Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ MediaWiki Software _ Alternatives to Wikipedia

Posted by: DawnofMan

I've been wandering the internet wasteland in search of alternatives to Wikipedia. Here's what I've found so far:

Brittanica: follows the traditional model of an encyclopedia written by experts, although it does allow some input allowed from readers. Seems to be failing slowly and falling behind more open models.

[Encyc]: is a tiny effort that is even more dysfunctional and anti-social than Wikipedia.

Neturalpedia: a start-up narrowly focused focused on criticisms of mainstream climate coverage including Wikipedia's cabal driven effort.

Wikinfo: a more open community allowing original research, attribution, articles critical of subjects, and creative writing and research. The most successful alternative I've come across so far although most of its content seems to consist of copies of Wikipedia articles. I don't really understand how that part of its content is useful. Created and governed in large part by Fred Bauder who is an admin in good standing on Wikipedia? More information on this forking of the Wikipedia effort and its founder would be interesting.

Encyclopedia Dramatica, a sarcasm and humor site.

Uncyclopedia, an "unencyclopedia" site that provides an opposite day type alternate universe to Wikipedia where deleted articles, irrelevancies, and the inappropriate are the focus.

Wikademia: a Wikiversity alternative? Not really an encyclopedia.

What have others found?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Mon 15th March 2010, 5:18pm) *

What have others found?


I've found that you complain a lot. Just who are you? Why is your quest so meritorious? Are you some sort of scholar or something? What bugs you most about Wikipedia? Have you given Wikipedia Review a try? Jon Awbrey could probably explain why he likes its hybrid "protected and open" qualities.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 15th March 2010, 9:56pm) *
Just who are you?

Image

Speaking of which, anyone seen the new Alice yet?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Mon 15th March 2010, 3:18pm) *


What have others found?


The alternative to Wikipedia is no Wikipedia. There is no void to fill.

Posted by: DawnofMan

Why have only one option for an online encyclopedia? I'd rather have a healthy competitor.

As far as Wikipedia Review, it's focused on advertising and promotion. Also, its owner operator has anti-social tendencies and lashes out at anyone who doesn't see things exactly his way. So it doesn't seems like a very good option.

I think it's too bad there isn't a place without the abusive bureaucracy of Wikipedia where collegial encyclopedia builders can work together. If BLP issues are a concern or there are other problems on Wikipedia then it can simply be modeled differently. That's why I started this thread: to discuss the models that exist and their strengths and weaknesses.

There are some interesting set-ups and structures for encyclopedia type Wiki communities, although I haven't found one yet that's viable. So I was interested in seeing if there were people interested in discussing and possibly building a more moral and collegial Wikipedia variant.


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Tue 16th March 2010, 12:53pm) *

Why have only one option for an online encyclopedia? I'd rather have a healthy competitor.

As far as Wikipedia Review, it's focused on advertising and promotion. Also, its owner operator has anti-social tendencies and lashes out at anyone who doesn't see things exactly his way. So it doesn't seems like a very good option.

I think it's too bad there isn't a place without the abusive bureaucracy of Wikipedia where collegial encyclopedia builders can work together. If BLP issues are a concern or there are other problems on Wikipedia then it can simply be modeled differently. That's why I started this thread: to discuss the models that exist and their strengths and weaknesses.

There are some interesting set-ups and structures for encyclopedia type Wiki communities, although I haven't found one yet that's viable. So I was interested in seeing if there were people interested in discussing and possibly building a more moral and collegial Wikipedia variant.


Such a discussion is very possible. Now, who are you, again? I'd rather not be wasting my time on this with a teenager or with someone who's just trying to stir up a drama fest.

Anti-social tendencies? How'd I get these 322 friends on Facebook?

Posted by: Emperor

It seems to me that Encyc functioned just fine in the last few days. We had a vandal show up, who seemed ok at first but then within a matter of hours became profane and abusive. One of our experienced administrators handled him right away.

I wonder why everyone but you seems anti-social?

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Tue 16th March 2010, 4:53pm) *

As far as Wikipedia Review, it's focused on advertising and promotion. Also, its owner operator has anti-social tendencies and lashes out at anyone who doesn't see things exactly his way.

Speaking from past experience by any chance?

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 16th March 2010, 3:14am) *
Speaking of which, anyone seen the new Alice yet?


God...just don't. I honestly felt like demanding my money back from Walt Disney Pictures afterwards. There were zero redeeming qualities to it.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

I hear http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/Main_Page is very good. Lots of interesting people there.

Posted by: DawnofMan

I'm not discouraged by the responses here smile.gif and I remain hopeful that a more healthy alternative to Wikipedia can and will be developed.

As far as existing alternatives I think they are interesting efforts with some approaches and innovations that are worth discussing, such as Wikinfo's use of "criticism of" alternative articles for every subject. I think forking that way can be useful in many cases where there is a need to alleviate the stress and tension of competing content interests. Giving appropriate balance and weight to negative assessments of a subject seems quite reasonable, although including such a link in every article seems a bit over the top. I think the way the criticism of articles were deleted across Wikipedia with the Chosen One's election was pretty ridiculous. Does anyone really think criticisms of Bush, Obama, Cheney, or other controversial figures isn't a notable subject all its own?

I also think that approaches to dealing with the BLP issues raised here are worth considering (one alternative would be to have an encyclopedia with no biographies of living people or only very notable people or only very public people or to segregate them in some way). But I think a template noting that biographical content is assumed to have been contributed in good faith and that errors are possible is enough when combined with a proactive approach to dealing with vandalism (such as having a community more focused on content contributors instead of just vandals and vandal fighters). I think starting a smaller and more limited community might be an effective approach. Or a system where anonymous edits and edits from noobs were reviewed. But of course that's a whole can of worms all it's own and not a huge concern of mine personally. Nasty things are said about people in the media and on the web all the time. Maybe an opt out clause would work?

Gregory, I'm not sure how to answer your question about who I am because I'm not sure what it is you're asking exactly. I'm well past my teens. And I'm not interested in drama. I do think an encyclopedia project can be built that lives up to the aspirations established on Wikipedia, but that haven't been lived up to there, such as respect for participants, maintaining a level playing field, and fair play. A place that actually embodied these ideals would be a big improvement.

Does thinking about an alternate Wiki make me Alice? Is Wikipedia Review a looking glass?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Tue 16th March 2010, 10:53am) *


As far as Wikipedia Review, it's focused on advertising and promotion. Also, its owner operator has anti-social tendencies and lashes out at anyone who doesn't see things exactly his way. So it doesn't seems like a very good option.




Why don't you take your personal and hidden agenda back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page where it belongs, asshole.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 16th March 2010, 1:19pm) *
Anti-social tendencies? How'd I get these 322 friends on Facebook?
Well, in fairness, you do cast rather a wide net.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Mon 15th March 2010, 9:18pm) *

What have others found?


Well, the first rule of it is I'm not supposed to talk about it.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 16th March 2010, 12:36pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 16th March 2010, 3:14am) *
Speaking of which, anyone seen the new Alice yet?


God...just don't. I honestly felt like demanding my money back from Walt Disney Pictures afterwards. There were zero redeeming qualities to it.

You don't like smokey eyes? blink.gif It's Tim Burton, so you have to expect that it's Alice in Wonderland But EveryBody Looks Like a 2-Day Corpse. Why people put up with this, I do not know. I'd rather see a good zombie flick, where they blast those characters with major weapons. tongue.gif

Posted by: John Limey

The alternative to Wikipedia is not one site but several. First you have the other non-profit competitors that compete in various niches:


These are just a sampling of the non-profit offerings. What they all share is that they are freely accessible and written by experts. All of them are also primarily supported by organizations and individuals with expertise in the specific area of focus. They are all excellent, but limited to small subject areas.

Commercially, there are also several competitors to Wikipedia. Most obviously, Answers.com, which draws together hundreds of commercial encyclopedias and lets you search them all, as well as WIkipedia and dictionaries. I hate the way answers.com presents its content, but they probably have the largest database of commercial encyclopedia content on the web available for free, and much of it is excellent.

If anyone really wants to put together a Wikipedia killer, the way to do it is to do roughly what Answers.com does, only for the many non-profit encyclopedias, examples of which I presented above. All of these projects have excellent content and completely compatibly goals - making their content available to a wide audience, but they don't have much pull on Google. Someone with the right skills could probably find a way to pull them all together under some broad umbrella.

At the very least, it would be incredibly useful if someone created a portal that allowed you to search the universe of high-quality open-access encyclopedias all at once from a single page. If I had any idea how to do anything with websites, I'd make something like that myself.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 12:01pm) *

Commercially, there are also several competitors to Wikipedia. Most obviously, Answers.com, which draws together hundreds of commercial encyclopedias and lets you search them all, as well as WIkipedia and dictionaries. I hate the way answers.com presents its content, but they probably have the largest database of commercial encyclopedia content on the web available for free, and much of it is excellent.

If anyone really wants to put together a Wikipedia killer, the way to do it is to do roughly what Answers.com does, only for the many non-profit encyclopedias, examples of which I presented above. All of these projects have excellent content and completely compatibly goals - making their content available to a wide audience, but they don't have much pull on Google. Someone with the right skills could probably find a way to pull them all together under some broad umbrella.


Except answers.com won't kill wikipedia because the bulk of their search content relies on wikipedia articles, to exist.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(John Limey @ Tue 16th March 2010, 7:01pm) *

The alternative to Wikipedia is not one site but several. First you have the other non-profit competitors that compete in various niches:
  • http://plato.stanford.edu/ - Supported by Stanford University and various foundations. Excellent articles written by experts on philosophical topics, but suffers from spotty coverage.
  • http://www.iep.utm.edu/ - Supported by the University of Tennessee. Good coverage. Expert written, pitched at a slightly more accessible level than the SEP.
  • http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/ - Supported by the State of Virginia. Mostly historical articles which are of uniformly excellent quality and written by experts.
  • http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/about.htm - Published conventionally but available online through the support of the Australian Research Council. Professionally written and almost always superior to Wikipedia.
  • http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ - Expert written and available in many languages, though the articles are generally short. Funded by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
  • http://www.eoearth.org/eoe/about - Supported by a variety of nonprofits. Expert-written coverage of scientific topics, particularly those related to the environment
  • http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/About.jsp - Funded by Auburn University and the State of Alabama. Expert written and excellent, basically like the Encyclopedia Virginia only for Alabama.
  • Similar projects for Georgia and Oregon
  • http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/info.asp - Supported by the Canadian Institute of Iranian Studies and private donations. Expert written.
These are just a sampling of the non-profit offerings. What they all share is that they are freely accessible and written by experts. All of them are also primarily supported by organizations and individuals with expertise in the specific area of focus. They are all excellent, but limited to small subject areas.

Commercially, there are also several competitors to Wikipedia. Most obviously, Answers.com, which draws together hundreds of commercial encyclopedias and lets you search them all, as well as WIkipedia and dictionaries. I hate the way answers.com presents its content, but they probably have the largest database of commercial encyclopedia content on the web available for free, and much of it is excellent.

If anyone really wants to put together a Wikipedia killer, the way to do it is to do roughly what Answers.com does, only for the many non-profit encyclopedias, examples of which I presented above. All of these projects have excellent content and completely compatibly goals - making their content available to a wide audience, but they don't have much pull on Google. Someone with the right skills could probably find a way to pull them all together under some broad umbrella.

At the very least, it would be incredibly useful if someone created a portal that allowed you to search the universe of high-quality open-access encyclopedias all at once from a single page. If I had any idea how to do anything with websites, I'd make something like that myself.

What are more thing that don't need to exist? Alex.

Posted by: DawnofMan

That's an interesting list Limey, and I know that some of the conventional wisdom is that only sub-wikis can compete, but I'm not buying it. I think a broad Wiki start up that's built with a good community of good people will prosper. Who wants to put up with the bullshit on Wikipedia? Sure there will need to be things worked out, trials and error, but I think it's doable. All Wikipedia content is importable anyway, so it's not like it can't be duplicated if need be to fill in the gaps.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Wed 17th March 2010, 3:32am) *

Who wants to put up with the bullshit on Wikipedia?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 1:01am) *
If I had any idea how to do anything with websites, I'd make something like that myself.


You could do so quick easily using the Open Source project called "Sphider", its is a php website spider and search engine.

It is pretty damned simple to set up. You could offer a simple single page search option and add sites as you find them. Stick a few adsense ads on it and it would pay for itself, no problem.

The Encyclopedia of the Earth has an impressive policy as far as contributors go:

http://www.eoearth.org/eoe/contribute

Something like this would go a long way to fix the Pee-dia ... and then they could use some of those multi-millions to pay for proper editorial staff.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Tue 16th March 2010, 6:25pm) *

Gregory, I'm not sure how to answer your question about who I am because I'm not sure what it is you're asking exactly. I'm well past my teens. And I'm not interested in drama.


The problem is that I've chosen not to share my valuable professional time and advice with people who approach me on the street with a dark hood over their head and one of those "60 Minutes"-style voice modulators to disguise their voice.

Same goes for anonymous new guys here on Wikipedia Review.

You very well may deserve my effort, but before you just rob me of it, don't you think introductions are in order, first? It's what human beings have been doing for at least 4,000 years.

Posted by: DawnofMan

QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 16th March 2010, 8:48pm) *

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Wed 17th March 2010, 3:32am) *

Who wants to put up with the bullshit on Wikipedia?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers


A list of people who have made an edit in the last 30 days is not the same as a list of people who are happy with Wikipedia and it doesn't give any indication of the number of editors who would like to participate in an alternative. Obviously there are very big advantages right now to doing work there because of how well plugged in it is to search engines. But that doesn't mean a competitor can't be whipped into shape. Remember Atari? IBM computers? Zenith? The World Book encyclopedia? Someone stepped up and offered something better or adapted better to new technologies.

Posted by: Moulton

In terms of alternatives to WP, don't overlook Google Knol, which provides a substantially different architectural model for supporting articles of an encyclopedic nature.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors? I heard that Citizendum thought about doing that, but they oped to create original articles instead.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:52am) *

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?


Yes.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 17th March 2010, 7:58pm) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:52am) *

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?


Yes.

And it didn't work out?

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:05am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 17th March 2010, 7:58pm) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:52am) *

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?


Yes.

And it didn't work out?


I'd say "it didn't work out" is probably an understatement smile.gif.

If you're serious about your interest in this topic send me a PM. I have my own experiences in trying to create a fork of Wikipedia (circa 2004), and am somewhat familiar with the experiences of a few others. But I have a feeling I'd be wasting my time going over them with you. If you think you can convince me otherwise, send me a PM, and maybe we can have an email conversation.

Posted by: John Limey

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:52am) *

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?


If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem? Either Wikipedia produces good content in which case it is a success and the dysfunction of the community is just a pointless sidenote or Wikipedia doesn't produce good content in which case there's no point in starting with bad content and new editors - they'd be better off just writing from scratch. The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:29am) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:52am) *

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?


If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem?


Exactly. To clean up a fork, you have to do almost as much work as just starting from scratch yourself.

Plus, as was discovered early on by Citizendium, the whole Wikipedia template system makes it incredibly hard to fork individual articles. You're really much better off starting from scratch. At the most you could use Wikipedia as a reference, to find other sources, but IMO even that isn't a great idea, because one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia articles is what's *not* there.

See also: http://akahele.org/2009/07/how-to-read-wikipedia/

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:52am) *

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?


That was the initial plan for Citizendium. Think about it. Try to imagine a group of reasonably adult editors looking at a Big Dump of stuff from Wikipedia. A few weeks of trying to stomach that was enough to send them running away screaming and deciding to start from scratch.

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 9:29pm) *

If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem? Either Wikipedia produces good content in which case it is a success and the dysfunction of the community is just a pointless sidenote or Wikipedia doesn't produce good content in which case there's no point in starting with bad content and new editors — they'd be better off just writing from scratch. The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.


What you say here represents the single biggest misconception about the nature of knowledge that the popular imagination has ever misconceived. Generations of educators and researchers have gone to bat trying to combat it. That naturally guarantees it a place of honor in the cornerstone of Wikipediot Fundamentalism, but I'm a little surprised to see otherwise educated people toeing its misbegotten line.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 7:48pm) *

QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:52am) *

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?


That was the initial plan for Citizendium. Think about it. Try to imagine a group of reasonably adult editors looking at a Big Dump of stuff from Wikipedia. A few weeks of trying to stomach that was enough to send them running away screaming and deciding to start from scratch.

