The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Are Feature articles worth their salt?, Feature article quality evaluation shows they're a crock
chrisoff
post Fri 25th November 2011, 4:11pm
Post #41


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



Editors are discussing and engaging. A wider group than normal are joining into FAC talk. Perhaps the FAC fear and intimidation will lessen. Editors new to FAC will feel more welcome.

TCO is not the enemy.

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Fri 25th November 2011, 4:21pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 25th November 2011, 4:32pm
Post #42


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 25th November 2011, 1:02am) *

How do you get that from me saying that the page -House- shouldn't be deemed "vital"?


Ottava, as usual, you are moving the goalpost. By your new logic that you're exhibiting now, then you're saying:

Non-vital articles that appear in an online encyclopedia will not help high school and college kids get ahead.

I maintain that that statement is demonstrably false, while you appear to believe it is true.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Fri 25th November 2011, 6:47pm
Post #43


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



So SandyGeorgia responds by insulting TCO's balls, "you've got such big ones they must be scraping the ground by now"

Is personal attack the best way to address real concerns brought up by an editor who worked hard on a 104-slide presentation, gathering and summarizing data meant to aid FAC by addressing some of its issues?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...cles.pdf&page=1

SandyGeorgia is out of control. She has made 12 posts to TCO's page in the two hours, all of it attacking!

Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/SandyGeorgia

This while taking pot shots at well meaning others on the side: "noting Carcharoth's unique ability to offend even when he's not trying to"

And gratuitious pouncing on poor JimmyButler, the North Carolina high school teacher: "JimmyButler, when given the chance to present some of the reasons his collaborations worked, was unable to do so, saying he had no idea why his collaborations worked, and wouldn't present some simple data for comparison to the large projects that aren't working."plus carpet bombing his talk page with criticisms after he apologized to her for any way he may have offended her and made it clear he had left and would post no more and would conduct no more classes using Wikipedia.

Is this sort of rampage carpet bombing demeaning other helpful to Wikipedia? Demeaning Tony1 and the SignPost always a target for SandyGeorgia. Battleground mentality is not best for the community and not the best side to show the relatively uninitiated professionals who were mistakenly led to believe that Wikipedia would be a good student experience.

She is too busy raving about TCO to make any sense: I had a lovely Thanksgiving ... TCO is overimpressed with his own importance and the effect he imagines he has on me smile.gif ... and how TCO (because of his impulsive nature) has shot even his own vague goals in the foot ... (I personally don't think he has the ability to slow himself down enough or self-monitor enough for introspection, ... He will come and go as everything on the internet does, all the while fancying himself to be oh so important. Yes, I had a lovely Thanksgiving-- it's the internet, anyone can say anything, and that they will. And some people crave attention, any attention, even negative attention-- people like that are compelled to impulsivity when they fear they're being ignored. Pity.

Is she mad???

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Fri 25th November 2011, 8:14pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Fri 25th November 2011, 10:52pm
Post #44


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



FAC sets a precedent of gender-based insults. FA editors have more "balls"?

To TCO re his "analysis":
Your testicles must scrape the ground--an unfortunate social faux pas, no? ... --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]]

Is that setting an atmosphere on the FAC talk page that encourages open discussion and is welcoming to other editors perhaps new to FAC?

Is that a non-sexist atmosphere desired by WMF, or is that a hyper-masculine one perpetuated by super aggressive female editors framing things in ways no male editor could get away with? A proper expression of anger, is that?

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Sat 26th November 2011, 1:23am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 26th November 2011, 3:24am
Post #45


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



How many times do I have to tell you clowns: "the whole thing is broken"!

If they just took the FAs and GAs out and put them on a separate wiki, editable only by credentialed
experts but readable by all, they would have a really nice encyclopedia right there.
But that will never happen.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Sat 26th November 2011, 3:39am
Post #46


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:24pm) *

How many times do I have to tell you clowns: "the whole thing is broken"!

If they just took the FAs and GAs out and put them on a separate wiki, editable only by credentialed
experts but readable by all, they would have a really nice encyclopedia right there.


applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif applause.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Sat 26th November 2011, 3:56am
Post #47


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:24pm) *

How many times do I have to tell you clowns: "the whole thing is broken"!

If they just took the FAs and GAs out and put them on a separate wiki, editable only by credentialed
experts but readable by all, they would have a really nice encyclopedia right there.
But that will never happen.

You never know. If the "campus ambassadors" lead a sufficient number of professors and instructors down the path to teh dramas, maybe some university or another will experiment with something along those lines.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Sat 26th November 2011, 1:37pm
Post #48


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:24pm) *

How many times do I have to tell you clowns: "the whole thing is broken"!

If they just took the FAs and GAs out and put them on a separate wiki, editable only by credentialed
experts but readable by all, they would have a really nice encyclopedia right there.
But that will never happen.


I talked to Durova about doing just that. Many of the FAs (like Simpsons articles) are worthless. But yeah.

