Vanity of Article Writers, ...a time to cast away stones Options

[GlassBeadGame]

I have been struck lately by the growing smugness of "article writers." Those who avoid wonkery and administraton for the creaton or "improvement" of articles on Wikpedia. To hear them say you would thing they were creating some great works of literature. I got to tell you I don't see it. Even among our FA artistes. They use this activity much in the same way "vandal patrols" or policy wonks use the stuff they do for playing the game that is Wikipedia.

At best I'd say is "Well pretty good for a sand painting made in a sandbox surrounded by pre-schoolers flinging rocks and spraying down the place with pressure hoses...but come back tomorrow." Wikipedia articles, even FAs, are no great shakes. Certainly they don't justify the sense of self-entitlement these prima donnas pretend. Nor do they make up for the many levels or irresponsibilty directed at people outside the project that results from their work.

The only thing of any value in Wikipedia is it partially functions in the the same task Wikia Search fails at, collecting a list of manually generated sources (very imperfectly vetted) and indirectly returning them on the top of search request. You don't need article writers for this task at all.

[Emperor]

For a while I made it a game to pick apart the featured article of the day. It wasn't all that difficult to find glaring errors, if I already knew something about the subject. For topics where I had no prior knowledge, Wikipedia articles seemed perfectly plausible. On the other hand, Wikipedia is often better than the other crap on the internet.

As the owner of another website that lives on user-generated content, I can honestly say that I love article writers.

[Luís Henrique]

For a while I made it a game to pick apart the featured article of the day. It wasn't all that difficult to find glaring errors, if I already knew something about the subject. For topics where I had no prior knowledge, Wikipedia articles seemed perfectly plausible.

But isn't this part of the problem?

When I read an article about, say, Thailand, or the proccess of refining iron ore, or emphysema, I wonder whether they actually make any sence, as it superficially seems, or if they are full of lies, pranks, urban legends, fantasies, like those about subjects I have some actual knowledge.

Luís Henrique

[Milton Roe]

But isn't this part of the problem?

When I read an article about, say, Thailand, or the proccess of refining iron ore, or emphysema, I wonder whether they actually make any sence, as it superficially seems, or if they are full of lies, pranks, urban legends, fantasies, like those about subjects I have some actual knowledge.

Luís Henrique

Sure, but you have that problem about most of what you learn in life, since you're hardly ever going to able to get your summaries directly from the greatest experts in the world, Charlie Rose style (how I envy that man his job).

In the real world, gaining most knowledge is sort of like learning a new word in your vocabulary. You hear it once, this perfectly cromulent word, but you've never heard it before. Still from the way it's used, you begin to have some idea of what it means. As it's used more and more, you realize that your ignorance does not mean it wasn't cromulent, it must means YOU hadn't encountered it. But now you're aware of it.

Studies show that when 3 year-olds are exposed to an articificial word, it only takes about 5 usages for them to hone in on its meaning pretty well, and that they do it rather like tracking an animal by scent. It doesn't start out perfect, but descends through the categories, until they nail it.

Again, in the real world, you don't get to find out about iron ore refining from the bored steelworker sitting next to you on some transoceanic flight on which he wants to talk. Instead, you sort of need to know, don't have access to the net, and so you ask the people around you: "Know anything about iron ore refining"? And you get back something like: "A little. I dunno how they get the dirt out, but I know they have to take the iron oxide, mix it with coke in big furnace, and heat the blazes out of it till the carbon takes out the oxygen and molten iron is left. Then they blow pure oxygen through to get rid of more carbon, to get steel." So you still have an incomplete picture, but you know more than you did. Later you find the thing is self-heating and is called a blast furnace. And you learn out they get the dirt out, and so on and so on. That's Wikipedia, too.

In some ways, as has been said by many people, one problem is that we expect too much of Wikipedia. If we could just fix the vandalism and defamation, we'd be left with sort of what you get from a very large roomful of decent, random people on any subject. And that's no small thing. It's bound to beat hell out of what you "know" just on your own.

[Jon Awbrey]

But isn't this part of the problem?

When I read an article about, say, Thailand, or the proccess of refining iron ore, or emphysema, I wonder whether they actually make any sence, as it superficially seems, or if they are full of lies, pranks, urban legends, fantasies, like those about subjects I have some actual knowledge.

Luís Henrique

Sure, but you have that problem about most of what you learn in life, since you're hardly ever going to able to get your summaries directly from the greatest experts in the world, Charlie Rose style (how I envy that man his job).

