Disparity of biography articles Options

[EricBarbour]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner.
8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory.
75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

[Peter Damian]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner.
8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory.
75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

Very good. I had a thread somewhere which plotted the number of articles per year of birth. Going back from 2009, it starts very low (very few famous infants) then climbs rapidly to a peak. Then it starts falling away as few Wikipedians really understand that anyone existed who was born before 1970. I think the peak year of birth for a biographical subject was 1981 or something like that.

I was challenged on this, but I repeated the experiment using a reputable encyclopedia, and the 'decay rate' was much slower. I.e. proper encyclopedias give far more weight to people born in the distant past (e.g. Elizabethans) than Wikipedia.

It would be interesting to do a similar experiment on the ratio between 'fictional' biographies and 'real' ones. I think we know the answer, though.

[A Horse With No Name]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner.
8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory.
75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

And the sick thing is...Hans Bethe is actually funnier!

[Tarc]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner.
8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory.
75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

Wait, so you mean that on the internet, people gravitate more to throwaway pop culture than actual science?

What amazing insight, Professor Barbour.

[Peter Damian]

Wait, so you mean that on the internet, people gravitate more to throwaway pop culture than actual science?

What amazing insight, Professor Barbour.

What you say about the internet is true. But this is, or is meant to be an internet encyclopedia. You will object that an internet encyclopedia by its nature will gravitate to the pop culture and the throwaway. I reply: that is not what an encyclopedia by its nature should be (whether it is on the internet or not).

There is this great confusion among Wikipediots between 'is' and 'should'. I hear that argument about pop culture all the time. Yes, Wikipedia is this or that. But should it be this or that? That is the question.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 12th May 2010, 4:44pm

[Milton Roe]

Wait, so you mean that on the internet, people gravitate more to throwaway pop culture than actual science?

What amazing insight, Professor Barbour.

What you say about the internet is true. But this is, or is meant to be an internet encyclopedia. You will object that an internet encyclopedia by its nature will gravitate to the pop culture and the throwaway. I reply: that is not what an encyclopedia by its nature should be (whether it is on the internet or not).

There is this great confusion among Wikipediots between 'is' and 'should'. I hear that argument about pop culture all the time. Yes, Wikipedia is this or that. But should it be this or that? That is the question.

Personally I wouldn't care if it was both things, so long as there was little bleed-over. I'd know to go to WP when I wanted pop culture info (and I often do). I've even contributed some of that myself (since believe it or not, I have not exactly been insulated from pop culture).

All I ask is that you keep the little science-ignorant bastards out of my science articles. When they get a college degree in same, they can come and argue with me. Meanwhile, please stick to copyediting and pointing out places where the explanations have holes in them that lay people need to have filled-in. That's a service, and when done for me, I'll be happy to oblige.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Wait, so you mean that on the internet, people gravitate more to throwaway pop culture than actual science?

What amazing insight, Professor Barbour.

What you say about the internet is true. But this is, or is meant to be an internet encyclopedia. You will object that an internet encyclopedia by its nature will gravitate to the pop culture and the throwaway. I reply: that is not what an encyclopedia by its nature should be (whether it is on the internet or not).

There is this great confusion among Wikipediots between 'is' and 'should'. I hear that argument about pop culture all the time. Yes, Wikipedia is this or that. But should it be this or that? That is the question.

I would question what things that should be can realistically be addressed? The internet is the internet, and there's little that can be done at this time to change that.

I am willing to accept that WP will always be best used as a pop culture reference, and some light information on other items. Why worry about things that can not be changed? Accept what WP is, and use it in that vein, or don't, and avoid it as best you can. When it comes to this particular issue, that's really your two most sane choices.

[dogbiscuit]

I would question what things that should be can realistically be addressed? The internet is the internet, and there's little that can be done at this time to change that.

That is the eternal excuse of Wikipedia. The Internet is just a communication system and it is perfectly possible within the Internet to create sub-cultures, places, systems, that are not subject to the "inevitable" decline. If my insurance company puts its stuff on the Internet, is it a given that it will decline into offering pop culture rather than cover? Is it just me, or is it a delusion that I participate in civilised discussion boards elsewhere that adhere to real world standards of behaviour?

It is an easy cop out to say "it is the Internet, so it is broken" but it does not have to be that way.

Now, if you are saying, it's an ungoverned free for all, then I agree, but that is not synonymous with either the Internet or what Wikipedia could be.

[Moulton]

Accept what WP is, and use it in that vein, or don't, and avoid it as best you can.

I agree with the view that WP is an excellent source of up-to-date information on popular culture. I also recognize (and accept) that WP is one of the Internet's premier drama engines, and that a fair number of people use it that way. Some people call that use "Response Testing" while others call it "trolling". An unanswered question is whether such use falls within the scope of WMF's educational mission (and if not, why not).