What about the Emperor, think he would be willing to host a second Wiki of just GAs/FAs on some standard topics and only have a few people able to edit it on request, and find out how well it does after a year or so?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alison
post Sat 26th November 2011, 1:45pm
Post #49


Skinny Cow!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined: Tue 26th Jun 2007, 8:08pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 26th November 2011, 5:37am) *

I talked to Durova about doing just that. Many of the FAs (like Simpsons articles) are worthless. But yeah.

What about the Emperor, think he would be willing to host a second Wiki of just GAs/FAs on some standard topics and only have a few people able to edit it on request, and find out how well it does after a year or so?

Wasn't that kinda what Veropedia was all about? It was a noble effort on the part of Danny Wool, but it ultimately failed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 26th November 2011, 1:51pm
Post #50


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 26th November 2011, 1:45pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 26th November 2011, 5:37am) *

I talked to Durova about doing just that. Many of the FAs (like Simpsons articles) are worthless. But yeah.

What about the Emperor, think he would be willing to host a second Wiki of just GAs/FAs on some standard topics and only have a few people able to edit it on request, and find out how well it does after a year or so?

Wasn't that kinda what Veropedia was all about? It was a noble effort on the part of Danny Wool, but it ultimately failed.


Wikipedia works by the 'network effect'. For the whole thing to work, you need the Google effect, and for links to all the other parts of the encyclopedia to be available. Did Veropedia have that?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jim
post Sat 26th November 2011, 2:19pm
Post #51


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri 18th Sep 2009, 2:29pm
Member No.: 13,917



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 27th November 2011, 12:37am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 25th November 2011, 10:24pm) *

How many times do I have to tell you clowns: "the whole thing is broken"!

If they just took the FAs and GAs out and put them on a separate wiki, editable only by credentialed
experts but readable by all, they would have a really nice encyclopedia right there.
But that will never happen.


I talked to Durova about doing just that. Many of the FAs (like Simpsons articles) are worthless. But yeah.

What about the Emperor, think he would be willing to host a second Wiki of just GAs/FAs on some standard topics and only have a few people able to edit it on request, and find out how well it does after a year or so?


Ottava - for $200 I'll host you a wiki like this: http://www.designedandonline.com/wiki for 12 months. Hosting and coding are a couple of the things I do.

You could also get that from many other places from up to $200 less than that - but with a less friendly/amenable host smile.gif

You can have whatever user access and rights you like, and import whatever you like from WP.

It won't work, though. I guarantee it, because of the reasons already stated.

Forking is the easy part - any idiot can do that.

You can have an exact copy of the Mona Lisa in your living room, but if nobody comes to see it only you will know.

Maybe you'd be happy with that?

Jim.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Sat 26th November 2011, 2:20pm
Post #52


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 26th November 2011, 1:51pm) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 26th November 2011, 1:45pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 26th November 2011, 5:37am) *

I talked to Durova about doing just that. Many of the FAs (like Simpsons articles) are worthless. But yeah.

What about the Emperor, think he would be willing to host a second Wiki of just GAs/FAs on some standard topics and only have a few people able to edit it on request, and find out how well it does after a year or so?

Wasn't that kinda what Veropedia was all about? It was a noble effort on the part of Danny Wool, but it ultimately failed.


Wikipedia works by the 'network effect'. For the whole thing to work, you need the Google effect, and for links to all the other parts of the encyclopedia to be available. Did Veropedia have that?

I suspect the trouble was that its supporters had narrow interests, looked after their owned articles and then lost momentum as they were a pretty narrow clique and had no visibility outside the vaguely interested subset of Wikipedians. These other encyclopedias never have the manpower to get to critical mass.

In the end, the trick would have to be that it would be a layer over the top of Wikipedia - so that dead links in the Veropedia were redirected to Wikipedia, and any links from that were intercepted and checked for the Veropedia. You would also want Google to take the Veropedia version in preference to the Wikipedia version which would require Google to hack its algorithms.

If WMF owned both versions, then they could work such tricks, but anyone else would be at the whim of Google to try and make any impression - I doubt anyone much goes to Wikipedia through its main page.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jim
post Sat 26th November 2011, 2:31pm
Post #53


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri 18th Sep 2009, 2:29pm
Member No.: 13,917



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 27th November 2011, 1:20am) *

I doubt anyone much goes to Wikipedia through its main page.


Precisely.

Spend as long as you like massaging your content and prettifying your pages - if you're not Google's "goto" friend you're not even in the race.

Rarely does an internet phenomenon get replaced by something basically the same, but slightly prettier or more accurate - that's just not the way paradigms are redefined.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Sat 26th November 2011, 6:25pm
Post #54


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 26th November 2011, 1:45pm) *

Wasn't that kinda what Veropedia was all about? It was a noble effort on the part of Danny Wool, but it ultimately failed.