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 9:29pm) *

If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem? Either Wikipedia produces good content in which case it is a success and the dysfunction of the community is just a pointless sidenote or Wikipedia doesn't produce good content in which case there's no point in starting with bad content and new editors — they'd be better off just writing from scratch. The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.


What you say here represents the single biggest misconception about the nature of knowledge that the popular imagination has ever misconceived. Generations of educators and researchers have gone to bat trying to combat it. That naturally guarantees it a place of honor in the cornerstone of Wikipediot Fundamentalism, but I'm a little surprised to see otherwise educated people toeing its misbegotten line.

Jon Awbrey



Right, anyone who is willing to do the task is exactly the wrong kind of person needed to do it right. People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) *

People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.


I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid.

Posted by: Moulton

The articles in traditional encyclopedias are written by specialists in their respective fields. The job of the editors is to find those specialists and then ensure that all the articles achieve a standard level of quality.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(anthony @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:37pm) *

You're really much better off starting from scratch. At the most you could use Wikipedia as a reference, to find other sources, but IMO even that isn't a great idea, because one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia articles is what's *not* there.



If you want to start from scratch, you need good editors. People who are loyal to the idea and commited. If there are barriers and no incentives for experts to join and contribute, they simply wont bother. That's what happened with Citizendium. They had the right idea but the way it was implemented and managed was flawed.

Posted by: John Limey

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:48am) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 9:29pm) *

If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem? Either Wikipedia produces good content in which case it is a success and the dysfunction of the community is just a pointless sidenote or Wikipedia doesn't produce good content in which case there's no point in starting with bad content and new editors — they'd be better off just writing from scratch. The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.


What you say here represents the single biggest misconception about the nature of knowledge that the popular imagination has ever misconceived. Generations of educators and researchers have gone to bat trying to combat it. That naturally guarantees it a place of honor in the cornerstone of Wikipediot Fundamentalism, but I'm a little surprised to see otherwise educated people toeing its misbegotten line.

Jon Awbrey


What exactly is the misconception?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) *

People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.


I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid.


Emphasis added above

There you go.


Posted by: John Limey

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) *

People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.


I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid.


Emphasis added above

There you go.


Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 12:51pm) *

They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers.


WP:COI!

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 10:51am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) *

People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.


I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid.


Emphasis added above

There you go.


Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers.



They do not make tens of thousands of edits, nor play MMORPG games. Nor are they participating in a mere simulation of an encyclopedia. They write concise articles on a limited number of topics without undue interference, and reasonable editorial support. Whatever credit there is to had is achieved under their real names, using real credentials and not crowd shared. Even there writing an encyclopedia article is not going to generate much in the way academic creditability.

You are completely clueless of just how wack Wikipedians are and attempt to normalize their weirdness. This simple and basic fact (their weirdness) becomes a growing burden in interacting with Wikipedians, on there site and here as well. Be good and I'll assign you some extra homework.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:29am) *
The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.

In a real business or organization, some people become stale and are moved around to freshen them up; some people go bad and are fired. That can't, in the first place, and doesn't, in the second, really happen on the Pee-dia.

So the idea of a clean start of admins, and the exclusion of many classes of editor, is attractive ... but what would attract the right kind of material to produce a good Encyclopedia?

Like the man says, only money invested in qualifications.

As Churchill would have said, "It has been said that Wikipedia is the worst form of free encyclopedias created by unpaid volunteers except all the others that have been tried."

I was interested to see that http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/MediaWiki:Columns had adopted the Mediawiki software for their journalist's handbook.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 7:29pm) *

The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.


Right because it has damaged editors and flawed content. This is because aspects inherent in the software (anonymity, atomized content, endless levels of topic focus, repetitive tasks carefully recorded and counted, automatic attribution of edits to accounts) plays to the pathology of those attracted to wikis. It creates a self destructive dynamic both for the editors and the content.

Posted by: John Limey

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 19th March 2010, 1:07am) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 7:29pm) *

The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.


Right because it has damaged editors and flawed content. This is because aspects inherent in the software (anonymity, atomized content, endless levels of topic focus, repetitive tasks carefully recorded and counted, automatic attribution of edits to accounts) plays to the pathology of those attracted to wikis. It creates a self destructive dynamic both for the editors and the content.


I think that's fairly true. Wikipedia's content is bad because it combines (generally) bad editors with an (always) bad structure. The occasional gems on Wikipedia are the result of more qualified people who do show up from time to time and somehow manage to dodge the bad structure.

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) *

People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.


I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid.


Emphasis added above

There you go.


Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers.

It is interesting to compare the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and its predecessor the Dictionary of National Biography, with Wikipedia. In both of them the articles on recently deceased people were frequently written by their relatives or friends. Even if not, there are often references to unpublished information obtained from relatives. This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I have heard the author of an article on ODNB, a professional historian, criticise the article on DNB that he replaced (written by a friend of the subject) as "a complete white-wash".

I recently wrote to the ODNB pointing out differences between one of their articles and what was said in obituaries. They have referred it to the article author. I have no way of knowing what "the truth" is in this case or if it even exists, but the ODNB is not infallible.

While I have no doubt that the great majority of articles on the ODNB are of high standard, it is at least possible that in a few cases WP will be better.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 6:54am) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) *

People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.


I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid.


Emphasis added above

There you go.


Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers.

It is interesting to compare the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and its predecessor the Dictionary of National Biography, with Wikipedia. In both of them the articles on recently deceased people were frequently written by their relatives or friends. Even if not, there are often references to unpublished information obtained from relatives. This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I have heard the author of an article on ODNB, a professional historian, criticise the article on DNB that he replaced (written by a friend of the subject) as "a complete white-wash".

I recently wrote to the ODNB pointing out differences between one of their articles and what was said in obituaries. They have referred it to the article author. I have no way of knowing what "the truth" is in this case or if it even exists, but the ODNB is not infallible.

While I have no doubt that the great majority of articles on the ODNB are of high standard, it is at least possible that in a few cases WP will be better.


If by better you mean they include drive by vandalism, baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, images including genitalia "for comparison" and a detailed listing of any reference on Family Guy, The Simpsons and Futurmara I susppose.

Posted by: Tarc

Wikipedia alternatives? There's always encyc.org. smile.gif

Posted by: NotARepublican55

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 7:54am) *

This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.

RFLMAO! laugh.gif

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 9:08am) *

Wikipedia alternatives? There's always encyc.org. smile.gif


Thanks! We're getting there.

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:01pm) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 6:54am) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) *

People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.


I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid.


Emphasis added above

There you go.


Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers.

It is interesting to compare the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and its predecessor the Dictionary of National Biography, with Wikipedia. In both of them the articles on recently deceased people were frequently written by their relatives or friends. Even if not, there are often references to unpublished information obtained from relatives. This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I have heard the author of an article on ODNB, a professional historian, criticise the article on DNB that he replaced (written by a friend of the subject) as "a complete white-wash".

I recently wrote to the ODNB pointing out differences between one of their articles and what was said in obituaries. They have referred it to the article author. I have no way of knowing what "the truth" is in this case or if it even exists, but the ODNB is not infallible.

While I have no doubt that the great majority of articles on the ODNB are of high standard, it is at least possible that in a few cases WP will be better.


If by better you mean they include drive by vandalism, baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, images including genitalia "for comparison" and a detailed listing of any reference on Family Guy, The Simpsons and Futurmara I susppose.

Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors. However, nor am I of the mindset that everything on WP is bad, even the good bits, and that anything else must be better. There are plenty of good biographies on WP, with no baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, genitalia or Family Guy. Further, although ODNB is undoubtedly an excellent source it is far from perfect, especially for recently deceased people where often the article displays a distinct POV. Failure to recognise these points makes it difficult to criticise WP when it is bad, which is certainly fairly often.

Also, WP has plenty of articles on people who are notable and interesting yet have no ODNB articles. Conversely, I am surprised how many people have ODNB articles but no WP ones. Not that I'd say that on WP or people will just shout {{sofixit}}. The old DNB was even worse; it didn't even have an article on Stan Laurel. The ODNB plugged a lot of the more obvious holes. It also added articles on many women. Some would say that's because the DNB editors were male chauvinists who overlooked these women; others would suggest the ODNB is bending over backwards to be politically correct and have as many women as possible. My belief is that both these statements are true.




QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 2:11pm) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 7:54am) *

This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.

RFLMAO! laugh.gif

Surely if you are going to try to criticize Wikipedia you have to use these terms. They're pretty fundamental to the way the place works or at least is supposed to work. I should have added WP:COI of course.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 8:48am) *

Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors.


Straightforward, hear hear!

Now, could you please guide us on whether http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255482597&oldid=255480884 is a vandal or a silly editor?

Or, are you of the opinion that he wasn't "damaging" the article?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 6:48am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:01pm) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 6:54am) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) *

People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.


I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid.


Emphasis added above

There you go.


Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers.

It is interesting to compare the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and its predecessor the Dictionary of National Biography, with Wikipedia. In both of them the articles on recently deceased people were frequently written by their relatives or friends. Even if not, there are often references to unpublished information obtained from relatives. This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I have heard the author of an article on ODNB, a professional historian, criticise the article on DNB that he replaced (written by a friend of the subject) as "a complete white-wash".

I recently wrote to the ODNB pointing out differences between one of their articles and what was said in obituaries. They have referred it to the article author. I have no way of knowing what "the truth" is in this case or if it even exists, but the ODNB is not infallible.

While I have no doubt that the great majority of articles on the ODNB are of high standard, it is at least possible that in a few cases WP will be better.


If by better you mean they include drive by vandalism, baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, images including genitalia "for comparison" and a detailed listing of any reference on Family Guy, The Simpsons and Futurmara I susppose.

Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors. However, nor am I of the mindset that everything on WP is bad, even the good bits, and that anything else must be better. There are plenty of good biographies on WP, with no baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, genitalia or Family Guy. Further, although ODNB is undoubtedly an excellent source it is far from perfect, especially for recently deceased people where often the article displays a distinct POV. Failure to recognise these points makes it difficult to criticise WP when it is bad, which is certainly fairly often.

Also, WP has plenty of articles on people who are notable and interesting yet have no ODNB articles. Conversely, I am surprised how many people have ODNB articles but no WP ones. Not that I'd say that on WP or people will just shout {{sofixit}}. The old DNB was even worse; it didn't even have an article on Stan Laurel. The ODNB plugged a lot of the more obvious holes. It also added articles on many women. Some would say that's because the DNB editors were male chauvinists who overlooked these women; others would suggest the ODNB is bending over backwards to be politically correct and have as many women as possible. My belief is that both these statements are true.




QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 2:11pm) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 7:54am) *

This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.

RFLMAO! laugh.gif

Surely if you are going to try to criticize Wikipedia you have to use these terms. They're pretty fundamental to the way the place works or at least is supposed to work. I should have added WP:COI of course.


In order to criticize Wikipedia you do not need to "use" those terms at all. You need only understand that the reason that WP uses watered down and tokenized TLAs is because it is helpful for the players to manipulate concepts they do not really understand. WP is not an encyclopedia but a simulation of an encyclopedia which permits people not capable of engaging in a sustained academic activity to pretend. That is why articles on serous writers have section son Futurama and the Simpsons. The same reason Sim City might have a nuclear reactor wedged between a casino and a hospital.

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 25th March 2010, 9:02pm) *

In order to criticize Wikipedia you do not need to "use" those terms at all. You need only understand that the reason that WP uses watered down and tokenized TLAs is because it is helpful for the players to manipulate concepts they do not really understand. WP is not an encyclopedia but a simulation of an encyclopedia which permits people not capable of engaging in a sustained academic activity to pretend. That is why articles on serous writers have section son Futurama and the Simpsons. The same reason Sim City might have a nuclear reactor wedged between a casino and a hospital.

Of course anyone can say "Wikipedia is a pile of shit" or worse without even looking at the site still less understanding how it works. I don't call that criticism. If the intention of this site is to have sensible, mature criticism of what is wrong (quite a lot) while not being blind to what is not wrong, what is even good (quite a lot) then you need to understand how it works. You need to edit and get involved in controversies and edit wars. I know that many people who do that end up getting blocked. Sometimes they even deserve it. When they don't deserve it but the blocking admin is incompetent then of course that's a good example of what's wrong with the site.

And of course many editors don't really understand the fundamental concepts like NPOV and RS (neither of which of course is a TLA). Some admins don't either and that's another example of what's wrong with the site. I have a theory that candidates for RfA should have to pass a theory and practical test like a driving test.

Posted by: Moulton

Well, I too had a silly notion that Wikipedians should learn the basics of Mass Media Ethics, but Jimbo vetoed that in no uncertain terms.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Fri 26th March 2010, 12:21pm) *
Of course anyone can say "Wikipedia is a pile of shit" or worse without even looking at the site still less understanding how it works. ... I have a theory that candidates for RfA should have to pass a theory and practical test like a driving test.

All good and right stuff, straightf ... but the Wikipedia is not the "success" it is (success in a kind of "bigur numbaz is betur" way) because it is good and right. That is the mistake many of us made. It is a success more because of what glassbead says, and because it aims somewhere between mediocrity and crap ... with a wide door open to ridiculousness. In fact, such unimaginable ridiculousness in areas primarily because most of its denizens have no idea of the parameters good and right that they regularly sail well beyond. Not at all.

As Barnum reminded us, there is a whole more mediocrity and crap than virtue and value, and more born every day.

Of course, there is also a difference between criticism and detraction.

Funnily enough, I would have put my self amongst the critics until recently but I am starting to tire of it all ... there are too many fault lines in its foundations and too many open sewers running across it gardens where the kids play. But it will keep on existing for a few more years at least until the funders all start to ask why they are paying for storing all that porn and idiotic trivialities.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Fri 26th March 2010, 12:21pm) *

And of course many editors don't really understand the fundamental concepts like NPOV and RS (neither of which of course is a TLA). Some admins don't either and that's another example of what's wrong with the site. I have a theory that candidates for RfA should have to pass a theory and practical test like a driving test.

Perhaps that sums up the problem: that people think that NPOV and RS are fundamental concepts. The fundamental concepts of an encyclopedia are surely far more basic, including trustworthiness and accuracy.

The interesting thing about Reliable Sourcest is how the policy has been distorted so that the Wikipedian version of reliable sources can be and has been moved far away from any real world definition - which rather suggests that it is not a fundamental concept.

It is an issue that has often been discussed: Wikipedians don't seem to realise that Wikipedian policies are not grounded in - for want of a better phrase - encyclopedia theory, but were evolved by interested parties who took control of policy statements to advance personal agendas on what encyclopedias should be about in their opinion. Take a look at policy discussions and you'll see a lot of evidence of how these policy discussions are not informed by the desire to evolve better articles, but are usually triggered by disputes.

If Wikipedia policy were grounded in real world concepts, then you might have a case, but trying to argue that you can only criticise Wikipedia from within its own distorted reality is fundamentally wrong.


Posted by: Moulton

My favorite alternative to Wikipedia is the monster-slaying game on Facebook, where my favorite monster to slay is the Reliable Sorceress.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 11:09am) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 8:48am) *

Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors.


Straightforward, hear hear!

Now, could you please guide us on whether http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255482597&oldid=255480884 is a vandal or a silly editor?

Or, are you of the opinion that he wasn't "damaging" the article?


You didn't answer my simple question, Straightforward. Once you can demonstrate your ability to engage on the simple questions, I will proceed on to the more complex questions.

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 26th March 2010, 2:36pm) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Fri 26th March 2010, 12:21pm) *

And of course many editors don't really understand the fundamental concepts like NPOV and RS (neither of which of course is a TLA). Some admins don't either and that's another example of what's wrong with the site. I have a theory that candidates for RfA should have to pass a theory and practical test like a driving test.

Perhaps that sums up the problem: that people think that NPOV and RS are fundamental concepts. The fundamental concepts of an encyclopedia are surely far more basic, including trustworthiness and accuracy.

The interesting thing about Reliable Sourcest is how the policy has been distorted so that the Wikipedian version of reliable sources can be and has been moved far away from any real world definition - which rather suggests that it is not a fundamental concept.

It is an issue that has often been discussed: Wikipedians don't seem to realise that Wikipedian policies are not grounded in - for want of a better phrase - encyclopedia theory, but were evolved by interested parties who took control of policy statements to advance personal agendas on what encyclopedias should be about in their opinion. Take a look at policy discussions and you'll see a lot of evidence of how these policy discussions are not informed by the desire to evolve better articles, but are usually triggered by disputes.