In the real world, gaining most knowledge is sort of like learning a new word in your vocabulary. You hear it once, this perfectly cromulent word, but you've never heard it before. Still from the way it's used, you begin to have some idea of what it means. As it's used more and more, you realize that your ignorance does not mean it wasn't cromulent, it must means YOU hadn't encountered it. But now you're aware of it.

Studies show that when 3 year-olds are exposed to an articificial word, it only takes about 5 usages for them to hone in on its meaning pretty well, and that they do it rather like tracking an animal by scent. It doesn't start out perfect, but descends through the categories, until they nail it.

Again, in the real world, you don't get to find out about iron ore refining from the bored steelworker sitting next to you on some transoceanic flight on which he wants to talk. Instead, you sort of need to know, don't have access to the net, and so you ask the people around you: "Know anything about iron ore refining"? And you get back something like: "A little. I dunno how they get the dirt out, but I know they have to take the iron oxide, mix it with coke in big furnace, and heat the blazes out of it till the carbon takes out the oxygen and molten iron is left. Then they blow pure oxygen through to get rid of more carbon, to get steel." So you still have an incomplete picture, but you know more than you did. Later you find the thing is self-heating and is called a blast furnace. And you learn out they get the dirt out, and so on and so on. That's Wikipedia, too.

In some ways, as has been said by many people, one problem is that we expect too much of Wikipedia. If we could just fix the vandalism and defamation, we'd be left with sort of what you get from a very large roomful of decent, random people on any subject. And that's no small thing. It's bound to beat hell out of what you "know" just on your own.

Tagged for Web Searches under • Koolaid Kontact Kontagion •

[Milton Roe]

But isn't this part of the problem?

When I read an article about, say, Thailand, or the proccess of refining iron ore, or emphysema, I wonder whether they actually make any sence, as it superficially seems, or if they are full of lies, pranks, urban legends, fantasies, like those about subjects I have some actual knowledge.

Luís Henrique

Sure, but you have that problem about most of what you learn in life, since you're hardly ever going to able to get your summaries directly from the greatest experts in the world, Charlie Rose style (how I envy that man his job).

In the real world, gaining most knowledge is sort of like learning a new word in your vocabulary. You hear it once, this perfectly cromulent word, but you've never heard it before. Still from the way it's used, you begin to have some idea of what it means. As it's used more and more, you realize that your ignorance does not mean it wasn't cromulent, it must means YOU hadn't encountered it. But now you're aware of it.

Studies show that when 3 year-olds are exposed to an articificial word, it only takes about 5 usages for them to hone in on its meaning pretty well, and that they do it rather like tracking an animal by scent. It doesn't start out perfect, but descends through the categories, until they nail it.

Again, in the real world, you don't get to find out about iron ore refining from the bored steelworker sitting next to you on some transoceanic flight on which he wants to talk. Instead, you sort of need to know, don't have access to the net, and so you ask the people around you: "Know anything about iron ore refining"? And you get back something like: "A little. I dunno how they get the dirt out, but I know they have to take the iron oxide, mix it with coke in big furnace, and heat the blazes out of it till the carbon takes out the oxygen and molten iron is left. Then they blow pure oxygen through to get rid of more carbon, to get steel." So you still have an incomplete picture, but you know more than you did. Later you find the thing is self-heating and is called a blast furnace. And you learn out they get the dirt out, and so on and so on. That's Wikipedia, too.

In some ways, as has been said by many people, one problem is that we expect too much of Wikipedia. If we could just fix the vandalism and defamation, we'd be left with sort of what you get from a very large roomful of decent, random people on any subject. And that's no small thing. It's bound to beat hell out of what you "know" just on your own.

Tagged for Web Searches under • Kontact Koolaid Kontagion •

Truth hurts, don't it, Jon? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Truth hurts, don't it, Jon? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The Truth is that All the GAGA articles in All the Wikiapedes do not make up for a single unjust banning, a single false death report, or a single violation of a bio subject's good name and privacy.

And there is no better of Proof of the debilitating effect of the Wikipediot Cult on people's ethics and intellects than the fact that you could write the casuistic drivel you wrote above.

And Dat's Da Truth.

Jon Awbrey

[Milton Roe]

Truth hurts, don't it, Jon? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

The Truth is that All the GAGA articles in All the Wikiapedes do not make up for a single unjust banning, a single false death report, or a single violation of a bio subject's good name and privacy.

And there is no better of Proof of the debilitating effect of the Wikipediot Cult on people's ethics and intellects than the fact that you could write the casuistic drivel you wrote above.

And Dat's Da Truth.

Jon Awbrey

Feynman always said "Give me a specific problem."

But actually, I'm full of BOTH wise saws and modern instances. And so I play my part.