Paper Options

[thekohser]

This is probably one that will inspire Kelly Martin to respond (since she was really railing against the fire article some time ago), but look at the opening paragraph of the article about paper:

Paper is thin material mainly used for writing upon, printing upon or packaging. It is produced by the amalgamation of fibers, typically vegetable fibers composed of cellulose, which are subsequently held together by hydrogen bonding. While the fibers are usually natural in origin, a wide variety of synthetic fibers, such as polypropylene and polyethylene, may be incorporated into paper as a way of imparting desirable physical properties. The most common source of these kinds of fibers is wood pulp from pulpwood trees. Vegetable fiber materials such as cotton, hemp, linen, and rice are also used.

Good gravy! No mention of the historical significance of paper (perhaps one of mankind's most monumental inventions) or its origins in Egyptian papyrus. Plenty of coverage for polypropylene and polyethylene, though. (The word "paper" is mentioned ONCE in the articles about polypropylene and polyethylene.)

In July 2006, the intro read:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibers. The fibers used are usually natural and composed of cellulose. The most common source of these kinds of fibers is wood pulp from pulpwood trees, (largely softwoods) such as spruce. However, other vegetable fiber materials including cotton, hemp, linen, and rice may be used. Though generally considered a flexible material, the edges of paper sheets can act as very thin, fine-toothed saws, leading to paper cuts.

In July 2005:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibres. The fibers used are usually natural and based upon cellulose. The most common material is wood pulp from pulpwood (largely softwood) trees such as spruces, but other vegetable fiber materials including cotton, linen, and hemp may be used.

A stack of 500 sheets of paper is called a ream. The edges of paper sheets can act as very thin, fine-toothed saws, leading to paper cuts.

In July 2004:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibres. The fibres used are usually natural and based upon cellulose. The most common material is wood pulp from pulpwood (largely softwood) trees such as pines, but other vegetable fiber materials including cotton, linen, and hemp may be used.

In July 2003:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibres invented by Ts'ai Lun in AD 105. The fibres used are usually natural and based upon cellulose. The most common material is wood pulp from softwood trees such as pines, but other materials including cotton (flax) and hemp may be used.

In July 2002:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibres invented by Ts'ai Lun two thousand years ago. The fibres used are usually natural and based upon cellulose. The most common material is tree wood, but other materials including cotton and hemp are used.

Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

[Peter Damian]

That's very good. If I was asked the three most important things about paper, I wouldn't put in the polythene stuff. And, as you say, the evidence of improvement is slight.

[Eva Destruction]

This is probably one that will inspire Kelly Martin to respond (since she was really railing against the fire article some time ago), but look at the opening paragraph of the article about paper:

Paper is thin material mainly used for writing upon, printing upon or packaging. It is produced by the amalgamation of fibers, typically vegetable fibers composed of cellulose, which are subsequently held together by hydrogen bonding. While the fibers are usually natural in origin, a wide variety of synthetic fibers, such as polypropylene and polyethylene, may be incorporated into paper as a way of imparting desirable physical properties. The most common source of these kinds of fibers is wood pulp from pulpwood trees. Vegetable fiber materials such as cotton, hemp, linen, and rice are also used.

Good gravy! No mention of the historical significance of paper (perhaps one of mankind's most monumental inventions) or its origins in Egyptian papyrus. Plenty of coverage for polypropylene and polyethylene, though. (The word "paper" is mentioned ONCE in the articles about polypropylene and polyethylene.

In July 2006, the intro read:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibers. The fibers used are usually natural and composed of cellulose. The most common source of these kinds of fibers is wood pulp from pulpwood trees, (largely softwoods) such as spruce. However, other vegetable fiber materials including cotton, hemp, linen, and rice may be used. Though generally considered a flexible material, the edges of paper sheets can act as very thin, fine-toothed saws, leading to paper cuts.

In July 2005:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibres. The fibers used are usually natural and based upon cellulose. The most common material is wood pulp from pulpwood (largely softwood) trees such as spruces, but other vegetable fiber materials including cotton, linen, and hemp may be used.

A stack of 500 sheets of paper is called a ream. The edges of paper sheets can act as very thin, fine-toothed saws, leading to paper cuts.

In July 2004:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibres. The fibres used are usually natural and based upon cellulose. The most common material is wood pulp from pulpwood (largely softwood) trees such as pines, but other vegetable fiber materials including cotton, linen, and hemp may be used.

In July 2003:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibres invented by Ts'ai Lun in AD 105. The fibres used are usually natural and based upon cellulose. The most common material is wood pulp from softwood trees such as pines, but other materials including cotton (flax) and hemp may be used.

In July 2002:

Paper is a thin, flat material produced by the compression of fibres invented by Ts'ai Lun two thousand years ago. The fibres used are usually natural and based upon cellulose. The most common material is tree wood, but other materials including cotton and hemp are used.

Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

The lead might be a bit short, but the next paragraph is about the origins in papyrus, followed by a lengthy section on the historical significance of paper – really can't see a problem with this one. (The reason you're only seeing limited stuff about the processes involved is the separate Papermaking article). There are lots of truly shitty articles on Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them.

[Peter Damian]

The lead might be a bit short, but the next paragraph is about the origins in papyrus, followed by a lengthy section on the historical significance of paper – really can't see a problem with this one. (The reason you're only seeing limited stuff about the processes involved is the separate Papermaking article). There are lots of truly shitty articles on Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them.

You're missing the point. Those of us who were taught such stuff were taught that the person reading the article may quickly get bored (as well they might with all that poythene rubbish), so you should start on the assumption that they may leave after the first paragraph, so you should get absolutely everything that is important into the first paragraph. Why is this person or subject interesting or important &c. With any luck this will have the added advantage that the person reading will not get bored about the polythene and want to read about papyrus or even polythene.

[thekohser]

The lead might be a bit short, but the next paragraph is about the origins in papyrus, followed by a lengthy section on the historical significance of paper – really can't see a problem with this one. (The reason you're only seeing limited stuff about the processes involved is the separate Papermaking article). There are lots of truly shitty articles on Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them.

The above post is One of the Top Ten Signs You're Currently Flying to Wikimania.

Either that, or One of the Top Ten Signs You've Been Drinking Too Much Jimbo-Juice.

The lead's length or brevity is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm concerned that the lead paragraph sounds like it came out of this resource, not from an encyclopedia that is dedicated to human knowledge.

Paper was used to transcribe the words of the earliest prophets, to record the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. It has been used to print money. It conveyed declarations of war and of peace.

But Wikipediots would have you walk away from Paragraph One knowing more about hydrogen bonds and polypropylene fill than the importance of paper.

We're not talking about the article, Eva -- I was clearly talking about the introductory paragraph, which (as Peter Damian has emphasized) should engage and inform the reader about the salient items associated with the topic. The rest of the article may be nifty, but the lead paragraph is a big, fat FAIL.

[Rootology]

Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

When someone feels like fixing it. It's not done by magic, someone has to volunteer the time.

[thekohser]

Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

When someone feels like fixing it. It's not done by magic, someone has to volunteer the time.

Someone who hasn't been run off the project, you mean.

Oh, and the Paper article is protected, it seems. I guess they want to lock in that chemical goodness?

[Eva Destruction]

Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

When someone feels like fixing it. It's not done by magic, someone has to volunteer the time.

Someone who hasn't been run off the project, you mean.

Oh, and the Paper article is protected, it seems. I guess they want to lock in that chemical goodness?

Temporarily semi-protected due to a spate of this kind of improvement a couple of weeks ago - don't know when it expires but I assume it will be soon.

As Rootology says regarding improvements; it takes someone who knows the subject (and cares) to improve it. In my opinion, anyone who uses Wikipedia as their main source for a "core" topic like this, quite frankly is not worth worrying about; where Wikipedia shines is in the obscure subjects that don't get coverage in Britannica or Encarta.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

This is probably one that will inspire Kelly Martin to respond...

Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

Well duh. There's no revision/control/release system. Any effort by a skilled writer to create a quality article is vulnerable to every nut-job on the internet coming by to 'improve' it. You need both the human talent and the revision tools for that 'always improving' goal. An infinite number of Kelly Martins armed with AWB banging away forever will not improve that article one iota.

These two things, quality people and revision control are probably the most important to the long term success of the project. Unfortunately, good editors leave in droves after being abused, and the revision control tools are evolving at a glacial pace.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Tue 15th July 2008, 5:39pm

[Kelly Martin]

This is probably one that will inspire Kelly Martin to respond (since she was really railing against the fire article some time ago), but look at the opening paragraph of the article about paper:

Paper is thin material mainly used for writing upon, printing upon or packaging. It is produced by the amalgamation of fibers, typically vegetable fibers composed of cellulose, which are subsequently held together by hydrogen bonding. While the fibers are usually natural in origin, a wide variety of synthetic fibers, such as polypropylene and polyethylene, may be incorporated into paper as a way of imparting desirable physical properties. The most common source of these kinds of fibers is wood pulp from pulpwood trees. Vegetable fiber materials such as cotton, hemp, linen, and rice are also used.

This is pretty classic Wikipedia writing: note the use of the five-dollar words "amalgamation", "hydrogen bonding", "incorporated", "imparting", all of which drive the reading level up into at least the collegiate level if not post-graduate. Common enough for the typical article author, whose main motivation for writing is to show off his or her own erudition, after all. Far too many Wikipedia articles are written in write-only English as a result.

The inclusion of polypropylene and polyethylene indicates either that one of Wikipedia's chemistry freaks has driven through the article, or else an marketing editor for the Plastic Council has paid the article a visit. If I were in the business of selling Tyvek, I'd be certain to make sure my product was featured (directly or indirectly) in as many places on Wikipedia as possible. An exercise for the reader is to check to see if the article has mentioned Tyvek by name at some point in its history, and if so who added it and if its removal led in short order to the mention of plastic-impregnated paper.

I haven't read the rest of the article, so much of the analysis I'd make in reviewing the lead of an article can't be made. As Wikipedia goes, this is typical; not terribly bad, but certainly not good either.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

This is probably one that will inspire Kelly Martin to respond...

Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

Well duh. There's no revision/control/release system. Any effort by a skilled writer to create a quality article is vulnerable to every nut-job on the internet coming by to 'improve' it. You need both the human talent and the revision tools for that 'always improving' goal. An infinite number of Kelly Martins armed with AWB banging away forever will not improve that article one iota.

These two things, quality people and revision control are probably the most important to the long term success of the project. Unfortunately, good editors leave in droves after being abused, and the revision control tools are evolving at a glacial pace.

The lack of revision/control/release system has two main effects; the primary whereby any idiot can trash an article, and the secondary effect, which I think is underestimated, whereby most good editors just won't waste their time.

[Rootology]

Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

When someone feels like fixing it. It's not done by magic, someone has to volunteer the time.

Someone who hasn't been run off the project, you mean.

Yes. Then again, if someone (hypothetically) was run off the project and actually wanted to go back and just plain edit, it's not like it's hard. Reset your IP and modem and don't use your voice. Just sayin'.

[thekohser]

Some examples from around the web...

The Encyclopedia of Science:

Paper is an indispensable part of everyday life. Beyond its use as the basic material for written and printed communication, paper in its various forms are used for hundreds of other purposes, including packaging, wrapping, insulating, and toweling. Each year, Americans use an average of 750 pounds (340 kilograms) of paper products per person. That equates to 210 billion pounds (95 billion kilograms) of paper products used in the United States per year.

Britannica:

Matted or felted sheet, usually made of cellulose fibres, formed on a wire screen from water suspension. Source materials include wood pulp, rags, and recycled paper. The fibres are separated (by processes that may be mechanical, chemical, or both) and wetted to produce paper pulp, or stock. The pulp is filtered on a woven screen to form a sheet of fibre, which is pressed and compacted to squeeze out most of the water. The remaining water is removed by evaporation, and the dry sheet is further compressed and often (depending on the intended use) coated or infused with other substances. Types of paper in common use include bond paper, book paper, bristol (or bristol board), groundwood and newsprint, kraft paper, paperboard, and sanitary paper (for towels, napkins, etc.).

Columbia:

...thin, flat sheet or tissue made usually from plant fiber but also from rags and other fibrous materials. It is used principally for printing and writing on but has many other applications. The term also includes various types of paperboard, such as cardboard and wallboard.

1911 Edition of Britannica:

PAPER (Fr. papier, from Lat. papyrus), the general name for the substance commonly used for writing upon, or for wrapping things in. The origin and early history of paper as a writing material are involved in much obscurity. The art of making it from fibrous matter appears to have been practised by the Chinese at a very distant period. Different writers have traced it back to the 2nd century B.C. But, however remote its age may have been in eastern Asia, paper first became available for the rest of the world in the middle of the 8th century.

[everyking]

Yes. Then again, if someone (hypothetically) was run off the project and actually wanted to go back and just plain edit, it's not like it's hard. Reset your IP and modem and don't use your voice. Just sayin'.

They have to either change their viewpoints and manner of expression, or they have to edit subjects that are entirely different from the things they edited in the past, and either way there's no guarantee. Furthermore, if you get caught, all of your edits are subject to blanket reversion, regardless of quality, in which case you've wasted a hell of a lot of time.

This post has been edited by everyking: Tue 15th July 2008, 7:53pm

[Rootology]

Yes. Then again, if someone (hypothetically) was run off the project and actually wanted to go back and just plain edit, it's not like it's hard. Reset your IP and modem and don't use your voice. Just sayin'.

They have to either change their viewpoints and manner of expression, or they have to edit subjects that are entirely different from the things they edited in the past, and either way there's no guarantee. Furthermore, if you get caught, all of your edits are subject to blanket reversion, regardless of quality, in which case you've wasted a hell of a lot of time.

Well, yeah. Thats why its not really worth it. I guess if someone really cared more about the project and idea of an encyclopedia than their own "stuff" they could pull it off. It would be absurdly hard, though. The IP stuff is easy, but you'd have to be acting all the time and never touch a single article related to your old self. No one has that kind of self-control or willpower.

[Peter Damian]

Some examples from around the web...

Agree. My encyclopedia the same, except also mentions toilet paper (invented 400 AD).

[Proabivouac]

Well, yeah. Thats why its not really worth it. I guess if someone really cared more about the project and idea of an encyclopedia than their own "stuff" they could pull it off. It would be absurdly hard, though. The IP stuff is easy, but you'd have to be acting all the time and never touch a single article related to your old self. No one has that kind of self-control or willpower.

Rephrase "self control or willpower" as "dishonesty."
Many people have that, and are administrators now under their new accounts. Don't believe me? Take ten recently-confirmed admins at random, and look at their earliest contributions. How many were fresh accounts?

Wikipedia inadvertently selects for manipulativeness and dishonesty.

[thekohser]

Wikipedia inadvertently selects for manipulativeness and dishonesty.

Rephrase "inadvertently" as "deliberately".

[House of Cards]

When it comes to this article, not all wikis are that bad. At least the intro for the article on the German wiki looks somewhat better. Short, punchy, and to the point. And it mentions toilet paper, too.

[Peter Damian]

Interesting to compare the German and English articles on toilet paper, too.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilettenpapier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper

The English one helpfully adds, in the introduction, that:

Different names are used for toilet paper in countries around the world, including "loo roll/paper", "toilet roll", "dunny roll/paper", "bog roll", "TP", or "bathroom/toilet tissue". There are also numerous vulgar slang terms, such as "bumph", "bum fodder", "crack wipe", "shit tickets" or "ass wipes".

Fancy that.