Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is failing/Archive 2

message: I'm interested in the discussion!  I've long campaigned for some sort of trust system (no hierarchy, either you are in it or not - I hate hierarchies).  Is there a problem?  Just look at the Philosophy article which is complete SHITE from beginning to end.  It started off not too bad, got steadily worse and look at it now.  I have a sample of amusingly bad edits on my talk page, check it out (and check out the Bristol stool scale too).  
Something has to give.  I've lobbied admins, but the answer is always, it's my fault for not being able to handle trolls.  Oh well.  Keep up the campaign.  Dbuckner 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins don't care about writing a quality encyclopedia, are you kidding? They care about their power base and using it to get their rocks off harassing people. RunedChozo 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Through my RC patrolling, I have noticed the downfall of the Philosophy article and it's a shame.  I'm not sure how the admins can help out though as they are always so bogged down with rules and regulations and forget about maintaining the integrity of some of these very important articles. MetsFan76 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Philosophy is one of a handful of pathological articles.  Under the current system, the only solution is to achieve some sort of consensus amongst competent editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy to just aggressively revert any edit to that article that is not an obvious, indisputible improvement.  But the real solution is to take whatever good ideas came out of "article probation", "stable versions", etc. and begin experimenting with them on articles that are floundering.  Jkelly 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the [[Philosophy]] department 

message: The critical criteria proposed flatly state that continued exponential growth of Wikipedia is assumed.  An assumption of continuous exponential growth might not hold true.
:It might not.  But assuming the present situation will hold into the near future seems a lot more reasonable than assuming that some other law we haven't seen before will soon come into play.  Worldtraveller 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rate of article creation vs. rate of article improvement

message: I argue that the overall quality of Wikipedia doesn't need to match that of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but the current situation is becoming unbearable. If the quality of articles (and above all, reliability) is not improved, Wikipedia will fail. It will become just a massive mess of junk text and the primary source of misinformation. From this point of view the increasing number of articles becomes irrelevant, or even a negative issue. In addition, the nonsense and poor editing may become so overwhelming that the more experienced editors will lose their interest (many already have) and leave the project further speeding up its downfall. Therefore, something radical must be done.--JyriL talk 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget about the bureaucracy and politics that go on here.  I think if those issues can somehow be rectified (which they can't), then maybe people can focus more on writing and improving articles and less on if an article is an essay or a stub or or bringing articles in for mediation or three-revert rules.  Granted, these are important regulations, but people spend way to much time on them and the articles suffer. MetsFan76 15:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia:Static version or a similar system should be implemented. It doesn't help disputes and problems within the Wikipedia community, but makes the encyclopedia more reliable which should be the primary goal.--JyriL talk 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end is nigh 

