3 ms·

I think you're absolutely right on impact and self-promotion, but I don't think Wikipedia's brand is about quality. Or at least, not primarily about quality. >

I think you're absolutely right on impact and self-promotion, but I don't think Wikipedia's brand is about quality. Or at least, not primarily about quality. >Wikipedia won the reference race because of its quality. Weren't convenience and quantity important factors and more important ones? To me the value of Wikipedia is that virtually any topic is discussed reasonably consistently with reasonable quality. If I specifically need quality, I'll look to the article's sources or find my own.

tptacek 12y ago
When you think about "quality" on Wikipedia, don't just think about any given article in isolation, but instead step back and look at the bigger picture: for instance, how every Wikipedia article about a movie has a similar structure, or how easy it is to hop from one species in Hymenoptera to the next. You also have to look at the things that aren't there to appreciate the degree of work that goes into making the project coherent. Another instructive place to start reading about WP quality is the Featured Article process; in particular, try clicking into some of the discussions about individual FA candidates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles
wpietri 12y ago
Depends on what you consider the competition. Compared with whatever Google coughs up, I think its big win is quality. Other Google links are equally convenient, but Wikipedia is trustworthy. And the big Wikipedia controversies have mainly been about quality failures, so I think that's most significant to readers in terms of maintaining brand value. I agree that the necessary level of quality here is only "reasonable quality" rather than perfection. And I agree that other factors definitely helped.

3 ms·

I think you're absolutely right on impact and self-promotion, but I don't think Wikipedia's brand is about quality. Or at least, not primarily about quality. >

by alecdbrooks 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago
When you think about "quality" on Wikipedia, don't just think about any given article in isolation, but instead step back and look at the bigger picture: for instance, how every Wikipedia article about a movie has a similar structure, or how easy it is to hop from one species in Hymenoptera to the next. You also have to look at the things that aren't there to appreciate the degree of work that goes into making the project coherent. Another instructive place to start reading about WP quality is the Featured Article process; in particular, try clicking into some of the discussions about individual FA candidates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles
wpietri 12y ago
Depends on what you consider the competition. Compared with whatever Google coughs up, I think its big win is quality. Other Google links are equally convenient, but Wikipedia is trustworthy. And the big Wikipedia controversies have mainly been about quality failures, so I think that's most significant to readers in terms of maintaining brand value. I agree that the necessary level of quality here is only "reasonable quality" rather than perfection. And I agree that other factors definitely helped.