5 ms·

Wikipedia is not continuing to grow because its policy is to delete articles whose subjects aren't covered in the mainstream press. The mainstream press, on th

by GavinB 17y ago

Wikipedia is not continuing to grow because its policy is to delete articles whose subjects aren't covered in the mainstream press. The mainstream press, on the other hand, is shrinking every month. The current definition of notability is like Newtonian physics. It's useful, but must eventually be replaced by a more nuanced model.

halo 17y ago
At the moment, Wikipedia relies on the press to verify the truth. How do you suggest Wikipedia verifies the truth without relying on the press and other scholarly sources?
- gojomo 17y ago
  A good question -- and there are at least two dimensions: (1) using traditional publication coverage to evaluate 'notability'; and (2) using traditional publications as sources of information. I personally would jettison 'notability' for 'usefulness', and improve the procedures for allowing 'self-published' material -- even up to original research and the testimony of primary sources -- to provide Wikipedia content, as long as it's true. Yes, that's harder than just deferring to traditional high-reputation news and academic publishers. But those publishers are retreating, while the need for reference information is growing, and this problem needs the boldness of the wiki-model, even as Wikipedia has become squeamish about such experimentalism.
  - hughprime 17y ago
    At present, though, the bar for wikipedia notability is still set a lot lower than the bar for showing up in a newspaper -- not everything in the newspaper is worth recording for all time in wikipedia. Until that happens you're dealing with a fairly theoretical problem of how to cover notable things which never show up in a reputable source.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      As long as true articles are being deleted for 'notability', I'm talking about a real problem, not a theoretical one.
      - hughprime 17y ago
        Aw nu, not the "anything that's true should be allowed in wikipedia" meme again. Seriously, why haven't all the people who believe this got together and started a new inclusionist encyclopaedia yet, instead of trying to force wikipedia into being something that its guidelines clearly state that it isn't?
        gojomo 17y ago
        My hunch is that eventually a tipping point will be reached, and either the guidelines will be boldly edited (for the better), or a new inclusionist alternative will emerge. Until then, that Wikipedia is 'good enough' but stuck in its ways is suppressing the emergence of an even better alternative.
  - gchucky 17y ago
    So let's say I build some kind of application. And I create a website for it and a Twitter account and whatever else. Should there be a Wikipedia article for that? By having lower notability standards, there would be, as the article could use the sources I created. Seems to me that there shouldn't be an article for that, though, as that's really just a case of self-promotion and advertising. Besides, there really isn't anything particularly notable about the product itself, is there? It's just something I made on my own in a few days.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      By the 'true and useful' standard, yes. If someone wants to write it, why stop them? Whether your app dies in obscurity or explodes in popularity, if Wikipedia could collect true and useful info about it, why exert extra effort to exclude or erase that info? If there's a topic that only a dozen people in the world (currently) care about, but one or two of them are willing and able to write neutral, reference-style articles about that topic that will be of interest to the next dozen people, why exile that work elsehwere because of traditional standards of 'notability' based on the idea of limited staff time and print-page column-inches?
- ars 17y ago
  By listing multiple versions of the truth, with some sort of measure of reliability by each one. For example the article on UFO's (or Cold Fusion) can have a section by proponents, and a section by dis-ponents (if that's a word). The section by proponents can say: This section was written by people who believe foo bar. The other section can say: This was written by people who believe that foo bar is not true. How do you know which to believe? Well you don't. All you know is the source. And that, I think, is enough. Each reader can attempt to authenticate the source on his own (perhaps by perusing articles about the source). There are many topics where it's not possible to get full sites for them. But I'm not actually expecting wikipedia to change - I gave up on them about a year ago.
  - hughprime 17y ago
    Do you think this would be an improvement on wikipedia as it currently exists? Would this "debate" style extend to every contentious issue? Will the article on Theodore Roosevelt have to be interrupted by a pro-con debate on whether Theodore Roosevelt was actually a woman, if someone decides to suggest that he was? How many other crazy theories can we raise before the article becomes totally unreadable?
- derefr 17y ago
  How about using the money from its donation drives to hire its own professional journalists? They'll have to go somewhere once the newspapers stop paying ;)
  - bkovitz 17y ago
    Wikimedia is in the black, but not rolling in money. Maybe it could be done, though. Here are the numbers: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/WMF_Mid-Year-Financials_08-09-FINAL.pdf http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/WMF_Mi...
Ras_ 17y ago
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. There are more growth metrics behind the most visible one - number of articles, which is displayed on the main page. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm Compare charts "New articles per day" vs. "Edits per article". Former has declined during last two years, but latter has increased significantly. New articles per day average was 171 in 2007, 149 in 2009. Edits per article was 51 in 2007, 65 in 2009. Bytes per article (=quality) is also growing (http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesBytesPerArticle.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesBytesPerArticle....). These tell a different story. Wikipedia's growth isn't just in the number of new articles anymore.

by GavinB 17y ago

halo 17y ago

At the moment, Wikipedia relies on the press to verify the truth. How do you suggest Wikipedia verifies the truth without relying on the press and other scholarly sources?

gojomo 17y ago
A good question -- and there are at least two dimensions: (1) using traditional publication coverage to evaluate 'notability'; and (2) using traditional publications as sources of information. I personally would jettison 'notability' for 'usefulness', and improve the procedures for allowing 'self-published' material -- even up to original research and the testimony of primary sources -- to provide Wikipedia content, as long as it's true. Yes, that's harder than just deferring to traditional high-reputation news and academic publishers. But those publishers are retreating, while the need for reference information is growing, and this problem needs the boldness of the wiki-model, even as Wikipedia has become squeamish about such experimentalism.
- hughprime 17y ago
  At present, though, the bar for wikipedia notability is still set a lot lower than the bar for showing up in a newspaper -- not everything in the newspaper is worth recording for all time in wikipedia. Until that happens you're dealing with a fairly theoretical problem of how to cover notable things which never show up in a reputable source.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    As long as true articles are being deleted for 'notability', I'm talking about a real problem, not a theoretical one.
    - hughprime 17y ago
      Aw nu, not the "anything that's true should be allowed in wikipedia" meme again. Seriously, why haven't all the people who believe this got together and started a new inclusionist encyclopaedia yet, instead of trying to force wikipedia into being something that its guidelines clearly state that it isn't?
      - gojomo 17y ago
        My hunch is that eventually a tipping point will be reached, and either the guidelines will be boldly edited (for the better), or a new inclusionist alternative will emerge. Until then, that Wikipedia is 'good enough' but stuck in its ways is suppressing the emergence of an even better alternative.
- gchucky 17y ago
  So let's say I build some kind of application. And I create a website for it and a Twitter account and whatever else. Should there be a Wikipedia article for that? By having lower notability standards, there would be, as the article could use the sources I created. Seems to me that there shouldn't be an article for that, though, as that's really just a case of self-promotion and advertising. Besides, there really isn't anything particularly notable about the product itself, is there? It's just something I made on my own in a few days.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    By the 'true and useful' standard, yes. If someone wants to write it, why stop them? Whether your app dies in obscurity or explodes in popularity, if Wikipedia could collect true and useful info about it, why exert extra effort to exclude or erase that info? If there's a topic that only a dozen people in the world (currently) care about, but one or two of them are willing and able to write neutral, reference-style articles about that topic that will be of interest to the next dozen people, why exile that work elsehwere because of traditional standards of 'notability' based on the idea of limited staff time and print-page column-inches?
ars 17y ago
By listing multiple versions of the truth, with some sort of measure of reliability by each one. For example the article on UFO's (or Cold Fusion) can have a section by proponents, and a section by dis-ponents (if that's a word). The section by proponents can say: This section was written by people who believe foo bar. The other section can say: This was written by people who believe that foo bar is not true. How do you know which to believe? Well you don't. All you know is the source. And that, I think, is enough. Each reader can attempt to authenticate the source on his own (perhaps by perusing articles about the source). There are many topics where it's not possible to get full sites for them. But I'm not actually expecting wikipedia to change - I gave up on them about a year ago.
- hughprime 17y ago
  Do you think this would be an improvement on wikipedia as it currently exists? Would this "debate" style extend to every contentious issue? Will the article on Theodore Roosevelt have to be interrupted by a pro-con debate on whether Theodore Roosevelt was actually a woman, if someone decides to suggest that he was? How many other crazy theories can we raise before the article becomes totally unreadable?
derefr 17y ago
How about using the money from its donation drives to hire its own professional journalists? They'll have to go somewhere once the newspapers stop paying ;)
- bkovitz 17y ago
  Wikimedia is in the black, but not rolling in money. Maybe it could be done, though. Here are the numbers: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/WMF_Mid-Year-Financials_08-09-FINAL.pdf http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f6/WMF_Mi...

Ras_ 17y ago

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. There are more growth metrics behind the most visible one - number of articles, which is displayed on the main page. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm Compare charts "New articles per day" vs. "Edits per article". Former has declined during last two years, but latter has increased significantly. New articles per day average was 171 in 2007, 149 in 2009. Edits per article was 51 in 2007, 65 in 2009. Bytes per article (=quality) is also growing (http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesBytesPerArticle.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesBytesPerArticle....). These tell a different story. Wikipedia's growth isn't just in the number of new articles anymore.