message: I do see that my original arrangement diluted the initial data presented by User:Worldtraveller and would be happy to re-arrange it to present everything fairly from a NPOV.  I'm very sorry for having been inconsiderate, but hope that you will forgive me for it.  I don't think it's helpful to threaten anyone with WP:3RR or WP:OWN; I'm sure that we all know the policies and share a common goal of making this essay fair, complete and well-referenced, especially now that it's become so prominent in the public eye.
That said, if indeed the goal is an open-minded NPOV debate about whether Wikipedia is failing, rather than a soapbox essay espousing one viewpoint, then we should allow alternative viewpoints and alternative data.  I worked rather hard to assemble the standard criteria by which all encyclopedia are judged, and provided references for all of my hard data.  If you disagree with those criteria or data, or with their application to judging whether Wikipedia is failing, then the burden of proof would seem to fall on those who disagree to provide referenced counter-criteria or counter-data. 
Again, it's not enough to say that Wikipedia is failing; we should strive to analyze in what ways it's failing, the reasons for those shortcomings and possible solutions for it.  Hoping that you agree and also for a serene resolution, Willow 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Willow, no apology is necessary.  Your words above are very respectful and hopefully helpful to the discussion here.  After just looking at WP:NOTFAIL, I noticed that the structure there is much better than the one that was being implemented here.  That essay is broken down into several sections refuting each point in WP:FAIL with their own evidence.  If something like that was used here, it might be more accepted rather than pushing all of the "Fail" ideas to the bottom. MetsFan76 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the way Wikipedia is failing is simple: it should be completed by now but only about 1% of Americans edit the thing.  If we each got five of our friends to make a couple of edits, two of them would become hooked, and Wikipedia would be finished in no time.  Essays like WP:WIF aren't the way to do that. Heathhunnicutt 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object most strongly to people who disagree with this essay attempting to force their own bias into it by rewriting it totally.  You're completely missing the point of it and denying everyone else the opportunity to see the simple, evidence-based argument it presents.  You would do everyone a much greater service by working on WP:WINF.  Can you understand why there are two opposing essays at WP:NGR and WP:WWISG, rather than a single essay including both views?  Worldtraveller 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heathhunnicutt, I think issue is that you are not respecting Worldtraveller's opinion.  If you feel so strongly about WP not failing, then why don't you contribute to that essay and let the people who feel that WP is failing work on this one.  That way, we don't introduce any biases into each essay.  I respect your opinion but it is really introducing alot of unnecessary debate.  Worldtraveller is trying to express his opinion in a meaningful way just like you are so maybe we should all just leave things alone for a bit and allow other editors to chime in.  This is not a debate that will be resolved anytime soon. =) MetsFan76 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair and open debate

message: If there are several problems with the "random article" method as listed, then obviously it is a poor method to determine the quality of articles and it is a poor statement to make in the article.  I will not remove it from the article yet, as I would like discussion, but already the article is starting to look like WP:NOTFAIL by attacking the methods by which the editor believes WP is failing.  I think we either need a better method or delete that from the article. MetsFan76 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics?  The sad thing here is that such bad math has been used to confuse people; in particular the bit about everlasting exponential growth. Heathhunnicutt 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraction of good articles in Wikipedia 

message: The people who are trying to re-write this essay in a far more positive light are missing the point of it and behaving stupidly.  It is here to be provocative and engender discussion.  It is based on clear evidence.  You are adding material which clearly attempts to dilute the arguments presented.  I think you are mature enough to understand that WP:NGR and WP:WWISG come to different conclusions and that an article that attempted to fuse the two would be useless.  The same applies here, and you can put all your positive analysis in WP:WINF.  We'll all be better off for that.  Stop trying to disrupt the discussion here and suppress arguments that you disagree with.  Worldtraveller 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with Worldtraveller's views (see my comments on the talk page) and I wish he'd avoid terms like "behaving stupidly." But I agree that it is better to have a clearly stated position to argue against than a diluted mishmash.  I'd encourage him to be bold and revert to a version he feels best makes his case, as long as he includes a prominent link to the other side's article. Yeah, maybe this the wrong name space. So what? He has started a useful discussion.--agr 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unfortunately, Worldtraveller and Willow have both been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR.  The admin who blocked them just justified my above words in that many editors/admins are more concerned about rules/regulations that actually editing.  A good debate was going on here and now its been postponed regrettably. MetsFan76 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is unconscionable in this case. CyberAnth 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What you fail to realize, Alabamaboy, is that nobody is insinuating that they "own" this article.  It is an essay detailing someone's views and opinions on why WP is failing.  It raised very good points and quality discussion.  To block our two main contributors is counter-productive and for you to revert the article is even worse. MetsFan76 19:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized you mentioned that a consensus should be reached.  How can a consensus be reached if you are going to revert the article? MetsFan76 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because one editor was removing the edits without consensus and acting like he owned the essay. Start a discussion on this subject. If consensus is to keep Willow's edits out, then so be it. I for one, though, think Willow added valid points to this essay which belong here and not at 
WP:WINF.--Alabamaboy 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I respect Willow's points, most of them were diluting the article and were refuting why WP is not failing so why wouldn't they go over there?  Anyway, an addendum has been added to the article to make everyone happy. MetsFan76 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Go to WP:WINF where a more solution-oriented essay is starting.-BiancaOfHell 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that this page is "part of Wikipedia." According to WP:NAMESPACE all Wikipedia articles are in the main namespace (no prefix). It says the project namespace (Wikipedia: prefix) is " for matters about the project, such as guidelines and discussions". One cannot have a discussion if one person's stated opinions are constantly being edited by people with a differing viewpoint. This page was cited in Slashdot and people coming from there should be able to see the original version, not a watered down consensus.I am restoring the page to he original author's last version and removing the essay template.--agr 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed someone has added a note and link to the original version, so I have not reverted the article. I don't want to add to a revert war.--agr 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You didn't even give it a chance for discussion on the talk page.  You just went and reverted without any input in the talk page from you.  Do you mean that WP is not the place for this kind of essay? MetsFan76 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in project space, unless the essay is open to edits by everyone.--Alabamaboy 02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People trying to re-write this essay