If Wikipedia policy were grounded in real world concepts, then you might have a case, but trying to argue that you can only criticise Wikipedia from within its own distorted reality is fundamentally wrong.

I quite agree that trustworthiness and accuracy are the things to aim for. But how do you achieve these targets? In writing a biography of a recently deceased and controversial figure do you get it by asking a close friend to write it and allow him to cite "personal information" (the Dictionary of National Biography approach)? Michael Foot will no doubt get an entry there in due course. Had his nephew Paul not unfortunately died already, would he have been asked? Maybe Tony Benn will write it.

No, surely the better approach is to insist that information is cited from trustworthy sources and from a range of sources to avoid the bias of citing only favourable or only unfavourable material. That is the essence of RS and NPOV. No, I don't like some of what is in WP:RS as it now stands. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the principle of asking for reliable sources. It means there is something wrong with the governance of the place that allows things to be twisted.

I don't believe that I am only seeing WP's twisted version of reality. Nobody could call me a Jimbo acolyte.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Fri 26th March 2010, 6:21am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 25th March 2010, 9:02pm) *

In order to criticize Wikipedia you do not need to "use" those terms at all. You need only understand that the reason that WP uses watered down and tokenized TLAs is because it is helpful for the players to manipulate concepts they do not really understand. WP is not an encyclopedia but a simulation of an encyclopedia which permits people not capable of engaging in a sustained academic activity to pretend. That is why articles on serous writers have section son Futurama and the Simpsons. The same reason Sim City might have a nuclear reactor wedged between a casino and a hospital.

Of course anyone can say "Wikipedia is a pile of shit" or worse without even looking at the site still less understanding how it works. I don't call that criticism. If the intention of this site is to have sensible, mature criticism of what is wrong (quite a lot) while not being blind to what is not wrong, what is even good (quite a lot) then you need to understand how it works. You need to edit and get involved in controversies and edit wars. I know that many people who do that end up getting blocked. Sometimes they even deserve it. When they don't deserve it but the blocking admin is incompetent then of course that's a good example of what's wrong with the site.

And of course many editors don't really understand the fundamental concepts like NPOV and RS (neither of which of course is a TLA). Some admins don't either and that's another example of what's wrong with the site. I have a theory that candidates for RfA should have to pass a theory and practical test like a driving test.


Your "sensible and mature"criticism accepts the manifest premises of WP hook-line-and-sinker. You're a moron who can't tell the difference between a simulation and reality. "You need to edit and get involved in controversies and edit wars" is probably the single worst piece of advice ever given to anyone on WR.

The most important characteristic of a game is to entertain the players. There are not going to be any competency exams anywhere around WP.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 26th March 2010, 11:36am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 11:09am) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 8:48am) *

Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors.


Straightforward, hear hear!

Now, could you please guide us on whether http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255482597&oldid=255480884 is a vandal or a silly editor?

Or, are you of the opinion that he wasn't "damaging" the article?


You didn't answer my simple question, Straightforward. Once you can demonstrate your ability to engage on the simple questions, I will proceed on to the more complex questions.


One more chance, Straightforward, before I put you on "ignore". I want to hear your assessment of User:Fram's edit.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Fri 26th March 2010, 4:59pm) *

No, surely the better approach is to insist that information is cited from trustworthy sources and from a range of sources to avoid the bias of citing only favourable or only unfavourable material. That is the essence of RS and NPOV. No, I don't like some of what is in WP:RS as it now stands. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the principle of asking for reliable sources. It means there is something wrong with the governance of the place that allows things to be twisted.

No, it means more than that, for there's something twisted in asking for the use of "reliable sources" from a group of people whose education has not equipped them to tell what a reliable source is. That's like asking a bunch of blind soldiers with machine guns to shoot straight. There's nothing wrong with the principle of asking soldiers to shoot straight per se, but when you know your soldiers are blind and incapable of it, it becomes perverse.

The problem is that there's a lot of "folk knowledge" out there that is wrong. It gets repeated in newspapers and even textbooks, an expert in the field would be unlikely to pass it on. Your high school teacher might tell you that mass is converted to energy in nuclear reactions, but a physicist who specializes in relativity would not. You could read in a pop sci magazing that helium raises the pitch of your voice, and be given 3 reason why, all of them wrong (since it doesn't). A nutrition textbook might natter about how energy is "stored" in the chemical bonds of your food, but an actual chemist would tell you energy cannot be stored in chemical bonds; it always TAKES energy to break them (they store negative energy, like a credit card balance stores negative money). And so on. So where the hell is that energy stored? Your quiz for today.

Jimbo once opined that if a fact is true, it ought to be easy to find a citation for it. Alas, no good logic thereby supports the idea that if a factoid is false that it is hard to find a citation for it. On the contrary, myths are rampant and they multiply in proportion to how plausable they sound. And are repeated in publications the same way. Encyclopedias written by experts ignore this stuff. An encyclopedia written by the general public really has no way to do so. So they fight. Occassionally somebody has the bright idea to bring in an expert to settle a matter, but since everybody is anonymous, that doesn't work either. So they fight some more until one side is exhausted, and there it stays. Eventually some expert stumbles upon the matter again and the fight starts over. This goes on perpetually. unhappy.gif

How many people shot JFK? How do you know?

How much vitamin C do you need for optimal health? How do you know?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:20am) *
No, it means more than that, for there's something twisted in asking for the use of "reliable sources" from a group of people whose education has not equipped them to tell what a reliable source is.


That is the problem ... but it get worse.

There are many people whose education HAS, in theory, equipped them to tell what a reliable source is and yet they don't care or could not give a damn. They are willfully using their knowledge and superiority as a work around to promote whatever agenda it is they have. Or vent their personal nastiness.

The only alternative to Wikipedia is no Wikipedia and unlike other dot com bubbles it cannot be sold on or sold off.

This is perhaps what makes it unique. How long will it be able to sustain itself on donations alone is the question. At present that must be at least a decade. Depressing to think this much shit will hang around that long repeating itself really ... unless it REALLY sorts it self out.

At present it is a fashion rather than an institution. As a fad, has it a shelf life and how long? Have the current contributors the capacity to raise up to an institution level? Not a hope in hell.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:20am) *

Jimbo once opined that if a fact is true, it ought to be easy to find a citation for it. Alas, no good logic thereby supports the idea that if a factoid is false that it is hard to find a citation for it. On the contrary, myths are rampant and they multiply in proportion to how plausable they sound.

I think that's a keeper.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:38pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:20am) *
No, it means more than that, for there's something twisted in asking for the use of "reliable sources" from a group of people whose education has not equipped them to tell what a reliable source is.


That is the problem ... but it get worse.

There are many people whose education HAS, in theory, equipped them to tell what a reliable source is and yet they don't care or could not give a damn. They are willfully using their knowledge and superiority as a work around to promote whatever agenda it is they have. Or vent their personal nastiness.

The only alternative to Wikipedia is no Wikipedia and unlike other dot com bubbles it cannot be sold on or sold off.

This is perhaps what makes it unique. How long will it be able to sustain itself on donations alone is the question. At present that must be at least a decade. Depressing to think this much shit will hang around that long repeating itself really ... unless it REALLY sorts it self out.

At present it is a fashion rather than an institution. As a fad, has it a shelf life and how long? Have the current contributors the capacity to raise up to an institution level? Not a hope in hell.


As long as Google has a relationship with wikipedia and continues to pump millions into it via donations, wikipedia won't be going away anytime soon.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 4:09pm) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 8:48am) *

Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors.


Straightforward, hear hear!

Now, could you please guide us on whether http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255482597&oldid=255480884 is a vandal or a silly editor?

Or, are you of the opinion that he wasn't "damaging" the article?

That one's http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.123.0.8. wink.gif

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:20am) *

How many people shot JFK? How do you know?

http://i39.tinypic.com/2mcx0lh.jpg

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Sat 27th March 2010, 8:46am) *
As long as Google has a relationship with wikipedia and continues to pump millions into it via donations, wikipedia won't be going away anytime soon.


A fair comment and one which I find interesting. Especially given Jimmy Wales's recent quote about "the founders of Google being naive" which verges on biting the wallet that sustains one.

Perhaps Google's support of the Wikipedia ... as in financial support to the foundation directly rather than the value adding, content contributing editors ... is also "naive" and ideologically biased?

Why not just move Wikipedia to the Google servers directly and cut costs? (Remember where you read that first). Wikipedia does not need the cost of its own server farm/farms ... as much fun as it might be to run them. More cuts, less cost, put the money into real experts and actual professional editors.

The Google-Wikipedia relationship needs to be examined ar more closely, and with an inside eye, especially given recent evidence that raising a Wikipedia page to the very top of Google's first page takes as little time as tens of seconds ... something mere mortal web developers could never achieve despite the worthiness of any of their projects.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sat 27th March 2010, 4:46am) *
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:20am) *
Jimbo once opined that if a fact is true, it ought to be easy to find a citation for it. Alas, no good logic thereby supports the idea that if a factoid is false that it is hard to find a citation for it. On the contrary, myths are rampant and they multiply in proportion to how plausible they sound.
I think that's a keeper.

So do I.

Milton went on to give some obscure examples of myths and misconceptions (mostly form the worlds of physics and chemistry), but I think it's more interesting to explore the large and more momentous myths and misconceptions that pervade our culture and which substantially distort our policies and practices from ethical best practices.

One of my favorite educational exercises is to challenge students to come up with their own list of the biggest and most important myths and misconceptions currently in wide circulation today, and elaborate on the importance each of them.

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 27th March 2010, 1:08am) *

Your "sensible and mature"criticism accepts the manifest premises of WP hook-line-and-sinker. You're a moron who can't tell the difference between a simulation and reality. "You need to edit and get involved in controversies and edit wars" is probably the single worst piece of advice ever given to anyone on WR.

The most important characteristic of a game is to entertain the players. There are not going to be any competency exams anywhere around WP.

Which manifest premises of WP have I accepted hook-line-and-sinker? That Jimbo is infallible? That admins always have the good of WP uppermost? That errors on WP are always corrected quickly? I could go on and on.

What I do accept is that it is wrong to have extremely biased articles, or to add information without having a good source to back you up. Who here disagrees with that? I have read a lot of debate about BLPs for example where people are saying that it is wrong that articles are biased or have unsourced information. Wouldn't thee BLP situation be a lot better (I don't say cured) if people stuck rigorously to NPOV and RS?


QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:20am) *

No, it means more than that, for there's something twisted in asking for the use of "reliable sources" from a group of people whose education has not equipped them to tell what a reliable source is. That's like asking a bunch of blind soldiers with machine guns to shoot straight. There's nothing wrong with the principle of asking soldiers to shoot straight per se, but when you know your soldiers are blind and incapable of it, it becomes perverse.

Please distinguish between the principle of RS and how it is implemented. i quite agree that it is sometimes implemented badly. We should focus on that not try to deride the principle.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sat 27th March 2010, 7:14am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 27th March 2010, 1:08am) *

Your "sensible and mature"criticism accepts the manifest premises of WP hook-line-and-sinker. You're a moron who can't tell the difference between a simulation and reality. "You need to edit and get involved in controversies and edit wars" is probably the single worst piece of advice ever given to anyone on WR.

The most important characteristic of a game is to entertain the players. There are not going to be any competency exams anywhere around WP.

Which manifest premises of WP have I accepted hook-line-and-sinker? That Jimbo is infallible? That admins always have the good of WP uppermost? That errors on WP are always corrected quickly? I could go on and on.



How unbelievably shallow. Spend some time reading the forum. Learn to filter out the Wikipedian noise then come back.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sat 27th March 2010, 8:14am) *
Wouldn't thee BLP situation be a lot better (I don't say cured) if people stuck rigorously to NPOV and RS?
This statement indicates that you've accepted the remarkable assertion that such as thing as a "neutral point of view" exists, or that Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" has any meaning whatsoever.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:14am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:20am) *

No, it means more than that, for there's something twisted in asking for the use of "reliable sources" from a group of people whose education has not equipped them to tell what a reliable source is. That's like asking a bunch of blind soldiers with machine guns to shoot straight. There's nothing wrong with the principle of asking soldiers to shoot straight per se, but when you know your soldiers are blind and incapable of it, it becomes perverse.

Please distinguish between the principle of RS and how it is implemented. i quite agree that it is sometimes implemented badly. We should focus on that not try to deride the principle.

The PRINCIPLE per se is the principle behind academic studies (though of course not experimental studies). It's the principle behind good academic research, (at least) though not all good scientific research (which relies also on experiment).

If if you want lip service to the idea so much, I'll be glad to give it to you, but it's not the reason WP fails and you can't fix WP by implementing it, any more than you make make a whale fly and keep it a whale. You could not change WP in this regard without making it wholely a different thing from what it is. You'd have to have an on-line university for that, complete with real names, experts with identified credentials, CVs and publication records, and the whole set of trappings of Harvard, save possibly the mortarboards and the VERITAS. Good luck with that (the University of Phoenix comes to mind, but it uses no Wikis that I know of).

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:18am) *

How unbelievably shallow. Spend some time reading the forum. Learn to filter out the Wikipedian noise then come back.

I repeat: which manifest premises of WP have I accepted hook-line-and-sinker?

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:27am) *

This statement indicates that you've accepted the remarkable assertion that such as thing as a "neutral point of view" exists, or that Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" has any meaning whatsoever.

This statement indicates that you've accepted the remarkable assertion that it is pointless to make any attempt to be neutral; it is impossible to be 100% neutral but you should make the effort; and that it is also pointless to try to find reliable sources, remembering that the principle of using such sources is a very different issue from the current state of the WP:RS page.

So who's for an encyclopedia that is highly partisan and biased, whose editors don't care that it is, and that relies on no verifiable sources whatsoever?

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th March 2010, 2:16am) *

The PRINCIPLE per se is the principle behind academic studies (though of course not experimental studies). It's the principle behind good academic research, (at least) though not all good scientific research (which relies also on experiment).

If if you want lip service to the idea so much, I'll be glad to give it to you, but it's not the reason WP fails and you can't fix WP by implementing it, any more than you make make a whale fly and keep it a whale. You could not change WP in this regard without making it wholely a different thing from what it is. You'd have to have an on-line university for that, complete with real names, experts with identified credentials, CVs and publication records, and the whole set of trappings of Harvard, save possibly the mortarboards and the VERITAS. Good luck with that (the University of Phoenix comes to mind, but it uses no Wikis that I know of).

Hmm, lukewarm support for my position. But why on earth do you need "real names, experts with identified credentials, CVs and publication records"? Not even Encyclopedia Britannica does that; many articles are anonymous, and no author has his CVs and publications given. The whole point of reliable, verifiable sources is that anyone can check them. And if you're worried about bias, you can be a named, well-qualified editor and still be hopelessly biased. As I said recently, you could get Tony Benn, an identifiable and well-qualified person, to write an article on Michael Foot; it would no doubt be very biased.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sun 28th March 2010, 10:21am) *

Hmm, lukewarm support for my position. But why on earth do you need "real names, experts with identified credentials, CVs and publication records"? Not even Encyclopedia Britannica does that; many articles are anonymous, and no author has his CVs and publications given. The whole point of reliable, verifiable sources is that anyone can check them. And if you're worried about bias, you can be a named, well-qualified editor and still be hopelessly biased. As I said recently, you could get Tony Benn, an identifiable and well-qualified person, to write an article on Michael Foot; it would no doubt be very biased.

If you wanted any sympathy you would have muttered something about Chip Berlet and Lyndon LaRouche. Alas, too late now.

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:14pm) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sun 28th March 2010, 10:21am) *

Hmm, lukewarm support for my position. But why on earth do you need "real names, experts with identified credentials, CVs and publication records"? Not even Encyclopedia Britannica does that; many articles are anonymous, and no author has his CVs and publications given. The whole point of reliable, verifiable sources is that anyone can check them. And if you're worried about bias, you can be a named, well-qualified editor and still be hopelessly biased. As I said recently, you could get Tony Benn, an identifiable and well-qualified person, to write an article on Michael Foot; it would no doubt be very biased.

If you wanted any sympathy you would have muttered something about Chip Berlet and Lyndon LaRouche. Alas, too late now.

