3 ms·

As for Wikibooks and Wikiversity, I think it's because the quality content just isn't there. Wikipedia works reasonaby well with volunteer editors because of th

by akolbe 4y ago

As for Wikibooks and Wikiversity, I think it's because the quality content just isn't there. Wikipedia works reasonaby well with volunteer editors because of the requirement to cite published sources. Without that constraint, content quality becomes a lot more mixed. Also, they are in partnership with Google and other Big Tech companies, and what those companies need is Wikipedia- and Wikidata-type content that can be surfaced in response to search engine queries, be read out by Alexa or Siri or even your car's digital assistant, etc. Wikibooks and Wikiversity don't fit that bill, nor does Wiktionary, which is actually great, but is not promoted by the WMF nor by Google. Their 2030 strategy is all about becoming the dominant source of online information: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/...

swores 4y ago
Wouldn't it be a good thing rather than a problem if something like educational textbooks were written in such a way that everything in them needs a citation? - Simple to then have a paid professional (in the field, not in proofreading) proofread and dive into / fix anything questionable (edit: well... maybe less simple that editing an un-cited work written by another professional, I'm not sure actually) - Easier (potentially) to keep track of which bits of textbooks are out of date based on the source matter - Optionally publish them with citations impact, so that teachers or curious students can look into background material that led to the textbook being created I think the bigger problem isn't the use of citations to confirm quality, but that when your goal is to store info about as many things as possible it's easy to ask volunteers to work on whatever subject they choose to, whereas for something like a textbook you need one or more people figuring out what the subject matter should be based on the target audience, potentially based on a specific region's legally required curriculum, perhaps based just on "what will educators think useful enough", or a mix, etc. That's where citations are no longer enough (perhaps that's what you meant in your comment).
- akolbe 4y ago
  I don't know Wikiversity very well. My impression is that it is a mixture of cranks and actual academics. Neither of them would want a Wikimedia-appointed expert come and revise their stuff. Also, the Foundation will not pay experts to vet content on principle. One consideration is that they do not want liability. Another is that they do not want conflict with the community over content.

by akolbe 4y ago

swores 4y ago

Wouldn't it be a good thing rather than a problem if something like educational textbooks were written in such a way that everything in them needs a citation? - Simple to then have a paid professional (in the field, not in proofreading) proofread and dive into / fix anything questionable (edit: well... maybe less simple that editing an un-cited work written by another professional, I'm not sure actually) - Easier (potentially) to keep track of which bits of textbooks are out of date based on the source matter - Optionally publish them with citations impact, so that teachers or curious students can look into background material that led to the textbook being created I think the bigger problem isn't the use of citations to confirm quality, but that when your goal is to store info about as many things as possible it's easy to ask volunteers to work on whatever subject they choose to, whereas for something like a textbook you need one or more people figuring out what the subject matter should be based on the target audience, potentially based on a specific region's legally required curriculum, perhaps based just on "what will educators think useful enough", or a mix, etc. That's where citations are no longer enough (perhaps that's what you meant in your comment).

akolbe 4y ago
I don't know Wikiversity very well. My impression is that it is a mixture of cranks and actual academics. Neither of them would want a Wikimedia-appointed expert come and revise their stuff. Also, the Foundation will not pay experts to vet content on principle. One consideration is that they do not want liability. Another is that they do not want conflict with the community over content.