Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is failing/Archive 1

message: There are to many teenagers on here that havent even experienced puberty let alone a professional career, this kids then go on edit artices/edits that they have no knowledge of apart from browsing them on the net. Get real, if you want quality you need experts, and these people are busy fixing the needs of the world. From my experience wiki is a joke pretending to be a athoritive source. Boot the kids or at least put net nanny on for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.176.84.161 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 15 February 2007  (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't claim to be reliable.  Read the disclaimer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is what it aims to be, not what it claims. Encarta and Britannica have disclaimers too.  That can hardly be taken as the mission statement.  Try reading Wikipedia:About and links therein.  Worldtraveller 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's been talked about for years.  Always a 'few months' away.  WP:STABLE is marked as inactive.  Worldtraveller 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia doesn't claim to be reliable or reputable.  Read the disclaimer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if people don't even believe that the aim of the whole project is to write a reliable and reputable reference work, no wonder there are severe quality problems!  Worldtraveller 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. DurovaCharge! 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm being too impatient when I worry that it will take a century to produce a quality encyclopaedia of any substantial size.  I'm not being melodramatic - it actually would take about 150 years to generate 50,000 featured articles.  Wouldn't you like a quality, reliable and authoritative free encyclopaedia before that?  Worldtraveller 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's not going to happen. The fact remains, no matter what you do, this encyclopedia is run by volunteers, which means that you can not incentivise your writers to go faster. If you try to make people go faster, they ignore you or they quit. And something really doesn't have to be featured to be good. -Amarkov moo! 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikis have inherent problems with reliability and authoritativeness.  I'm not sure how you extrapolate your prediction about featured articles - it seems to proceed from a premise that featuring will happen at a constant rate.  With a growing editor pool, and with existing articles collecting improvements and citations, I find it hard to predict what that curve will be.  Also bear in mind the standards for featuring: compare Pericles to the comparable article at Britannica or Bartleby's or Encarta.  None of the others have line citations - they'd be rated B or A grade on our scale.  Yet the Wikipedia article has over 150 line citations and an extensive bibliography.  What any encyclopedia strives to provide is a basic introduction to a subject and a starting point for further research.  Arguably, Wikipedia already does that very well although the quality here is uneven. DurovaCharge! 03:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In the university setting at least, students can't use WP for the same reason they can't use Encyclopedia Brittanica or the World Book or any other encyclopedia - because encyclopedias are not scholarly sources. Even the most elementary freshman paper is expected to rely on primary and secondary sources rather than encyclopedias. There is nothing unique about WP here, except that it is more visible for some reason. CMummert · talk 15:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: [previously posted at WP:VPM#Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing]
:Wikipedia doesn't claim to be reliable or reputable.  Read the disclaimer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if people don't even believe that the aim of the whole project is to write a reliable and reputable reference work, no wonder there are severe quality problems!  Worldtraveller 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. DurovaCharge! 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm being too impatient when I worry that it will take a century to produce a quality encyclopaedia of any substantial size.  I'm not being melodramatic - it actually would take about 150 years to generate 50,000 featured articles.  Wouldn't you like a quality, reliable and authoritative free encyclopaedia before that?  Worldtraveller 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's not going to happen. The fact remains, no matter what you do, this encyclopedia is run by volunteers, which means that you can not incentivise your writers to go faster. If you try to make people go faster, they ignore you or they quit. And something really doesn't have to be featured to be good. -Amarkov moo! 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikis have inherent problems with reliability and authoritativeness.  I'm not sure how you extrapolate your prediction about featured articles - it seems to proceed from a premise that featuring will happen at a constant rate.  With a growing editor pool, and with existing articles collecting improvements and citations, I find it hard to predict what that curve will be.  Also bear in mind the standards for featuring: compare Pericles to the comparable article at Britannica or Bartleby's or Encarta.  None of the others have line citations - they'd be rated B or A grade on our scale.  Yet the Wikipedia article has over 150 line citations and an extensive bibliography.  What any encyclopedia strives to provide is a basic introduction to a subject and a starting point for further research.  Arguably, Wikipedia already does that very well although the quality here is uneven. DurovaCharge! 03:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In the university setting at least, students can't use WP for the same reason they can't use Encyclopedia Brittanica or the World Book or any other encyclopedia - because encyclopedias are not scholarly sources. Even the most elementary freshman paper is expected to rely on primary and secondary sources rather than encyclopedias. There is nothing unique about WP here, except that it is more visible for some reason. CMummert · talk 15:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thread moved from the Village Pump 