Why, what qualifications do they have? blink.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sun 28th March 2010, 4:11am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:18am) *

How unbelievably shallow. Spend some time reading the forum. Learn to filter out the Wikipedian noise then come back.


I repeat: which manifest premises of WP have I accepted hook-line-and-sinker?



Ignore my advice at your own peril. You seem to have swallowed whole the idea that WP is an "encyclopedia." From that endless delusions and conceits follow.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sun 28th March 2010, 3:21am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th March 2010, 2:16am) *

The PRINCIPLE per se is the principle behind academic studies (though of course not experimental studies). It's the principle behind good academic research, (at least) though not all good scientific research (which relies also on experiment).

If if you want lip service to the idea so much, I'll be glad to give it to you, but it's not the reason WP fails and you can't fix WP by implementing it, any more than you make make a whale fly and keep it a whale. You could not change WP in this regard without making it wholely a different thing from what it is. You'd have to have an on-line university for that, complete with real names, experts with identified credentials, CVs and publication records, and the whole set of trappings of Harvard, save possibly the mortarboards and the VERITAS. Good luck with that (the University of Phoenix comes to mind, but it uses no Wikis that I know of).

Hmm, lukewarm support for my position. But why on earth do you need "real names, experts with identified credentials, CVs and publication records"? Not even Encyclopedia Britannica does that; many articles are anonymous, and no author has his CVs and publications given. The whole point of reliable, verifiable sources is that anyone can check them.


Not that's not correct:

http://corporate.britannica.com/faq.html

QUOTE
Information on Encyclopædia Britannica's authors and contributors
Unfortunately, the authors of every article are not listed on Britannica.com or Britannica Online. However, this information is available in the Encyclopædia Britannica print set. We suggest that you visit your local school or public library if you require the author's name. Authors are generally referred to by their initials at the ends of the articles in these resources. For instance, "E.G." would stand for "Evel Gasparini," who wrote part of the "European Religions, Ancient" article. This information would be found in the Propaedia section of the print set.


It is true that Britannica doesn't reference every statement like a research paper would. We're supposed to trust the experts who write the articles to write them like that, then remove the reference notes so we don't have to look at them (some further reading is given at the ends of articles if you want more). Ironically, this is part of what makes an "encyclopedia" different from a review paper in a refereed journal. WP wants to be an "encyclopedia" but due to its lack of expert identifiable authorship, it's forced to have the semi-look-and-feel of a journal review article. Strangely, this hasn't been pointed out very much (I don't remember anybody commenting on it, at least).

As for bias, that's also part and parcel of what you expect in an encyclopedia, due to the fact that the articles are written by only one (or at best) a few people, and are checked by a limited number of others. But that's usually okay, as the bias can't be removed anyway (it certainly hasn't been removed from Wikipedia) and the best way to deal with it is to know the author, so you can know something about his/her biases! And correct for them.

In my university (as in many others) it was typical for profs at the beginning of class to declare their biases, and suggest other profs you could go to for other views. Then, we started.

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th March 2010, 8:14pm) *

Ignore my advice at your own peril. You seem to have swallowed whole the idea that WP is an "encyclopedia." From that endless delusions and conceits follow.

I have said no such thing. I have said that it has good parts and that it is in principle a good idea to aim not to be overly biased and to rely on reliable sources. That's not the same thing at all.

Is it the case that in the world of WR, anyone who does not dismiss WP contemptuously as a pile of shit is labelled a fanatical Jimbo-lover who believes WP can do no wrong? I cannot fathom how you can make useful, informed criticism of WP if you are in either of those camps. Surely it would make sense to encourage people who have actively engaged in the project and have become somewhat cynical, recognising both the good and the bad. GlassBeadGame seems determined not to allow such people on this site.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th March 2010, 9:05pm) *

Information on Encyclopædia Britannica's authors and contributors
Unfortunately, the authors of every article are not listed on Britannica.com or Britannica Online. However, this information is available in the Encyclopædia Britannica print set. We suggest that you visit your local school or public library if you require the author's name. Authors are generally referred to by their initials at the ends of the articles in these resources. For instance, "E.G." would stand for "Evel Gasparini," who wrote part of the "European Religions, Ancient" article. This information would be found in the Propaedia section of the print set.

Yes, the authors are known but Britannica does not publish "identified credentials, CVs and publication records", does it?
QUOTE
As for bias, that's also part and parcel of what you expect in an encyclopedia, due to the fact that the articles are written by only one (or at best) a few people, and are checked by a limited number of others. But that's usually okay, as the bias can't be removed anyway (it certainly hasn't been removed from Wikipedia) and the best way to deal with it is to know the author, so you can know something about his/her biases! And correct for them.

What ought to be Wikipedia's strength (and before people shout at me again, I know as well as anyone the difference between fact and theory here) is that many people with different viewpoints can contribute to and check articles hence avoid precisely this problem. Of course, on controversial areas that leads to a lot of fighting, but I have seen many such articles emerge from the process as fair-minded and representing both sides, so the process can work.

And if you know the field well enough to know the ins and outs of the views of the authors (who are rarely the top international experts in their areas) and to correct for them, why are you bothering with reading that article?

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:22pm) *

Is it the case that in the world of WR, anyone who does not dismiss WP contemptuously as a pile of shit is labelled a fanatical Jimbo-lover who believes WP can do no wrong? I cannot fathom how you can make useful, informed criticism of WP if you are in either of those camps. Surely it would make sense to encourage people who have actively engaged in the project and have become somewhat cynical, recognising both the good and the bad. GlassBeadGame seems determined not to allow such people on this site.

There are others of us who are in your "engaged in WP but cynical" camp, and we're still on the site.

Personally I still contribute to WP, believing that its content will outlast it, and be useful till it eventually is overwriten or superceeded by some entity I cannot now imagine. But I see the seeds of something potentially good here, even if some on this site do not. They see Kudzu and cancer. I have an Emersonian optimism: "...striving to be man, the worm/Mounts through all the spires of form.." And all that.

Please see my skeptic's credo regarding editing Wikipedia:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18620

Posted by: Straightforward

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th March 2010, 9:32pm) *


There are others of us who are in your "engaged in WP but cynical" camp, and we're still on the site.

Personally I still contribute to WP, believing that its content will outlast it, and be useful till it eventually is overwriten or superceeded by some entity I cannot now imagine. But I see the seeds of something potentially good here, even if some on this site do not. They see Kudzu and cancer. I have an Emersonian optimism: "...striving to be man, the worm/Mounts through all the spires of form.." And all that.

Please see my skeptic's credo regarding editing Wikipedia:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18620

Well Milton, we seem to agree far more than we disagree! I hope that we can continue to discuss things in a civilised manner.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th March 2010, 8:05pm) *

It is true that Britannica doesn't reference every statement like a research paper would. We're supposed to trust the experts who write the articles to write them like that, then remove the reference notes so we don't have to look at them (some further reading is given at the ends of articles if you want more). Ironically, this is part of what makes an "encyclopedia" different from a review paper in a refereed journal. WP wants to be an "encyclopedia" but due to its lack of expert identifiable authorship, it's forced to have the semi-look-and-feel of a journal review article. Strangely, this hasn't been pointed out very much (I don't remember anybody commenting on it, at least).


That's an awesome observation. I wish someone had pointed that out when Wikinews decided not to include inline references ("because that's not how traditional news articles are written").

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 26th March 2010, 11:36am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 11:09am) *

QUOTE(Straightforward @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 8:48am) *

Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors.


Straightforward, hear hear!

Now, could you please guide us on whether http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255482597&oldid=255480884 is a vandal or a silly editor?

Or, are you of the opinion that he wasn't "damaging" the article?


You didn't answer my simple question, Straightforward. Once you can demonstrate your ability to engage on the simple questions, I will proceed on to the more complex questions.


Bumping this. I may have missed it, but Straightforward still hasn't answered this. Is because he's Poetlister? By the way, I got a couple of e-mails from Poetlister this weekend. It seems he's sad that I haven't supported him more.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 28th March 2010, 9:15pm) *
Bumping this. I may have missed it, but Straightforward still hasn't answered this. Is because he's Poetlister?

He is, indeed, Poetlister. However, it's conceivable that he could have other reasons for not answering, like adenoids or painful genital warts.

Anyway, just because you were right this time doesn't mean we wouldn't prefer it if you'd bring these suspicions of yours to us more privately in future... dry.gif

QUOTE
By the way, I got a couple of e-mails from Poetlister this weekend. It seems he's sad that I haven't supported him more.

Well, it's not his fault, is it? (Whatever it is.)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 28th March 2010, 10:56pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 28th March 2010, 9:15pm) *
Bumping this. I may have missed it, but Straightforward still hasn't answered this. Is because he's Poetlister?

He is, indeed, Poetlister. However, it's conceivable that he could have other reasons for not answering, like adenoids or painful genital warts.

Anyway, just because you were right this time doesn't mean we wouldn't prefer it if you'd bring these suspicions of yours to us more privately in future... dry.gif

QUOTE
By the way, I got a couple of e-mails from Poetlister this weekend. It seems he's sad that I haven't supported him more.

Well, it's not his fault, is it? (Whatever it is.)


Somey, could you remind me again why we don't want to publicly embarrass MB as he continues to manipulate this board and waste our time? Is it that you want to be able to monitor his activity, so that you might get more skilled at understanding his IP techniques? If that's the case, I can probably comply with that. However, I have to say it did feel good to finally nail one on the head.

Dark chocolate bunnies are on me today!

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 29th March 2010, 8:19am) *
Somey, could you remind me again why we don't want to publicly embarrass MB as he continues to manipulate this board and waste our time?

Personally, I see no need to embarrass him any more than he has been already, but to be honest, I hadn't been reading this thread until recently. I keep getting caught up in... other stuff.

I'll have to set up a search in the ACP for this pattern of behavior (i.e., recently joined, lots of posts, few discrete threads). That, or write my own IP checker, though I'd obviously rather not have to go to that extent.

QUOTE
However, I have to say it did feel good to finally nail one on the head.

I figure you'll probably be right about 40 percent of the time based on the specific attitude towards you (and MWB, etc.) alone, and if you make the effort to be more discerning you'll be right anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of the time. But it should never reach that point, and you're right in that it's a waste of your time and everyone else's (though I do think this particular thread has a lot of useful/insightful stuff in it, at least).

Anyway, I just have to be more on top of things.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 30th March 2010, 5:56am) *

But it should never reach that point, and you're right in that it's a waste of your time and everyone else's (though I do think this particular thread has a lot of useful/insightful stuff in it, at least).

Anyway, I just have to be more on top of things.



I'd like to see the discussion return to the original post - alternatives to wikipedia. List alternatives to wikipedia with their pros and cons.

Posted by: timbo

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Mon 29th March 2010, 4:46pm) *

I'd like to see the discussion return to the original post - alternatives to wikipedia. List alternatives to wikipedia with their pros and cons.


I like Wikipedia. That works for me.

t

Posted by: Moulton

WikiCulture doesn't work for me.

Then again, I also find Mafia Wars boring, too.

Posted by: Text

QUOTE
I'd like to see the discussion return to the original post - alternatives to wikipedia. List alternatives to wikipedia with their pros and cons.


Wikipedia
Has all of the search engine reach
Posters can't control their things
Everyone is anonymous or pseudonymous
The president of the site tends to lie a lot

Wikipedia Review
Has a decent search engine reach
Posters have very good control on their things
People generally use their real name, and the founder is known and has good credentials for the project
The founder looks honest so far

Everything2
Has a decent search engine reach because it has been online since 1999
Posters control what they write, and can only modify their own stuff
Everyone can be anonymous or pseudonymous, and the founder's name and credentials are known
No comments on the founder

Encyc
Has poor search engine reach so far
Posters can control their things somewhat
Most contributors are anonymous or pseudonymous, including the founder
No comments on the founder

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(Text @ Fri 27th August 2010, 8:49am) *

QUOTE
I'd like to see the discussion return to the original post - alternatives to wikipedia. List alternatives to wikipedia with their pros and cons.


Wikipedia
Has all of the search engine reach
Posters can't control their things
Everyone is anonymous or pseudonymous
The president of the site tends to lie a lot

Wikipedia Review
Has a decent search engine reach
Posters have very good control on their things
People generally use their real name, and the founder is known and has good credentials for the project
The founder looks honest so far

Everything2
Has a decent search engine reach because it has been online since 1999
Posters control what they write, and can only modify their own stuff
Everyone can be anonymous or pseudonymous, and the founder's name and credentials are known
No comments on the founder

Encyc
Has poor search engine reach so far
Posters can control their things somewhat
Most contributors are anonymous or pseudonymous, including the founder
No comments on the founder



Thank you for including Encyc in the Big Four. One correction about Wikipedia, though. Some people there are using their real names.

I'd also add Citizendium (complicated rules), Wikinfo (not sure how it's doing), and Conservapedia (active but ideologically narrow).

A good Wikiversity alternative is Wikademia.

Posted by: Text

QUOTE
Thank you for including Encyc in the Big Four. One correction about Wikipedia, though. Some people there are using their real names.

I'd also add Citizendium (complicated rules), Wikinfo (not sure how it's doing), and Conservapedia (active but ideologically narrow).

A good Wikiversity alternative is Wikademia.


Any blog or forum could also be a very good alternative. They're all instruments for communication, first and foremost.

Posted by: Text

Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more people here telling their stories about Usenet, Compuserve and similar services which were in use between 1985 and 2000. Few people here, and around the planet in general, can share their experiences about those systems.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Text @ Wed 8th September 2010, 4:36pm) *
Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more people here telling their stories about Usenet, Compuserve and similar services which were in use between 1985 and 2000.

Try http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28045&view=findpost&p=213654.

Posted by: Text

That means that in substance, Wikipedia has only cast a large shadow on those forgotten sites, but they're still there, just largely unpopulated.

There's a similarity with "boom towns" of the Old West. Little villages which prospered for some time as long as gold and silver were mined out of near hills. After the gold ended, the villaged ceased to exist almost immediately as everyone went away.

And of course, the longer and the more popular the village became, the more the possibilities for exploitation from big companies from the East.

Jimmy has an the interest in keeping the boom town flourishing, and the gold is being fabricated by volunteers, in a process of self-feeding...

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(Text @ Thu 9th September 2010, 10:21am) *

That means that in substance, Wikipedia has only cast a large shadow on those forgotten sites, but they're still there, just largely unpopulated.

There's a similarity with "boom towns" of the Old West. Little villages which prospered for some time as long as gold and silver were mined out of near hills. After the gold ended, the villaged ceased to exist almost immediately as everyone went away.

And of course, the longer and the more popular the village became, the more the possibilities for exploitation from big companies from the East.

Jimmy has an the interest in keeping the boom town flourishing, and the gold is being fabricated by volunteers, in a process of self-feeding...


With wikipedia it's more iron pyrites than actual gold being produced laugh.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Text @ Wed 8th September 2010, 7:36pm) *

Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more people here telling their stories about Usenet, Compuserve and similar services which were in use between 1985 and 2000. Few people here, and around the planet in general, can share their experiences about those systems.


I was a subscriber to Prodigy in 1992, I believe was the year. Compuserve, also, for a shorter time. Then I got addicted to AOL. Ran up a couple of $100+ monthly bills on that service. Volunteering for the Homework Help forum was a boon -- you got two minutes of free AOL time for every minute you documented as working for Homework Help.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Text @ Thu 9th September 2010, 12:21am) *
Jimmy has an the interest in keeping the boom town flourishing, and the gold is being fabricated by volunteers, in a process of self-feeding...


Yah, the gold diggers always follow the gold diggers and either Jimbo has elected himself mayor ... or he owns the most popular whorehouse on the www.

I guess that is why Wikipedia turned to hard core pornography and prostituting the idea of an encyclopedia ... and where it locates itself in the social order.

More analysis required.

Posted by: lilburne

I dug out an old CD copy of Britannica (1999) the other day. Interesting that it installed on a win7 machine, it had previously barfed on XP.

Surprisingly refreshing and got to the essence of the information I was looking up without the incoherent blather.


Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 9th September 2010, 8:18am) *

I dug out an old CD copy of Britannica (1999) the other day. Interesting that it installed on a win7 machine, it had previously barfed on XP.

Surprisingly refreshing and got to the essence of the information I was looking up without the incoherent blather.


If you actually have a professionally-written book or CD sitting on the shelf within arms reach, it's almost always faster and easier than dealing with Web 2.0.

It's sad for the kids who don't learn how to use both anymore.