message: (Someone placed the following into the article and not here on talk CyberAnth 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questioning these criteria

message: This article is going to just keep getting reverted back and forth.  This is ridiculous and now our two main contributors have been blocked for edit warring.  This is why there are problems with WP. MetsFan76 19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Even an essay that would serve to spark discussion to move WP away from kiddieland degrades so much its author would not recognize it. I placed the link at the top of the article into its history. Let us see how long that lasts before the trollish wikilawyers find some policy they can twist to remove it. CyberAnth 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully it lasts.  I also posted a comment on your talk page regarding it.  Good job! MetsFan76 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: Mentioned above.  Rubbish.  Just go to that page, and click on the Category of philosophy articles needing attention (located at the bottom).  There you can find about 200 more pathological articles. Dbuckner 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, Dr. Buckner, I agree with you.  Though I do take delight in moments when good authors and good administrators run into each other and then protect pages, like here.  Maybe the good authors among us just need to solicit more "security". KSchutte 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philosophy]] is one of a handful of pathological articles 

message: As the title says, should Willow's edits be allowed in this essay? I for one see Willow's points as correcting several major flaws with this essay. Because of this, I believe Willow's edits should be here and not at WP:WINF. That said, if people wish to have the essays and views on this issue totally separate, then I'd suggest a note at the top of both essays with a link back to the other side's views. Either way, though, no one's edits to this essay should be simply deleted, as was done to Willow, without discussion and consensus. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor should the article be reverted without discussion and consensus.  I think everyone as a whole should express their ideas below regarding the entire article and maybe we can come up with something that would make everyone happy. MetsFan76 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The more fundamental question is whether an essay in the Wikipedia: namespace is open to editing by all editors. The current banner at the top of the page  suggests the idea, which I had previously never heard of, that an essay in WP space can have a single author whose opinion controls what the essay says no matter what other editors think. I would think that user space is more appropriate for personal opinion than WP space. CMummert · talk 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So should WP:NOTFAIL go on a user space as well? MetsFan76 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that if you explicitly want it to be your own personal opinion, without interference from anyone else, then you should keep it in your own userspace, where others are strongly discouraged from changing it. By putting an article into WP space you are encouraging others to edit it. CMummert · talk 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Worldtraveller was discouraging others from editing the article, but I do think he had a right to remove edits that had absolutely nothing to do with why WP is failing.  What he removed was material that diluted his argument.  Should we all go to WP:NOTFAIL and fill it with evidence why WP is failing?  Of course not.  While its important to have conflicting ideas in these types of articles, when the balance is lost, the article becomes worthless and just another venue to push POVs. MetsFan76 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the article should have been in user space, but it was a good faith attempt at criticism and it got wide attention outside the Wikipedia community via Slashdot. Allowing it to be edited in a way that waters down its impact makes Wikipedia look like we can't take criticism. People should be able to read the original author's essay in its full form. Discussion is one of the stated uses of the project namespace. The idea that one side in a discussion should be able to edit the positions of the other side is bizarre. --agr 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Alabamaboy, what is the title of this article?  