message: For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, I've added "" at the top of the essay, and created WP:WIF as a shortcut to it. -- Ben 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added essay tag and shortcut 

message: I've suggested before, but it would be helpful if the FA template linked to the particular version that was passed.  Reverting to that version would be made easier, and the "passed" version could be updated after a FAR.  A random editor who knows little about the topic when confronted with a Featured Article that seems to have picked up problems, would then have the ability to easily revert to the reviewed version. Jkelly 23:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. It's something I really miss on the FA template, much better than the link to the history page. Garion96 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As soon as all the  templates are installed (Gimmetrow and I are working on it), the approved version will be linked in article history.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Jkelly 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Credit to Dr pda, Gimmetrow, Kirill, and Raul654; entire article history will be given in the template.  For an example of a recent promotion with a "history", see Talk:Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice, very nice. Garion96 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, for an article with a more interesting history, see Talk:DNA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediately helpful small step for FAs 

message: Goodness, no mention of the single largest (IMO) failing of Wikipedia: one that really matters?  The ease with which special interest groups can, and do, push an agenda right up to the top of Google?   In my limited time on Wiki (one year), I've found that the following policies and guidelines are rarely enforced:  neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources, and no personal attacks.  My two cents is that the issues have little to do with featured status, although featured articles should at least set the example. 
Also, it's incorrect to judge that most FARCs are because of citations; articles may come to WP:FAR for lack of citations that may not be attended to, but those articles often have additional problems, due to the neglect of not being on anyone's watchlist.  The articles that are FARC'd for only citations—and have no other WP:WIAFA failings—aren't common.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Worldtraveller has provided a very reasonable assessment of the situation. I don't think we need to engage in math related to the proportion of articles that are "good/featured/whatever" to establish the problem. Some sampling and observation are enough to see that, to the extent that this project's goal is to match the coverage of a standard encyclopedia, it's pretty hit-or-miss. 
I have noted that the "process" orientation and philosophy of many users interested in the "wiki" ideal is often at odds with the goal of building a good encyclopedia. As Worldtraveller notes, we don't even have a way to consistently maintain the best articles. Why?—because any such method is deemed "anti-wiki". The question that really needs to be answered, at this point in the project's history, is: is this a wiki first, or an encyclopedia first?
Worldtraveller has proposed the "random article" test.  I propose this test: look at the last 200 Recent Changes, and count how many of them are unabashedly, directly building the encyclopedia. That means observing reasonably sound content being added (and not under a Trivia header) to an article that is not a bordline AfD candidate. (The info on bytes added/removed narrows the search quite quickly.) If you can find one substantive article-space change in 200, you're doing good. (Quadruple bonus points if it's not a "pop culture" article.) –Outriggr § 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How depressing. I just looked at the most recent 50, found just one substantial building-the-encyclopaedia edit, then deleted it as a copyvio. :-( Hesperian 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good way of sampling what is currently being done, and the results are not at all what I expected - definitely cause for concern.  Worldtraveller 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the view from this heading 

