3 ms·

World history. The article for the XBOX 360: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBOX_360 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBOX_360 The article for the Republic of Ragus

by jmduke 14y ago

World history. The article for the XBOX 360: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBOX_360 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBOX_360 The article for the Republic of Ragusa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa Wikipedia's editors (or, perhaps more accurately, humanity) have a bias in thinking details in the present are more important than details in the past.

w1ntermute 14y ago
That's very amusing, because the exact opposite bias can be found in traditional encyclopedias: > The other day I read a dozen thousand words about Assyrian archeology in my DVD copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, but when I wanted to read about the Xbox 360, there wasn't even a single entry, so I gave up. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offline-hard-to-binge http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offlin... > Wikipedia's editors (or, perhaps more accurately, humanity) have a bias in thinking details in the present are more important than details in the past. I don't know if that's entirely true. I think it significantly depends on what those "details" are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games
- gaius 14y ago
  The test of time takes time...
philwelch 14y ago
More important? No, but certainly far more accessible, and the low-hanging fruit gets picked the most, so to speak.
- jmduke 14y ago
  You make a great point, and I think that ties into how one defines 'important information'. Specs/prices/etc.etc. about the XBOX 360 are all but ubiquitous on the internet; does this mean that, because they're more common, they're more important and thus should be added to Wikipedia? Or do stricter filters need to be placed on more common knowledge/data?
rosser 14y ago
While I'm sure a bias towards the present is part of the problem, there's also the simple fact that it's easy to write about things plenty of other people are writing about, and about which details are plentiful. Many of the things Wikipedia is missing, but really should have if it wants to call itself an encyclopaedia with any pretense at seriousness are obscure, and their details locked away in obscurity. (As a consequence of this, many of those things Wikipedia does have articles about are couched in the language of someone who already understands the topic, mitigating their utility to those who don't.) All that said, the article on the Republic of Ragusa was far better and longer than I'd have expected, given its use as your counter-point.

by jmduke 14y ago

w1ntermute 14y ago

That's very amusing, because the exact opposite bias can be found in traditional encyclopedias: > The other day I read a dozen thousand words about Assyrian archeology in my DVD copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, but when I wanted to read about the Xbox 360, there wasn't even a single entry, so I gave up. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offline-hard-to-binge http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offlin... > Wikipedia's editors (or, perhaps more accurately, humanity) have a bias in thinking details in the present are more important than details in the past. I don't know if that's entirely true. I think it significantly depends on what those "details" are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games

gaius 14y ago
The test of time takes time...

philwelch 14y ago

More important? No, but certainly far more accessible, and the low-hanging fruit gets picked the most, so to speak.

jmduke 14y ago
You make a great point, and I think that ties into how one defines 'important information'. Specs/prices/etc.etc. about the XBOX 360 are all but ubiquitous on the internet; does this mean that, because they're more common, they're more important and thus should be added to Wikipedia? Or do stricter filters need to be placed on more common knowledge/data?

rosser 14y ago

While I'm sure a bias towards the present is part of the problem, there's also the simple fact that it's easy to write about things plenty of other people are writing about, and about which details are plentiful. Many of the things Wikipedia is missing, but really should have if it wants to call itself an encyclopaedia with any pretense at seriousness are obscure, and their details locked away in obscurity. (As a consequence of this, many of those things Wikipedia does have articles about are couched in the language of someone who already understands the topic, mitigating their utility to those who don't.) All that said, the article on the Republic of Ragusa was far better and longer than I'd have expected, given its use as your counter-point.