I'm not accusing Willow or anyone else of anything but when someone strategically places edits to change the theme of the article, then yes, a POV is being pushed. The note on top is simply stating that an alternate version of the article exists, which you reverted, that readers might also be interested in. WP:NOTFAIL also exists so maybe both articles should be combined. MetsFan76 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm baffled by this notion that essays are free-for-alls. By definition, an "essay"—which Wikipedia sanctions with a template tag—is not a free-for-all. If you don't agree with the essay, you're showing disrespect to the person who wrote it by tampering with it.  You can refute it on the talk page, link to your own counterpoint, or whatever, but this wiki ideal that anyone can edit anything is not an excuse to obfuscate someone else's opinions because you don't agree with them. –Outriggr § 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others are baffled by the idea that the author posted his/her personal opinion in the WP namespace when he/she didn't want others to edit it, ignoring the third pillar. Why not just keep it in userspace and put pointers on a few talk pages?  I'm glad it was moved to userspace, which puts the issue to rest. CMummert · talk 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you don't mind then if I change the wording of your last comment to something silly? Third pillar, baby. –Outriggr § 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Standards on talk pages differ from article/project pages. I agree with your comments on editing personal essays, but there a legit question of where they belong. Keeping them on User pages is a reasonable position. We are not a bolg host so personal essays have a limited role on Wikipedia. I'm willing to give Worldtraveller the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply misjudged the appropraite place for his essay. Before this discussion, I might have done the same.--agr 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I see your point. I just wished to point out that I'm not sure how different editing a user's "essay" is (unsolicited) from editing someone's talk page remarks. I know they may be seen as different under the wiki ethos (namespaces et al), but from a "reasonable man" POV, I'd expect editors to show more discretion in that regard. Anyway, I must stop now. –Outriggr § 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Worldtraveller, the essay is all yours now.  I hope when your block is banned that you contribute to it again.  I plan on linking it from my user page and I hope others will too.  Good luck! MetsFan76 01:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Willow's edits be allowed in this essay? 

message: I find it amusing that somewhere along the line the section I added on "horsetrading" has been removed . How to get it back? Why, by horsetrading, of course! (I'm not too fussed by its removal, actually, just find it amusing that it's business as usual even here!) Sdedeo (tips) 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: horsetrading

message: Too bad all of the time and effort that went into the above debate didn't go into improving actual wikipedia articles. Awadewit 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've discovered many Wikipedians prefer squabbling over contributing. See WP:FAC for a perfect example. 129.120.94.174 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, if we can't reflect on the negative aspects of Wikipedia and try to improve the situation to make the system more effective then wikipedia will certainly fail. (Caniago 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see all that much reflection and reasoned debate going on here. Awadewit 05:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lead by example and start offering some reasoned comments if your insight is that much better than everyone else. (Caniago 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiny comment

message: I would say the only thing Wikipedia is currently failing in is properly referenced articles, especially on people. However, it's been getting much better due to stricter guidelines and enforcement. 129.120.94.174 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: failing

message: All who have an interest in well-writen and well-cited articles but don't like , please read and edit the essay I have written and released to the public domain: Wikipedia:A suggested improvement 0001. --Heathhunnicutt 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read your essay, which concerns templates, mostly.  A very mechanical solution.  Nowhere do I see any attempt to address the main problem, which is lack of good human editors.  This could be addressed by giving them a pleasant working environment, and freedom from the endless task of fighting vandalism, arguing with recalcitrant individuals with idiosyncratic theories, &c.  Dbuckner 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My suggestion to improve Wikipedia