message: I'd like to see stable versions implemented as per other people here, but in the interim until this is available (it certainly doesn't seem on the near horizon from what I can tell) why can't we ensure our higher quality articles are a little more protected from inexperienced users and vandals by automatically semi-protecting them? It is currently far too easy for random people to negate the hard work done by people to bring an article to these higher standards. Over the long term, to prevent a high quality article from deteriorating you really need to have specialist knowledge related to the article itself - otherwise, besides the obvious vandalism it's difficult and time consuming to judge whether individual contributions are correct and improvements to the article. Does anyone think it's realistic for such experts to monitor their pet articles day-upon-day for the next X years or decades while Wikipedia exists? Semi-protection isn't a panacea, but it would raise the bar to help minimize the work of maintaining article quality, at least until something like stable versions arrives. (Caniago 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea, in theory at least. High-traffic Featured Articles like Dinosaur are hit with nearly constant vandalism and unhelpful edits. We recently had a fellow who replaced the entire text of the article with bulleted points, and who got very indignant when his contributions were reverted. It's hard to maintain FA articles while trying to build up new ones. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of new users making well-intentioned but obviously unhelpful changes is indeed a tricky one. Obviously, such changes need to be reverted aggressively, but you don't want to scare people away. Unfortunately, there is no clear place to ask for help in fending off particularly persistent editors of this sort. In general I think we should be less hesitant about reverting our featured articles. Aggressive reversion has a bad name but is the most powerful tool in the quality-maintainance toolbox for FAs and GAs. In many of the cases identified a few sections up, simply reverting to the featured version would have helped the article a lot, even if it rolled back a few positive edits as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Christopher. Unfortunately, reverting back to an earlier version cannot seriously be done for more than a few weeks or months. In the case of articles with information which is always evolving and ever-changing (such as the previously mentioned Dinosaur), it may not even be the best solution, though I cannot say what the "best" solution is. For now, the article remains on semi-permanent semi-protection, because of the near-constant IP vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection of GA and FA content

message: In order to reduce the amount of time spend patrolling for juvenile vandalisms I'd like to see page protection automated in an algorithmic manner based on page status, edit history and past protection. For example, a page that has N reverts of edits by anonymous users within a period of M days should get automatic semi-protection for P days. The values of N, M and P would vary based on past protection history and the GA/FA status of the page. — RJH (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated protection schemes

message: One reason I could see why this occurs is that new editors and a huge group of current editors are really ignorant and unaware of the policies of Wikipedia. I see tonnes of edits made which fails WP:V, don't even rely on references. Then when references are used, it is a blog or a primary source. Rarely does a reference appear that passes WP:RS. I see so much WP:OR it drives me nuts. Certain subsections of wikipedia such as TV show summaries do not follow policy much. They just cite the TV show as a primary source and then write up the plot. Why should we allow such an analysis on Wikipedia without reliable sources? Even worse, these fiction articles seem to produce lazy editors who do not know anything about WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR or any of the notability guidelines. This is what I precieve to be the real root of the issue. --Quirex 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that something like 30-50% of the articles I've worked on don't meet V. You see, V didn't become policy until well after I joined the wiki. I had created perhaps 1000 new/rewritten articles by that point, and I have little interest in slogging through them to go add a ref I've long ago forgotten. It doesn't mean those refs don't exist, nor could you possibly infer the information is any less accurate. All it means is that I didn't post a ref in the currently accepted format. I'm sure you do see "tonnes of edits" that fail V, but I remain unconvinced it has any meaning. Maury 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V doesn't require sources to be explicitly cited except for facts that are "challenged or likely to be challenged". It seems to be a fad lately to think that WP:V states that sources are required for every paragraph, or every fact, or something like that. CMummert · talk 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people added  tags in an article over statements it means the fact/statement is challenged and thus needs a citation. I don't think this fad is bad as it makes OR very obvious. That said whether or not everything has to be cited or referenced doesn't get around the fact people are unaware of the policies themselves and thus make poor edits. If you look at many AFDs people talk about how they feel and not about how this article does or doesn't violate policy. This is especially noticable with anything to do with WP:WEB. This is a general feeling I get. --Quirex 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Doesn't Ask WHY 

