5 ms·
One of the main problems with Wikipedia is that it is actually multiple products in one: an encyclopedia, a biography site, an news archive, medical reference a
by sparkzilla 12y ago
One of the main problems with Wikipedia is that it is actually multiple products in one: an encyclopedia, a biography site, an news archive, medical reference and so on. If the site was an encyclopedia, McMillen would just have a short page or even nothing. He probably wouldn't be notable enough. If it was a biography site, say one specific to journalists, he would have a longer page, and if it was an archive of news, he would have the kind of page seen here. The lack of defined format leads to this kind of confusion here, for both the reader and the writer. The problem for many of the site's writers is that the "encyclopedic" stuff is done. There's only so much to say about dinosaurs. When any news comes up they flock to fill in the page with minutae, with the result that pages on pop culture topics are becoming so long they are almost unreadable. See my blog post: http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedias-13-deadly-sins/ http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedias-13-deadly-sins/
- Dylan16807 12y ago>If the site was an encyclopedia, McMillen would just have a short page or even nothing. He probably wouldn't be notable enough. I wouldn't put it like that. One of the nice things about wikipedia is that if a subject qualifies to have an article at all, it can have a nice detailed article.
- LanceH 12y agoI was thinking about this and there seem to be 4 main levels of noteriety: 1. no article 2. name on a list 3. article about a person 4. article about someone with linked articles about individual accomplishments
- ggchappell 12y agoWhat about someone who is mentioned in one or more articles, but does not have their own. That seems like it's around 2.5 on your scale. I'm not sure how common it is, though. Might be very common (?). (Primary known example is myself, BTW. I'm mentioned in 2 articles that I'm aware of.)
- LanceH 12y agoThat's pretty much what I meant with 2. This guy won a short story award in 1955. No listing other than his name and his books name. No links. I guess if you're common enough and it's known that you're the same person in more than one place, a red link is a step up from plain text.
- benaiah 12y agoFrom your linked article: > There are very few Web 2.0 features. Social features are primitive: readers cannot make an easy list of their favorites, nor can they share to Facebook or Twitter with a single click. It’s as if the past ten years of progress had never happened. Thank god.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoWikipedia is like Web 1.0, but better. It has a sophisticated templating system, readable and consistent styling/formatting, more hyperlinking than the old web ever had, citations and fact-checking, it's freely editable by anyone, it's freely licensed, has full revision history, links never die...
- sparkzilla 12y agoWeb 1.2?
- JetSpiegel 12y agoWeb 0.999...
- hnal943 12y agoLike Xanadu! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoWikipedia is an encyclopedia. The reason it's very detailed compared to traditional encyclopedias is that it has no space limitations, and anyone can contribute.
- sparkzilla 12y agoDefinition of an encyclopedia from Wikipedia: An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Note the word "summary". An encyclopedia entry is supposed to be a summary of the topic. It is not a news archive.
- hnal943 12y agoI don't think any wikipedia articles are exhaustive to the topic they cover. Summarization is a spectrum.
- sparkzilla 12y agoThe whole article is about a minor journalist whose page is bigger than some of the world's most interesting people. That clearly shows that summarization is necessary.