'm so confused!!!
  - zamalek 5y ago
    In this context, it's how a group of people manage to take control of some portion of a website (especially where crowdsourcing is concerned).
- enterpriseyWiki 5y ago
  >This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

ethbr0 5y ago

(Reparented from another content thread) Agreed. Wikipedia's strength is its long tail of niche articles. However, once one gets off "popular" articles, the quality bounds rapidly spread. But that seems inherent to having an article for which there are only 1-2 editors, as opposed to 10+ frequently reviewing. So better UX is probably the best "solution." I.e. pulling editor count, frequency, and reputation into the reader-visible part of the page.

actuator 5y ago
> However, once one gets off "popular" articles, the quality bounds rapidly spread The issues I have seen are mostly with these sorts of articles itself. Popular articles tend to be overall much more fair because of massive participation. But once you go into articles which are about less popular things or contentious topics or from highly polarised areas, there is either frequent vandalism or chokehold control by few editors which makes it impossible to have even a good discussion if you think the content can be presented better.
kingcharles 5y ago
Yeah, the smaller articles are usually written by a single person who has spent an inordinate amount of time in the domain of the article and the article is good. I started this article recently and was very impressed by how everyone came together to reach a consensus on a very niche topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qeqertaq_Avannarleq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qeqertaq_Avannarleq But then the other day I noticed that a page about a certain very popular K-Pop band was missing one of their major releases, so I added it, but then got into a pissing war with an editor of that niche who argued that the band's own Instagram page was not a valid source for information on their releases?!
- Jiro 5y ago
  The reason that someone said the band's Instagram page isn't a valid source for information about the band is because of the rules about self-published sources. The rules were patched at some point with a narrow exception, to allow sources for things like a band listing their own releases (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ABOUTSE... ) but it's easy for rules lawyers to insist that that patch doesn't apply. And people with OCD really don't like narrow exceptions.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

> Of course there are two extremes where there are problems: disputed topics (especially contemporary political topics) and niche topics receiving little to no attention. An unusual third extreme, where things are so wrong, so entrenched and so unchecked that they have the potential to not just misrepresent truth but also change it. I refer you to the story of the Scots Language Wikipedia: https://www.engadget.com/scots-wikipedia-230210674.html https://www.engadget.com/scots-wikipedia-230210674.html

zamalek 5y ago

> I think Wikipedia is mostly good contentwise. Wikipedia politics is insane[1], and this power hunger can lead to objectively incorrect information being defended and sustained. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals

sss111 5y ago
What exactly is this? What are cabals? I'm so confused!!!
- zamalek 5y ago
  In this context, it's how a group of people manage to take control of some portion of a website (especially where crowdsourcing is concerned).
enterpriseyWiki 5y ago
>This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.