Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is failing/Archive 3

message: How could Wikipedia face these challenges? Scrap the current monolithic article model, and begin publishing incremental edits in XML instead. Make a "Semantic Wiki". (I realize this term is already used in a different sense, which sounds more like RDF content edited in a traditional wiki.) 
This way, independent third-parties could serve customized edit filters into the main Wikipedia database. For instance, one site could serve only articles composed of edits made by scholars (together with minor edits by non-scholars perhaps, to allow for things like spelling corrections). Another site could serve only articles composed of edits approved by a board of editors whose particular editorial style you like. Yet another site could serve edits based on mass moderation. And yet another site (say, wikipedia.org) could allow you to select from all the available edits to an article in order to tailor the article which meets your exact quality demands. Companies like Google could mirror the edit database and apply their own proprietary search and ranking technologies. Contributors could discuss and evaluate single edits in detail, and so on.
Wikis has opened up editing. Now let's open up viewing as well. AndersFeder 04:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AndersFeder, author of the above section, has twice deleted comments which refer to existing Wikipedia features which supply an article in XML format with edit history.  Perhaps he should move the above section to his own userspace as an essay rather than leaving it here to imply that Wikipedia is missing a feature which it might already have.  Otherwise he should explain what is not already available which he envisions so we can better understand what his vision is.  (SEWilco 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you (and it really is just you writing, not "we") don't understand my "vision" (you picked that term, not me), why don't you just state it, rather than tagging some nonchalant "see this-random-unrelated-article" comment at the end of mine? Quit the ad hominem bullshit, and respond to the idea I outlined if you have anything to add (which I doubt you do). --AndersFeder 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Semantic Wiki 

message: The article mentions vital articles, and seems to suggest that nothing is wrong here.  There's plenty wrong.  Here is my assessment of the philosophy vital articles, as follows:
* Philosophy – we know all about this.  We just got an incorrigible troll evicted (6 month block) after two months of pleading, but only after being ticked off twice by admins for being bad editors by not being nice to the troll blah blah.  It is still a complete mess.
* Beauty – this is actually not bad
* Ethics – no tags, and not a bad article
* Epistemology – not so bad, but still has an unsourced claims template.
* Belief – 'may contain original research or unverified claims'
* Knowledge – 'Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed'.  Begins 'Knowledge is what is known'.  Indeed.  
* Truth – suffered a severe bout of trolling about a year ago, and is now a shattered relic of its original self
* Dialectic – begins 'This article may contain original research or unverified claims.'  Quite so.
* Logic – I recruited an expert to tidy this up last year, but he disappeared, and the project was never completed. It's a mess.
* Metaphysics  - this has a well-deserved cleanup tag.  Starts off OK but rapidly gets worse. 
Existence – I tidied this up a year ago, but was vandalised late last year.  I haven't had the energy to revisit it.
* Ontology – good God I never spotted that one on troll patrol.  Complete nonsense.  An abomination. 
* Reality – as the title suggests, this was going to be complete nonsense, and it was. 'This page has been temporarily protected from editing to deal with vandalism.'
Dbuckner 11:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thus we see one of the advantages of Wikipedia's model. If an article degrades too much, you can simply go back to an earlier and better revision. --cesarb 15:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, the whole theory of Wiki, the basic theological proposition that it is built on, is that articles can't possibly degrade like that.  Or was your comment tongue in cheek. Ah, now I see it was.  Very funny, my dear sir.  Dbuckner 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't. The very reason the articles don't degrade is precisely because if they do, you can simply revert to an earlier, non-degraded revision. Without that ability, one single person could simply blank the page, and you'd have instant irrecoverable full degradation. Of course, an article can temporarily degrade, but in the long run, the degradation will be reverted and the article can only get better. --cesarb 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When does "the long run" start and/or end? CyberAnth 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You are showing a very blind optimism to believe that over the long term every article is on a path to improving. Reverting is only a temporary respite, it relies on people knowing that a better version exists in the past, which isn't always the case. An article may never reach a respectable level of quality if it is consistently degrading over time, regardless of how many times its reverted. (Caniago 02:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I don't agree that 'Wikipedia is failing' in any global sense, but 'the article can only get better' is the kind of unreflective assumption-making that impedes meaningful assessment of where, if anywhere, we are failing. Opabinia regalis 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More evidence of failure - [[Wikipedia:Vital articles]] 