Yeah, I think that is the direction FA is going. A walled garden for 150 or so editors to indulge their obscure interests on a solo basis.

Most 2011 Featured Articles are sole nominations.
(216 of the 253 FA passed from January through September 2011 were by a single nominators (no collaboration), mostly on obscure topics with low reader page views.)





This post has been edited by chrisoff: Sat 26th November 2011, 7:09pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Sat 26th November 2011, 6:28pm
Post #55


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(chrisoff @ Sat 26th November 2011, 6:25pm) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 26th November 2011, 1:45pm) *

Wasn't that kinda what Veropedia was all about? It was a noble effort on the part of Danny Wool, but it ultimately failed.

Yeah, I think that is the direction FA is going. A walled garden for 150 or so editors to indulge their obscure interests on a sole basis.
Most 2011 Featured Articles are solo nominations.
(216 of the 253 2011 FA through September were by solo contributors.

You confuse sole nominators with sole contributors.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Sat 26th November 2011, 6:43pm
Post #56


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



QUOTE(Malleus @ Sat 26th November 2011, 1:28pm) *

You confuse sole nominators with sole contributors.

Right, I fixed it. Thanks.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Sat 26th November 2011, 7:30pm
Post #57


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(chrisoff @ Sat 26th November 2011, 6:43pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Sat 26th November 2011, 1:28pm) *

You confuse sole nominators with sole contributors.

Right, I fixed it. Thanks.

You still don't seem to have quite got it. How are you defining collaborators?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Sat 26th November 2011, 8:01pm
Post #58


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



QUOTE(Malleus @ Sat 26th November 2011, 1:28pm) *

You still don't seem to have quite got it. How are you defining collaborators?


According to the study, the information on collaborators is drawn from "Source WP:BFAN, counting collaborations with full credit"

I don't know where that page is. Can't find it, so can't evaluate it.

I checked some individual FAs mentioned. Especially if the article was on an obscure topic, usually the FA editor either originated the article, or contributed the overwhelming number of edits. In a block buster such as Parkinson's disease, the editor contributed over 900 edits with the next-in-line editor contributing 200. The first editor also took the article through GA and a couple of FACs.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Sat 26th November 2011, 9:39pm
Post #59


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I'm confused as to why people would mention Veropedia - 1. the articles aren't really worked on once they are over there, 2. they aren't really built by experts, and 3. They don't really reflect the best articles (especially when the standards were so low back when it started).

A good idea would be to monitor the FAC and GAN articles as they come in, or those that should be either. Once you find good candidates on solid topics, you take the articles, you have an expert or too add to it and make it well balanced, then have a core group of copyeditors fix it up, standardize it, etc.

Basically, it would take the articles that the Wiki system can pump out to about 60-70% "good" and bring them the last 100%. You can especially fix errors like the popculture obsession, unreadably huge pages, etc. and show how the articles are fixed on a talk page comparison.

The benefits would be to keep them from being degraded, ensure that they are all high quality, and polish them to a recognizably good standard. Veropedia didn't do that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Sat 26th November 2011, 11:39pm
Post #60


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 26th November 2011, 4:39pm) *

I'm confused as to why people would mention Veropedia - 1. the articles aren't really worked on once they are over there, 2. they aren't really built by experts, and 3. They don't really reflect the best articles (especially when the standards were so low back when it started).

A good idea would be to monitor the FAC and GAN articles as they come in, or those that should be either. Once you find good candidates on solid topics, you take the articles, you have an expert or too add to it and make it well balanced, then have a core group of copyeditors fix it up, standardize it, etc.

Basically, it would take the articles that the Wiki system can pump out to about 60-70% "good" and bring them the last 100%. You can especially fix errors like the popculture obsession, unreadably huge pages, etc. and show how the articles are fixed on a talk page comparison.

The benefits would be to keep them from being degraded, ensure that they are all high quality, and polish them to a recognizably good standard. Veropedia didn't do that.



All the wails and cries from the "FAC editors" on TFAC because TCO expressed some ideas regarding how FAC could be improved indicate that these editors are very invested in things as they are. They care deeply about the babbles the receive, the credit, and their control over "their" articles. They would leave en masse if any such "system" as you suggest were put into place.

FAC is not an altrustic place. People bring "their" articles for the "stars" and recognition and award counting. And they want to maintain control. They are editing for themselves and are now warring over their turf, against the perceived enemies of WMF, TCO, JimmyBulter and anyone else who has dares to raise a voice. FAC belongs to them!

How dare TCO! He will be plundered and revenge will be extracted, you can be sure.

FAC editors are not primarily looking to benefit the readers of Wikipedia at all. The fact the very few read their articles is immaterial to them. They are not interested in changing this. Remember, the majority of FACs are not collaborations but are solo products of one editor. FAC is a walled garden, and the FA editors feel they are a privileged class within Wikipedia and should be treated as such.

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Sun 27th November 2011, 1:29am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th 8 17, 9:31pm