Wikipedia - Can Teenagers Write An Encyclopedia? - Global Politician Options

[Google News]

Wikipedia - Can Teenagers Write An Encyclopedia?
Global Politician, NY - 12 minutes ago
The vast majority of Wikipedia contributors and editors are under the age of 25. Many of the administrators (senior editors) are in their teens. ...

[Kato]

This is a really good article.

Knowledge is not comprised of lists of facts, "facts", factoids, and rumors, the bread and butter of the Wikipedia. Real facts have to be verified, classified, and arranged within a historical and cultural context. Wikipedia articles read like laundry lists of information gleaned from secondary sources and invariably lack context and deep, true understanding of their subject matter.

[GoodFaith]

I submit that editors should be over age 21 and live within the jurisdiction of the United States. Admins should be at least 30 and pass a copyediting test.

[thekohser]

I submit that editors should be over age 21 and live within the jurisdiction of the United States. Admins should be at least 30 and pass a copyediting test.

Hah! That would require proof of age, which would probably require proof of identity, and then Durova and Slim would explode. Won't work, but nice concept.

[A Man In Black]

I submit that editors should be over age 21 and live within the jurisdiction of the United States. Admins should be at least 30 and pass a copyediting test.

It seems like an obvious thing to point out, but one of the main reasons Wikipedia is so popular is because it's so open to contributions from anyone. (Who'da thunk that a populist project might become popular?) Ditching that openness would make Wikipedia...Citizendium.

Particularly the age thing; aren't you guys awfully hard on people who are supposedly paid to edit? Blocking the mass of bored teenagers and college students would mean that the only people who would edit Wikipedia are truly devoted POV pushers, the unemployed, and people who are there getting paid. But, then again, nobody would edit anyway because it wouldn't be very popular!

This post has been edited by A Man In Black: Mon 23rd July 2007, 3:29am

[GoodFaith]

It seems like an obvious thing to point out, but one of the main reasons Wikipedia is so popular is because it's so open to contributions from anyone.

This "anyone can edit" stuff just isn't true. Yes, Wikipedia does invite tens of thousands of vandals, which justifies the existence of admins.

Ditching that openness would make Wikipedia...Citizendium.

Teenage boys are teenage boys. They're too young and they have no business backing orders to their elders. Let them go to MySpace, so I can ignore them.

Particularly the age thing; aren't you guys awfully hard on people who are supposedly paid to edit? Blocking the mass of bored teenagers and college students would mean that the only people who would edit Wikipedia are truly devoted POV pushers, the unemployed, and people who are there getting paid.

We have POV pushers and hacks already. If the maturity level increased, it might win back those who are driven away by the current regime.

But, then again, nobody would edit anyway because it wouldn't be very popular!

There's always eb.com. :rolleyes:

[A Man In Black]

This "anyone can edit" stuff just isn't true. Yes, Wikipedia does invite tens of thousands of vandals, which justifies the existence of admins.

Which part? The claim that anyone can edit, or the claim that it's the source of Wikipedia's popularity?

We have POV pushers and hacks already. If the maturity level increased, it might win back those who are driven away by the current regime.

Well, my comments on that point are a little misplaced because there wouldn't be any Wikipedia without the volunteers, and there wouldn't be any volunteers if the obstacles to entry were set too high. (Again, Citizendium.)

[GoodFaith]

This "anyone can edit" stuff just isn't true. Yes, Wikipedia does invite tens of thousands of vandals, which justifies the existence of admins.

Which part? The claim that anyone can edit, or the claim that it's the source of Wikipedia's popularity?

Wikipedia's success is solely due to hitting the PageRank jackpot. If Everything2 or Citizendium had won, things would be different.

We have POV pushers and hacks already. If the maturity level increased, it might win back those who are driven away by the current regime.

Well, my comments on that point are a little misplaced because there wouldn't be any Wikipedia without the volunteers, and there wouldn't be any volunteers if the obstacles to entry were set too high. (Again, Citizendium.)

Britannica has survived since 1768 with zero volunteers.