message: This might not be a top-level core article, but an example of possible strategies to recruit editors.  Back in March, someone sent out a message on the Regional Science Association International mailing list to point out how pitiful the Regional science article on Wikipedia was.  Two editors came along and fixed it up , though it still has ways to go to become good or featured.  And, I wonder why only two people showed up?  Is there something about Wikipedia (anyone can edit, vandalism, ...) that makes it not worth one's time (for experts and graduate students in this topic).  Of course, writing Wikipedia articles doesn't earn one points on one's academic C.V., like other writing activities.  It may risk some of my real-life academic reputation to go back to the mailing list with my real-name and bring this up again.  But, it might be beneficial if I want back on there (maybe under an anonymous e-mail) and asked why or why not people would contribute to Wikipedia.  Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested in the results of your informal poll, Aude. I personally know many users who regularly use Wikipedia, but who just aren't all that interested in editing it. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS In one of the comments on that article there is an interesting point made about why maths and science generally seem to fare a little better in Wikipedia.  Reason: people who aren't good at maths know it.  By contrast, the is a small minority of people who think they are good at arts subjects (and philosophy is top of the list here because, hey, everyone's a philosopher).  These people are generally acting in good faith - they really believe they have something important to say.  But they make life hell for the rest of us.  The User:Ludvikus case was an excellent example.  Dbuckner 13:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a fundamental problem: everyone has an equal opportunity to edit Wikipedia but editors' expertise varies hugely. Something must change; one possible solution is to prefer editors who are actual experts on the subject. For example, let only a philosopher to make substantial edits to the philosophy article, or if there is argument between a professional philosopher and a non-expert, philosopher's opinion prevails. We really can't afford to lose professionals. There are so many subjects that only a real expert can write properly.--JyriL talk 14:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that is a great idea for another website, but against the way Wikipedia works. If they are experts they can provide citations and will be given plenty of credence. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that would work, as it seems anti-wiki.  However, I think it's important to be humble and give extra respect and deference to people that are more knowledgeable and expert when I see them.  One example was the HIV article, where I know one of the editors, User:Grcampbell, is a recognized research scholar and expert on that topic.  There is really not much, beyond copyediting and small thing, that I can add or improve upon with that article.  He knows the scholarly literature pertaining to the topic and can easily find whatever references needed way better than I can.  Same with the global warming article -- I do have some expertise (graduate school level) but User:William M. Connolley is a published research scholar and expert in the topic of climate change.  I had read of his scholarly articles and aware of his work before I joined Wikipedia and saw him here.  I do what I can with the article, but will defer to him. --Aude (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is anti-wiki. The problem may lie in the idea of wiki philosophy itself, and we may have to change the idea how Wikipedia works. If the reckless editors and trolls can oust good editors, how anyone can think we can succeed?--JyriL talk 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you can download a DB dump, and make your own Wikipedia, Wikipedia welcomes forking. But people have done this, and changed the rules, and those sites did less well than Wikipedia. Anyone who thinks they can do better can make their own Wikipedia, yet nobody has succeeded in building a better model. I think there is even a fork that required academic credentials before you can edit. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Citizendium (geez, I hate that name). And yes, you're correct, forks tend to stagnate and I am against forking. But we must find a simple and acceptable way to retain the quality of good articles and also find a way how editors could be encouraged to improve poor articles. If the wiki philosophy can be maintained, all the better.--JyriL talk 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, domain expertise is not so important as the ability to write well.  That requires reading around the subject (using books, remember those), making a judgment about which information of the 100 pages you read should be condensed into 2 paragraphs, spelling it correctly and using tolerable grammar.  Also, placing those paras in the right part of the right article.  And we aren't going to get world-class experts, anyway.  We need to be attracting good editors of the first sort by a sort of trust model.  The more good edits, the better.  The problem is to measure the trust the editor has earned.  Perhaps just: start with a small bunch of people who are trusted, then anyone else who they trusted is also trusted, then those new ones can pass on their trust, too.  Do it simply by having a list of editors you trust on your user page.  Very simple.  Then if a certain minimum of trusted editors, have problem with someone, they inform an admin, and there is an immediate block.  Period of block increases until the offender is out.  That is roughly how it works at the moment anyway, but it could be formalised.  Dbuckner 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruitment 

message: I tried the useful exercise a suggested, the eigth article was the FA British House of Commons. Prior to that was Bobbie E. Brown, Cacerolazo with the worst article being Ahmet Uzun Gnangarra 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful exercise 

message: When JzG moved this page back to WP space, he/she also added it to a list of pages protected from editing.  This seems inappropriate, at least in the long term - if this page is going to sit in WP space it needs to be open to editing like all other pages. CMummert · talk 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only semi-protected from new or unregistered users. <S>And it was not JzG, </S>see the protection log.  HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Strange, the log shows it being fully protected as the last action, but it is semi-protected... HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahh, I see it is being effected by cascading protection. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, now it should only be semi-protected. I assume we can avoid an edit war despite the disagreement. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Cascading blocks are hard to spot, so it is possible that the protection of this page was not intentional. CMummert · talk 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection ? 

message: I have an odd idea for alleviating some of the pressure of vandalism on the quality of wikipedia.  Would it be possible, once an anon IP were blocked for vandalism, to put a cookie on the anon's computer which disallowed further editing from that computer without signing up for an account?  Obviously the more computer literate and determined vandals would figure it out and delete the cookie, but I wonder if it wouldn't make a difference? --Bmk 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) page for such a suggestion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting idea. I see it as similar to the current approach of blocking IP addresses or addresss ranges, and therefore it may have a small benefit, but there are so many potential vandals and computers around the world (think about how many immature school children there are on the planet) that it wouldn't make a significant difference just as IP blocking hadn't been very effective. (Caniago 15:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience as a user and an admin, I don't think vandalism is a big problem, it is handled. Of course this is all off topic for this page hehe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think your assertion is totally wrong, and isn't based upon any available evidence. If you read up the page I and other people have provided a very strong case that vandalism is not being handled very well and it is contributing to the burn-out of   valuable editors. This this sort of discussion is not off topic at all, the page is about where Wikipedia is failing. If you want to contribute effectively to this article and the discussion you should read what others have already contributed. (Caniago 16:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism cookie 

message: We finally got it to the point where it wasn't quite so stupid and some decent questions were being asked, then Worldtraveller decided that he owned the article and objected to it being editted. So then we moved it as a user subpage, but then it got moved again. However, it was the old ridiculous version. So now we are back to the way things were all along. Not a particularly outstanding move here... without meaning to give much offense to those who wanted to sort out this stupid essay. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page move has been a debacle 

message: Worldtraveller, please don't revert good work. There's been enough problems with page moves, reverts, etc. without more. If you have something to say and you don't want it changed, don't put it in the Wikipedia namespace. Create a user subpage. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not your soapbox, and you do not own this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah yeah yeah own own own.  You do not own this article; you should not unilaterally decide that a whole rewrite is needed.  The version you reverted to is not the one that everyone's discussing, it has a different objective and different conclusions, and should go somewhere else, like WP:NOTFAIL.  Let's have intelligent discussion about the thesis presented, rather than trying to change the goalposts as we go along.  If you rewrite the whole thing, you're doing everyone a disservice.  Worldtraveller 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't. Those edits were done by at least 3 or 4 other editors. See the article history if you don't believe me. If you are so unhappy with this, create a user subpage. I will edit this as I feel is necessary, if others agree with my edits then they'll contribute also. I'd suggest not discounting what I say, incidently. I can't see where I'm being unreasonable! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's generally agreement that trying to subvert the whole point of the essay is not productive.  Try and discuss the points raised, rather than trying to erase them.  It's more likely to lead to a general sense of whether we agree with the thesis presented, or not.  Worldtraveller 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, I did previously. Your revert to the version actually removed all my material. That happened directly because you seem to believe that you own the article. Why do you believe that? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WT, there is a world of difference between subverting it and contextualising.  Guy (Help!) 09:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  But Ta Bu Shi Da Yu is simply trying to whitewash it.  He doesn't believe that Wikipedia is failing, he's obviously quite upset that someone thinks it is, and is desperately trying to wipe out all the arguments that suggest that it might be.  He's turning this essay into something which says "well, this might be bad, but not if you look at it in this skewed way, so everything's OK after all!  Woohoo!".  That is utterly banal, and no help to anyone.  Maybe it makes him feel better though.  Worldtraveller 11:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple reverts 

message: The questions I have removed are:
*Is radical change required, or just small adjustments to the current set-up?
*What is Wikipedia really, and what do we want it to be?
*Are volunteer editors suitable to meet our future objectives?
*Does this matter, given that Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the world?
Firstly, there is no wide agreement that a radical change is required to Wikipedia. Not everyone thinks we are failing. Secondly, we are a volunteer effort. That's not going to change, and it's useless to say otherwise. If you don't like that, go to another project like Citizendium. The question about whether things really matter: what point is being made here?
These questions are leading and based on the assumption that we don't have enough quality articles (due to a number of disputed reasons and conclusions). They're leading, and not particularly constructive questions. I should point out that is what the Wikipedia namespace is there for. In fact, another question is: shouldn't this be on Metawiki? Anyway, the original author is welcome to create a user subpage asking these questions, but others will and should be allowed to edit this essay. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there isn't agreement that radical change is needed.  That's why it's an open question.  I am not so fussed about the volunteer question, but the others are significant, important questions that people should consider.  Worldtraveller 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then may I ask you to rephrase the question? You are asking a question with the assumption that radical change is needed. Many disagree with the question you are asking. I am just one of those people. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not starting with that assumption at all.  "Is radical change required" doesn't assume anything.  Maybe you could change it to "Is radical change required, or just small adjustments to the current set-up, or is everything working fine as it is?", though.  How about that? Worldtraveller 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be true if that is actually what you wrote. However, you wrote "Is radical change required, or just small adjustments to the current set-up?". This presupposes that changes need to be made in the first place. Selectively quoting the question isn't particularly helpful here. A better question might be "If changes are required to Wikipedia, what should they be?". - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the question now, in the form I noted above. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open questions removed 

message: If wikipedia is failing is because most of our energy is wasted in dealing with controversial articles. If we can somehow release that wasted energy, we would do much better. One suggestion is to ask scholars to write controversial articles say antisemitism but then the question would be which scholar to ask and how to make sure it will become NPOV? On controversial topics, each scholar has his own view and some people like that, others don't. We still want the editors to be able to contribute (at least suggest) how the article could be improved.--Aminz 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion