| |
|
  |
 Alternatives to Wikipedia, Competitors to the beast |
|
|
| DawnofMan |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 17,885
|
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?
This post has been edited by DawnofMan:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DawnofMan |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 17,885
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DawnofMan |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 17,885
|
I'm not discouraged by the responses here (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/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? This post has been edited by DawnofMan: |
|
|
|
|
|
| John Limey |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined:
Member No.: 12,473
|
The alternative to Wikipedia is not one site but several. First you have the other non-profit competitors that compete in various niches: - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Supported by Stanford University and various foundations. Excellent articles written by experts on philosophical topics, but suffers from spotty coverage.
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Supported by the University of Tennessee. Good coverage. Expert written, pitched at a slightly more accessible level than the SEP.
- Encyclopedia Virginia - Supported by the State of Virginia. Mostly historical articles which are of uniformly excellent quality and written by experts.
- Australian Dictionary of Biography - Published conventionally but available online through the support of the Australian Research Council. Professionally written and almost always superior to Wikipedia.
- Holocaust Encyclopedia - Expert written and available in many languages, though the articles are generally short. Funded by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
- Encyclopedia of Earth - Supported by a variety of nonprofits. Expert-written coverage of scientific topics, particularly those related to the environment
- Encyclopedia of Alabama - 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
- Encyclopedia of Ukraine - 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| A User |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 5,813
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
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: - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Supported by Stanford University and various foundations. Excellent articles written by experts on philosophical topics, but suffers from spotty coverage.
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Supported by the University of Tennessee. Good coverage. Expert written, pitched at a slightly more accessible level than the SEP.
- Encyclopedia Virginia - Supported by the State of Virginia. Mostly historical articles which are of uniformly excellent quality and written by experts.
- Australian Dictionary of Biography - Published conventionally but available online through the support of the Australian Research Council. Professionally written and almost always superior to Wikipedia.
- Holocaust Encyclopedia - Expert written and available in many languages, though the articles are generally short. Funded by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
- Encyclopedia of Earth - Supported by a variety of nonprofits. Expert-written coverage of scientific topics, particularly those related to the environment
- Encyclopedia of Alabama - 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
- Encyclopedia of Ukraine - 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| DawnofMan |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 17,885
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
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/contributeSomething 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| DawnofMan |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 17,885
|
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:ActiveUsersA 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| NotARepublican55 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined:
Member No.: 15,925
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
| anthony |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
|
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 (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/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. This post has been edited by anthony: |
|
|
|
|
|
| anthony |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
|
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: How To Read Wikipedia |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| A User |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 5,813
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| John Limey |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined:
Member No.: 12,473
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
| John Limey |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined:
Member No.: 12,473
|
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.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. This post has been edited by John Limey: |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
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.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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
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 Reuters.com had adopted the Mediawiki software for their journalist's handbook. |
|
|
|
|
|
| John Limey |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined:
Member No.: 12,473
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
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.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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
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.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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| NotARepublican55 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined:
Member No.: 15,925
|
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! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
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.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! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
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.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! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
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 this person 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
