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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

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

[Emperor]

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

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

[Luís Henrique]

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

But isn't this part of the problem?

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

Luís Henrique

[Emperor]

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

Hmm well let's take Thailand. I don't know much about it either, but having two "History" sections seems kind of redundant to me. Also the tone of the material about WWII seems a bit off... Can't they just admit that they were on the wrong side? At least they mentioned that it's the only southeast Asian country never to have been colonized. That's something a normal person might want to know.

Refining iron ore - longwinded stuff in both "Smelting" and "Blast Furnace", but maybe better than nothing if you have some patience.

Emphysema - The lead sucks for defining it simply as a COPD. Points off again for not mentioning the phrase "loss of elasticity" in the lead, or ever clearly getting the point across in the entire article that air spaces containing the alveoli actually expand. But three points for mentioning smoking in the lead, and 5,000 WikiPoints for mentioning alpha 1-antitrypsin a hundred times. Better off checking Stedman's.

[Luís Henrique]

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

Hmm well let's take Thailand. I don't know much about it either, but having two "History" sections seems kind of redundant to me. Also the tone of the material about WWII seems a bit off... Can't they just admit that they were on the wrong side? At least they mentioned that it's the only southeast Asian country never to have been colonized. That's something a normal person might want to know.

Refining iron ore - longwinded stuff in both "Smelting" and "Blast Furnace", but maybe better than nothing if you have some patience.

Emphysema - The lead sucks for defining it simply as a COPD. Points off again for not mentioning the phrase "loss of elasticity" in the lead, or ever clearly getting the point across in the entire article that air spaces containing the alveoli actually expand. But three points for mentioning smoking in the lead, and 5,000 WikiPoints for mentioning alpha 1-antitrypsin a hundred times. Better off checking Stedman's.

I think an important difference is that emphysema and iron ore refining both have plenty English-speaking experts; blatant falseties would probably attract enough ridicule upon Wikipedia to get them quickly fixed/deleted. Thailand is probably more complicated: even "experts" on a foreign country will probably miss the correct "mood" of its politics and culture; and it is, I think, possible to make a totally false and misleading article about a country without actually stating a single false "fact".

(Imagine an article about the United States focused on how its politics revolve about religious issues - abortions, evolution teaching, commandments in town halls, etc. The statements could all be actually true, but the immense variety of American culture, politics and life would be fundamentally misrepresented.)

According to the article, Thailand's recorded history begins in the XIII century. But its political section begins in 1932, then jumps directly to 1997.

The section on Education states:

Thailand has never been colonized, and its educational system is not based on European models to any great extent.

But also:

education is provided by a well organized school system of kindergartens, primary, lower secondary and upper secondary schools, numerous vocational colleges, and universities.

which seems to me 'based on European models' to at least "some 'great extent'"...

Besides, it doesn't tell us on what models it is based, instead of European ones - which would be the interesting thing, I reckon.

This paragraph seems quite incoherent, and wouldn't make the pages of any semi-decent newspaper:

Muay Thai, or Thai boxing, is the national sport in Thailand and its native martial art call "Muay." In the past "Muay" was taught to Royal soldiers for combat on battlefield if unarmed. After they retired from the army, these soldiers often became Buddhist monks and stayed at the temples. Most of the Thai people's lives are closely tied to Buddhism and temples; they often send their sons to be educated with the monks. ”Muay” is also one of the subjects taught in the temples.[27]

Taboos in Thailand include touching someone's head or pointing with the feet, as the head is considered the most sacred and the foot the dirtiest part of the body.

Indeed? In Bangkok as well as in rural hamlets?

In "International Rankings", some serious indexes, such as the United Nations' Human Development Index, are mixed up with purely ideological stuff, such as Heritage Foundation's "Indices of Economic Freedom". (ETA: or, and perhaps even worse, Reporters Without Borders' "Worldwide Press Freedom Index".)

I am not sure if by reading it in detail I would be actually learning something about Thailand.

Luís Henrique

This post has been edited by Luís Henrique: