3 ms·

> It's not the work now that's at issue but the work of the future to fix "Mr. Smith is a poopy head" vandalism on content that gets few views. If it gets few

by vasco 3y ago

> It's not the work now that's at issue but the work of the future to fix "Mr. Smith is a poopy head" vandalism on content that gets few views. If it gets few views it's not important to fix, and if any of the few views cares they can fix it. Lets not pretend that each page needs the same level of attention. A random middle school wikipedia page having a slightly out of date content or even vandalism isn't a big deal at all and can be fixed, and if it's not fixed - it has few views anyway. Wikipedia already acknowledges this and certain pages are much harder to edit than others. You could even have a computer class where kids from the school would update their school's wiki page as a way to learn how to contribute to wikipedia. Might actually be the easiest type of page in the whole wiki to keep fresh now that I think about it, while creating a whole generation of interested editors. It's like they think they run a paper version of a encyclopedia with these rules about what is notable or not.

shagie 3y ago
> You could even have a computer class where kids from the school would update their school's wiki page as a way to learn how to contribute to wikipedia. Might actually be the easiest type of page in the whole wiki to keep fresh now that I think about it, while creating a whole generation of interested editors. This type of effort often creates a disproportionate amount of work for the volunteers maintaining Wikipedia. If you feel that that would be a good thing to do, the school should stand up its own wiki about itself that students could update and maintain. That also avoids possible conflict with the rules of Wikipedia. I recall a school that attempted to do "ask a question on Stack Overflow" and all the students in the class asked the same question - nearly word for word - about their current assignment... that all then got closed as duplicates of each other. If the goal is to introduce someone to the application platform, it is likely better to have them work in a private instance where the mentor to new user ratio is much higher and things like "you need to make sure that you are using proper and correct English with capitalization and punctuation," are not "revert and leave an impersonal comment on their talk page about the expected quality of their contributions."
falserum 3y ago
devilish advocate here. One such article - small problem. But what if such low-view, and now outdated/vandalized articles start approaching 50% of wikipedia content? That might reflect badly on credibility of whole wiki. It is nontrivial problem of striking balance between content quality level vs content quantity/contributor freedom. (Open source software projects deal with same problem, just not on such scale)

by vasco 3y ago

shagie 3y ago

> You could even have a computer class where kids from the school would update their school's wiki page as a way to learn how to contribute to wikipedia. Might actually be the easiest type of page in the whole wiki to keep fresh now that I think about it, while creating a whole generation of interested editors. This type of effort often creates a disproportionate amount of work for the volunteers maintaining Wikipedia. If you feel that that would be a good thing to do, the school should stand up its own wiki about itself that students could update and maintain. That also avoids possible conflict with the rules of Wikipedia. I recall a school that attempted to do "ask a question on Stack Overflow" and all the students in the class asked the same question - nearly word for word - about their current assignment... that all then got closed as duplicates of each other. If the goal is to introduce someone to the application platform, it is likely better to have them work in a private instance where the mentor to new user ratio is much higher and things like "you need to make sure that you are using proper and correct English with capitalization and punctuation," are not "revert and leave an impersonal comment on their talk page about the expected quality of their contributions."

falserum 3y ago

devilish advocate here. One such article - small problem. But what if such low-view, and now outdated/vandalized articles start approaching 50% of wikipedia content? That might reflect badly on credibility of whole wiki. It is nontrivial problem of striking balance between content quality level vs content quantity/contributor freedom. (Open source software projects deal with same problem, just not on such scale)