message: I find the moving of this article's title from "Wikipedia is failing" to "Wikipedia is succeeding" to be a bad faith propaganda move. Wikipedia has problems. Those problems need to be fixed, not brushed under the rug. RunedChozo 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - well, it's because we got slashdotted.  Having a discussion page entitled 'Wikipedia is failing' is misleading to outsiders - but we all recognise it for what it is - a place to discuss some specific issues with article quality.   That Wikipedia is the only open/volunteer-driven/non-commercial ever to make it into the top ten web sites on the planet means that we are NOT failing.  We are a runaway success - aside (arguably) from the Linux operating system, this is probably one of the greatest free/open projects in history, the greatest repository of human knowledge in history and the most widely read "book" in history.  That's a success by any stretch of the imagination.  Yeah - it would have been better not to be slashdotted with such a dramatic title.  Would they have headlined it if this topic was "Problem with promotion of high importance articles to featured article status"?  Hell no!  Fortunately, Slashdot readers are generally pretty smart people - they'll see it for what it is.  SteveBaker 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad faith move

message: After reading this essay and other editor's commments on it, I feel that many important points have been raised.  Will Wikipedia actually fail?  I think that depends on what the goal of WP is.  If it is to present encyclopedic knowledge; then no, it will not fail.  If the goal is to present NPOV encyclopedic knowledge; then yes, it will fail.  I think the problem is not in the quality of the writing (some of the best writing I have seen on here is in Pokemon articles), but it is in so many editors trying to push their opinions in many of these articles (especially in "high-profile" ones).  Unfortunately, this is something that I do not foresee changing.  Through my RC patrol, I have seen countless number of arguments in articles because of conflicting opinions.  This, however, is what make WP so good (the fact that anyone can edit).  Yet, this is what also makes WP somewhat unreliable in that one side of the argument will "win" if they have a larger faction.
:This is very common. I have been abused by islamic editors numerous times. RunedChozo 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My input 

message: I think we have to distinguish between Wikipedia as it really is and what its power structure seems to think it is or wants it to be. The real Wikipedia derives it authority from the collective knowledge, wisdom and commitment of thousands of editors, not from cited sources. Most articles are written be people who think they know their subject, not by someone sitting in some library abstracting info from secondary sources.  What the  V RS OR NPOV NOT et al policies really accomplish is providing experienced editors tools needed to control undesirable abuses of the system. These tools themselves depend on the judgment and good will  of the editors and administrators who use them, not rote application.  If they were enforced thoroughly and uniformly, most of Wikipedia would evaporate. 
Wikipedia is an experiment in decentralized content creation. The result is a resource that hundreds of millions of people use, a resource that no centralized organization could duplicate even if it had billions of dollars to spend. The quality of Wikipedia is best judged, in my opinion, not by reading random articles--there is plenty of junk-- but by selecting topics you know about and topics you've always been curious about and looking them up, then folowing the links from those articles. I've done both many times. Sure, I encounter articles that need work. But I am generally very impressed with what I find. And it is usully easy to spot bad information. 
The real question in my mind is whether Wikipedia is sustainable. Will the ratio of good editors to bad stay high enough as the initial excitement wears off and when most of the topics editors know about have been written about. It may be that a new phase will be required where more of the work goes into certifying articles and maintaining stability. Just because such a second phase may be needed doesn't by any means guarantee that there will be enough volunteers to carry it out. What this article demonstrates is the the FA and GA mechanisms have little hope of being what the next phase needs. They are too bureaucratic and labor intensive and, at the end, articles can drift away from the version that was approved. 
Maybe what is neded is not a single certification process, but a mechanism for incorporating many such processes and allowing decentralized groups to develop and implement their own. This could include Citizendium, FA, GA and others that might be proposed. Guidelines might be needed to insure some degree of neutrality. We should put more effort into coming up with ways such processes can hook into Wikipedia and encourge experimentation about the certification methods themselves. I think that's the only way we will find out what really works for us. --agr 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Interesting ideas Arnold.  My only problem is that WP is so inundated with guidelines right now that anymore could just cause a meta-physical catastrophe.   I think a change is needed to ensure the quality of the writing here but it just seems too many admins/editors are focusing more on guidelines and less on the writing. MetsFan76 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am suggesting are guidelines as to what constitutes an acceptable article certification process, not more guidelines for individual articles. These might incude open discussion, written judging criteria (subject to interpretation, of course), providing feedback, no partisan groups, no single individuals, etc. --agr 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I definitely agree with you there, unfortunately, WP is riddled with partisan groups, especially with certain articles. MetsFan76 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent points Arnold. I think it's important that we consider the ratings are the problem, not the articles. In fact, I think we need to stop and ask what these ratings do, if anything. They don't appear to improve the actual articles, and they seem to take up a lot of time, so what's the point? Maury 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some sense the  is a form of decentralized certification, identifying the better and more important articles in a given project. I've though for some time it might be a good idea to have a project specific peer review for articles to gain A-class status (just a little shy of FA), and B+ status (a mathematics specific grading for the better B-class articles). This could be a quicker process than FA/GA and might help stimulate projects to improve their articles. It would also raise the status of A-class articles giving some form of comunity validation to those articles. --Salix alba (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's doable (e.g. WP:MHA#A-CLASS), but requires a fairly large and active project to function consistently; it's probably not an option for most smaller projects. Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real Wikipedia is succeding 

message: I was watching live scores online for a Martina Hingis match a week ago.  When the match was over, I went over to wikipedia to look at the Hingis page.  I thought I may as well update the stats.  There's a LOT of them.  Within a few minutes, I had the basic stats up.  I thought I was quick, but the page for Hingis' opponent was updated within 30 seconds of the match ending.  Where else can you get info updated this quickly?  So I looked around and updated all the other stats on the Hingis page as well as a couple pages for the tournament she was in.  I also added a little paragraph because she broke a record for most tournaments won at that event previously held and tied by both herself and Davenport.  I thought this might be useful info.  I even sourced it.  Within 30 min, someone came in and said there was too much info and deleted most of what I wrote.  It happens all the time.  People are apparently good at nitpicking little details, but suck at actually writing useful content.  You can debate this all you want, but I don't see why deleting such a small amount of words would matter.  Anyways, this was negative reinforcement and I never want to contribute again.  You have editors where it's their way or the highway.  So what you have is turf wars.
I especially hate the citation needed tag.  I see this on things that can be verified in the real world, but because you can't find it online, then it's claimed to be unverified.  Well no.  It's unverified by you!  Not unverified by anyone who cares to look using traditional means.  And usually to find info on someone, I value words from the person him or herself.  Yet wikipedia has a rule not to allow people update info relating to them.  I can just imagine what the Alan Kay page has on the term Object Oriented.  Is he not allowed to say how he came about coining the term?  Can nothing be used that comes from him?  What about Neil Armstrong?  Are we not allowed to quote him saying "One giant leap for mankind"?  If I want to be ticked off in no uncertain way or if I want a flame war, I know exactly where to go: HERE!  Also, citation required when you state where the info was broadcast such as a news show with the date should be enough.  But no.  Citation needed.
But for those wondering what wikipedia has right is the general information.  And current events are stored in the discussion page, even if editors don't like this.  The general public LOVES it.  I rarely encounter a page where I don't find most of the info I want, or at least a starting point.  I think wikipedia is failing because the really useful (FA) information has to faught with blood for it to get included.  People consider the rules to be literal.  Rules are supposed to have intent.  If a rule would obstruct or otherwise make an article less valuable, it should be put aside for the good of the article.
: I had the same problem trying to get information on the various PSP firmware revisions added to the PSP page, an editor who thought he owned the page was continually reverting it off and harassing me. Who did the admins beat up? You guessed it, the new guy, they didn't do jack shit about his harassment of me. They're still at it even after another editor added the content I'd originally suggested to the article now. This is why wikipedia's going to die. People like me who actively want to make it better are way outnumbered by the stuck up admin snobs who get off on harassing people and the POV cliques who think they own the articles. RunedChozo 19:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ticks me off when I'm editing a page 