[EricBarbour]

Wikipedia's problems are not much different from the problems of the open-source software world.

A friend send me this link today. Typical story, unfortunately.

Who gives a shit. If you don't pay for it, and you don't contribute code to it, you're a drone at best and should be ignored.

I write open source because I feel like it (an itch to scratch) and in hopes that other people will make software that I use better. If other people want to use it then that's cool but affects me not at all negatively or positively.

Sounds like David Gerard, JzG or Rodhullandemu, doesn't it?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 12th May 2010, 7:09pm

[ulsterman]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner.
8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory.
75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

The logic is simple. I'm willing to bet that at least 90% of Wikipedia editors wouldn't understand Bethe's work. What they can't understand can't be of interest to anyone, right? So it's not notable enough to edit. But anyone can understand a silly TV programme.

[CharlotteWebb]

When I saw the thread title I expected to read the usual indignation about the [[Ayn Rand]] article being longer than that of Cherokee chief Cunne Shote, for instance.

[everyking]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner.
8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory.
75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

No one would think that's "acceptable" per se. The difference lies in how we see the problem. When I see a contrast like this, I think: "Oh, that's no good; that article on Hans Bethe needs to be a lot better." But I suspect you're thinking along different lines: "Oh, that's no good; that article on Sheldon Cooper needs to be a lot shorter."

This post has been edited by everyking: Thu 13th May 2010, 4:27am

[gomi]

Yet another example of the profound idiocy of "crowdsourcing" encyclopedia articles.

You have the WP bio of Hans Bethe, legendary atomic scientist, Nobel winner. 8 notes, 3 references, total length 27034 bytes.

And you have the WP bio of a fictional scientist on a sitcom, Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory. 75 references, total length 43670 bytes.

And no doubt, many of the Wiki-assholes reading this will go "that's perfectly acceptable".

No one would think that's "acceptable" per se. The difference lies in how we see the problem. When I see a contrast like this, I think: "Oh, that's no good; that article on Hans Bethe needs to be a lot better." But I suspect you're thinking along different lines: "Oh, that's no good; that article on Sheldon Cooper needs to be a lot shorter."

Or, quite possibly, "Why would anything pretending to be an encyclopedia require an article about a fictional character in a piece of television ephemera?" And the answer is: "it's not an encyclopedia by any rational definition, it's a big sack of trivia." It's not that there shouldn't be anywhere to collect these little balls of dung, just not in a place that values scholarship of any kind, and vice versa. Really. If IMDB started publishing opinion pieces on the Middle East and British Politics, would anyone take them seriously? No, and there is no more reason to take WP's similar articles seriously.

[everyking]

No one would think that's "acceptable" per se. The difference lies in how we see the problem. When I see a contrast like this, I think: "Oh, that's no good; that article on Hans Bethe needs to be a lot better." But I suspect you're thinking along different lines: "Oh, that's no good; that article on Sheldon Cooper needs to be a lot shorter."

Or, quite possibly, "Why would anything pretending to be an encyclopedia require an article about a fictional character in a piece of television ephemera?" And the answer is: "it's not an encyclopedia by any rational definition, it's a big sack of trivia." It's not that there shouldn't be anywhere to collect these little balls of dung, just not in a place that values scholarship of any kind, and vice versa. Really. If IMDB started publishing opinion pieces on the Middle East and British Politics, would anyone take them seriously? No, and there is no more reason to take WP's similar articles seriously.

All right: "Oh, that's no good; that article on Sheldon Cooper needs to not exist at all." The point is still the same: these comparisons are useless when you are in fact arguing for the destruction rather than the creation of content.

This post has been edited by everyking: Thu 13th May 2010, 6:49am

[Moulton]

It's just another demonstration of the thesis that WP succeeds magnificently as a compendium of popular culture, even as it fails at being an encyclopedia covering subjects traditionally found in print encyclopedias.

Disciplines like Science, Philosophy, and Education, are driven more by ideas than by personalities. That's why pioneering scientists like Hans Bethe are not rock stars. Even Albert Einstein -- arguably the best known scientist of the Twentieth Century -- was not a rock star. And historical figures like Socrates, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Darwin are known more for their durable ideas than for their personalities.

Wikiculture is not a culture of ideas. That is to say, it is not an idea-driven enterprise. The main idea around which Wikiculture revolves is crowd-sourcing -- an interesting but not very powerful or profound idea.

Wikiculture is a character-driven culture, with Jimbo being the central character. Take a look at the topics being discussed in W-R. How many of them are about individual characters who inhabit Wikiculture? How many of them are about transformational ideas that have the potential to change human culture at large?

Given that Wikiculture is a character-driven culture, it emerges as a notable venue of character-driven drama. And for the denizens of W-R, the character-driven drama is often more interesting and more engaging than discussions focusing on abstract ideas.

If I'm wrong about that, this abstract analysis will spark a lively discussion.

But if I'm right, the ideas presented in this post will quickly fade from center stage and be forgotten.

I'm predicting the latter.

[taiwopanfob]

All right: "Oh, that's no good; that article on Sheldon Cooper needs to not exist at all." The point is still the same: these comparisons are useless when you are in fact arguing for the destruction rather than the creation of content.

You can't destroy what doesn't exist in the first place.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x930vt_wi...-get-a-life_fun

[Peter Damian]

I am willing to accept that WP will always be best used as a pop culture reference, and some light information on other items. Why worry about things that can not be changed? Accept what WP is, and use it in that vein, or don't, and avoid it as best you can. When it comes to this particular issue, that's really your two most sane choices.

Why worry about things that can not be changed? Well, I do worry. WP seems to be driving conventional reference sources out of business. If it were just a big sack of trivia, with the conventional reference sources still around, that would not be so bad. It is the way that Wikipedia has bizarrely become a sort of gold standard in the public imagination, that is really disturbing. And worrying, of course.

And do we have to accept that it can't be changed? As we have discussed before, there are plenty of ways of destroying Wikipedia, although its own community seems to have worked out the best way of doing that, for itself.

[Moulton]

And do we have to accept that it can't be changed? As we have discussed before, there are plenty of ways of destroying Wikipedia, although its own community seems to have worked out the best way of doing that, for itself.

It changes organically, by some kind of social Darwinism, rather than by any orderly or organized process of intelligent design. The community has transformed WP into a popular Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd. Whether the curtain will ever ring down on the show remains to be seen. But in the meantime, WMF and its donors have to decide how long they want to continue funding the show.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I would question what things that should be can realistically be addressed? The internet is the internet, and there's little that can be done at this time to change that.

That is the eternal excuse of Wikipedia. The Internet is just a communication system and it is perfectly possible within the Internet to create sub-cultures, places, systems, that are not subject to the "inevitable" decline. If my insurance company puts its stuff on the Internet, is it a given that it will decline into offering pop culture rather than cover? Is it just me, or is it a delusion that I participate in civilised discussion boards elsewhere that adhere to real world standards of behaviour?

It is an easy cop out to say "it is the Internet, so it is broken" but it does not have to be that way.

Now, if you are saying, it's an ungoverned free for all, then I agree, but that is not synonymous with either the Internet or what Wikipedia could be.

I think you're expanding the scope of my comment way beyond my point. The point is, internet culture is going to be disproportionately biased towards the recent and controversial. Go to forums, blogs, or fan sites, and that's the kind of thing that will tend to be seen (of course there will always be some sites dedicated to particular topics, but they will not have the same level of representation overall).

Expand into the real world, and people will tend to be preoccupied with what is recent/controversial as well. That's what they will discuss around the water cooler, card table, dinner table, etc. There is no sane way for WP to change what is just going to always be the case, because it's human nature.

I wasn't talking about other behavioral issues as, while they are a general symptom of the internet, they can and have been addressed in realistic ways by many communities. WP has just failed to find its way to do so.

Why worry about things that can not be changed? Well, I do worry. WP seems to be driving conventional reference sources out of business. If it were just a big sack of trivia, with the conventional reference sources still around, that would not be so bad. It is the way that Wikipedia has bizarrely become a sort of gold standard in the public imagination, that is really disturbing. And worrying, of course.

And do we have to accept that it can't be changed? As we have discussed before, there are plenty of ways of destroying Wikipedia, although its own community seems to have worked out the best way of doing that, for itself.

I would disagree with a couple of things. For one, I wouldn't say that WP has become a "gold standard." I would argue that what makes it popular is not any perceived accuracy, but its quick and easy availability. While it is unfortunate that traditional encyclopedias have been struggling, I have to argue that they, in many ways, left the huge opening for WP to step in, and delayed too long in finding a way to compete. Given the general direction of the internet, it was a hole just waiting to be filled, and WP is what just happened to come along first.

There are issues on WP that concern me, particularly the frequent BLP issues. However, for pop culture articles to be disproportionately large, when compared to articles of true importance, is somewhat unfortunate, but I don't find it distressing. If both articles (but particularly the historical ones) are clear of any serious errors, provides enough information to at least cover what the average person might be looking for, and gives them directions to look for more info, that will probably have to be good enough.

As I stated above, people will be preoccupied with what is on their minds, and what is on their minds tends to be recent. For WP to try to balance the length of pop culture vs. truly historical articles would require fighting human nature. That's not something WP is likely to win. If it really needs to be addressed at all, it's way at the bottom of the list of WP's problems.