message: The reason the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia would be "failing" FLOABT is because there is no tracking of the number, size, quality and conflict of content in different areas of knowledge.
Quality: People don't up or down vote the quality of an article like articles are on Everything2 (which on E2 is itself a very subjective and flawed measure).
Content Coverage: There's no massive "tree" like on the directories for Google and DMOZ.org that says we have N articles on Materials Science and only M articles on Geology, so we need to focus on content here and there.
Size: Do number of words in an article count as quality? Why not an "overview/in brief" version of each article with a more in depth version for those who want more detail? When the dog from Star Trek gets more coverage than the deity it's named after (Porthos) it's kind of odd.
Conflict: There is way too much conflict over content and editors argue over seemingly over-zealous and anal-retentive administrators. The original content for Marshall McLuhan was wiped because it was (drumroll for irony) ... an essay.
Suggestions:
# A voting system from 1 to 10 (as opposed to strict yay or nay).
# An enhanced category system that allows people to create lists and categories together to remove this dichotomy between the two along with a category article count.
# "Node" a book or two. (E2's term.) This may be an idea for a different kind of school book report, ie we've got essay writing, review/regurgitate writing and then encyclopedic writing.
# 24 hour "chill out" period before obviously non-vandal content gets deleted.
Merosonox 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 2 cents repeated from [[Reddit]] because you (might) benefit most 

message: Just wondering:  are essays exempt from NOR? Proteus71 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course - that applies to articles.  Worldtraveller 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOR

message: In my oppinion, the quality isn't that bad. There are a lot of different people, a lot of different styles and you can't expect everybody to be a top author unless you write that into the posting requirements. After all this is a collective free-for-all approach and if someone does not like the quality s/he's free to improve it.
I am more concerned about the subjectivity of Wikipedia. 
For example: We tried to get Dr. James Jim Hurtak a Wikipedia page. The people who have studied his work are sure he has brought a higher knowledge with his books. Most people on this planet will not agree (because they do not know it or do not care at all). That's fine, but he is a person with a great scientific and spiritual background, founder of a worldwide active non-profit organization, publisher of music, videos and multimedia art, has written a lot of papers, is frequently on major archeologic expeditions, has released a ton of audio tapes and seminar papers and the whole esoteric scene has based hundreds of books on his work. He failed the WP:RS because links to his book, organization, google.video, UNO speaker reference and some science links have not been enough. I suppose because most of his scientific colleagues don't dare to credit him because he is also related to spirituality. He is even already referenced in Wikipedia. In my oppinion: we don't have many people on this world we can be this proud about.
What I entirely fail to understand is: Why do we have over 50 bondage models in Wikipedia (sorry, no offense girls) and girls not even 15 years old that just have made ONE record (also no offense), but a man like J.J.Hurtak is denied an entry. 
No question if the poeple mentioned above have deserved an entry. It seems that public known people get an entry here and that is ok. But I question the selection of the people. If an encyclopedia favors porn stars over spiritual/scientific stars then there is some balance needed. I can understand and accept that people are not into spirituality but the objectivity of Wikipedia is threatened if we do not honor the people who contribute massively to the human knowledge (notable in our oppinion or not).
My question is: is Wikipedia just another mainstream media or does it give room to the full spektrum? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MetaByte (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  questioning objectivity 

message: Wikipedia has information that NO OTHER encyclopedia in the world has.
Try and go to Encyclopedia Britannica and find an article on Radix Trees.
You can't.
Wikipedia has a breadth and a depth that is unsurpassed by any other publically and freely available repository of information.
I would call that one hell of a success.
Com2kid 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would propose that the essay's definition of success is subjective.  Featured articles require that "prose is compelling, even brilliant".  From a technical point of view accuracy is more important that prose.  Provided the prose is unambiguous and readable that is enough.  Maybe Wikipedia is simultaneously a dismal failure to a professor of English and a roaring success to a professor of Physics? John Dalton 22:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a battle going on in Wikipedia.  On one side are those who measure success as a proportion of good articles and are on the war path to delete what does not live up to their standards.  On the other side are those who measure success by information content and think having the information in Wikipedia is more important than an overall impression. John Dalton 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing amount of information 

message: Like the previous poster, I find all kinds of great info here in Computer Science,
Physics, and Mathematics that is nowhere else that I know of.
I have a PhD in Physics, so let me simply concentrate on a few Physics articles that I have read.
Uniformly, 10 out of 10, they were good articles.  Each was packed with accurate information and was a wonderful bringing-together of multiple perspectives.  I remember thinking: I wish this had been around when I was a grad student at Caltech back in the 80's, and no class or professor could give such a concise and accurate treatment of many aspects of particle physics (my specialty).
Here is something I noticed: several of these very good articles are marked as "start class" or some such thing...which I guess is some sort of rating scheme.  I think the ratings simply have not caught up with the quality of the contents.
64.128.85.2 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For topics where there are no shortage of knowledgeable editors, such as those you cite, its natural that the article quality will be quite good. However, for important domains where there are few knowledgeable editors contributing its a real struggle to maintain article quality in the face of hoards of uninformed editors, vandals, etc. In my area of interest we have a very small number of editors trying to maintain and improve over 1500 articles. I believe there are some fundamental changes to the way Wikipedia works which could improve the situation. (Caniago 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Michael really hit the nail on the head.  Many of the science articles are of good or even better status, mainly because it is scientists/educators/academics who are writing/contributing to them.  Other articles that do not reach such status seems to be a result of constant squabbling among opposing, and many times, biased opinions.  I would highly recommend most of the science/movies/TV shows/even Pokemon articles to people looking for information, but I would never, in good faith, direct them to any of the political/religious/racial articles; not because they aren't good, but because they tend to be too biased towards a particular "herd" opinion. MetsFan76 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's better than that! 

message: :Moved from the article page... (Caniago 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from [[User:Rfc1394]]

message: I quit WP earlier today and then saw this article at slashdot. I thought I'd come and make another post, simply pointing to my user page as to why I left. Good luck with changing things from within. I think it will never happen, except perhaps after WP becomes subject to a long, costly lawsuit over someone's biography. CyberAnth 10:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's problems are so systemic it will take a revolution, a new Project ... or worse

message: I am a little concerned with how the essay is structured as opposed to yesterday.  If the title of the article is "Wikipedia is failing", then the opening paragraph should not give opposing views by comparing WP to EB nor should all the evidence be presented first.  The essay should be re-structured giving views as to why WP is failing followed by all the evidence provided as to why it will not.  However, I don't think anything should be deleted as opposing views can open up a great debate!  Unfortunately, what I see here is exactly what I discussed in this talk page earlier: editors pushing a POV and basically burying what the main theme of the article is about but relegating to the bottom of the article.  Because this is not on a userpage, it can be edited by anyone, but please, do it the right way. MetsFan76 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm totally in favour of discussion and debate.  I want to reassure you that I haven't deleted anything, I moved it all to WP:WINF.  I'm totally opposed to people trying to obscure and suppress the points made in this article by swamping it with their own analysis of completely different points to those considered here.  The essay's narrow focus needs to be maintained, opposition needs to be expressed on the talk page or in WP:WINF, and people need to stop seeing it as a major threat - some people really seem to be taking personal offence at it.  My intention was to spark discussion, and I'm very happy it's been successful with that.  It would be much better if people, rather than spending time attacking me and this essay, set to work immediately on one or two vital articles and brought them up to the excellent quality we all want to see everywhere.  Worldtraveller 14:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry Worldtraveller, you have my vote.  I just feel that the opposing views should be left up to give readers a different opinion but those opinions should be stated after the reasons as to why WP is failing. MetsFan76 14:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that it's enough to give a link to the opposing essay, WP:WINF.  This essay simply sets out to show examples of measures by which Wikipedia could be considered to be failing, just as WP:NGR shows reasons why Wikipedia is not so great.  That doesn't also contain all the information at WP:WWISG but stands on its own with a negative point of view.  Worldtraveller 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason why all opinions cannot be accommodated in a single essay. The split makes it hard to follow what is going on, and makes the situation adversarial rather than collaborative. CMummert · talk 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All opinions should be accommodated, but whose bright idea was it to completely distort the article?  I haven't looked at the history yet but it has become clear that several individuals oppose this essay and are seeking to alter it so their POVs are read first.  This is a classic example of some of the problems on WP. MetsFan76 15:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing of the essay