Disparity of biography articles Options

[Peter Damian]

There are issues on WP that concern me, particularly the frequent BLP issues. However, for pop culture articles to be disproportionately large, when compared to articles of true importance, is somewhat unfortunate, but I don't find it distressing. If both articles (but particularly the historical ones) are clear of any serious errors, provides enough information to at least cover what the average person might be looking for, and gives them directions to look for more info, that will probably have to be good enough.

I've said this before, I'll say it once more. When I studied the views on pop culture articles, and those on 'serious' articles, there was far more interest among the

readership

in serious articles than you would think.

The disparity is not on the 'demand' side but on 'supply'. Why is that?

[Sxeptomaniac]

There are issues on WP that concern me, particularly the frequent BLP issues. However, for pop culture articles to be disproportionately large, when compared to articles of true importance, is somewhat unfortunate, but I don't find it distressing. If both articles (but particularly the historical ones) are clear of any serious errors, provides enough information to at least cover what the average person might be looking for, and gives them directions to look for more info, that will probably have to be good enough.

I've said this before, I'll say it once more. When I studied the views on pop culture articles, and those on 'serious' articles, there was far more interest among the

readership

in serious articles than you would think.

The disparity is not on the 'demand' side but on 'supply'. Why is that?

I believe there are some logical reasons for that. To expand on what I was pointing out above, I think that tendency to discuss what is current relates, in that people will also result in editors tending to seek out editing those things on the surface of their minds.

Readership would not necessarily reflect editorship on more scholarly topics, of course. The readers would tend to be those more ignorant of the topic, and unable to contribute meaningfully to the article. There would be a smaller pool of those knowledgeable enough to edit the article than those on recent topics, and therefore fewer contributions adding to the depth of the article.

I understand wanting to see articles on significant topics get significant coverage (someday soon I want to get back to expanding the Michael Sattler and Schleitheim Confession articles), but it's a comparatively minor problem with little likelihood of a workable solution, as opposed to problems like BLP violations, tendentious slanting of articles, and the destructive behavior of some long-term editors, which are all either more serious, can be realistically addressed, or both.

[Peter Damian]

The readers would tend to be those more ignorant of the topic, and unable to contribute meaningfully to the article.

Hence the paradox of an encyclopedia, wishing to educate its readers, drawing its contributors from the same readership.

The requirement for education would not exist unless those able to contribute to the subject were far outnumbered by those who are not able. Yet Wikipedia discriminates against experts. That is the true reason the project is skewed towards material which has no educational content.

Returning to your point that this is all difficult to change and should not be a worry. There is a continuing need to point out to the Wikipedia fanatics, many of whom read this forum, that there are some serious problems to be fixed. The only way to start fixing a problem, is for everyone to recognise there is one.

On your point about tendentious subjects, that is also a serious problem, but it is connected with the one we are discussing here. When the culture and environment is inimical to subject matter experts, and that the view of an expert on the Peloponnesian war is considered equally with that of 'Randy from Boise', the result is going to be bad.

[everyking]

When the culture and environment is inimical to subject matter experts, and that the view of an expert on the Peloponnesian war is considered equally with that of 'Randy from Boise', the result is going to be bad.

On Wikipedia, an "expert" is just another name for someone who doesn't have a source.

[Moulton]

If Newton were alive today, he would not be allowed to write the article on The Calculus.

If Einstein were alive today, he would not be allowed to write the article on Relativity.

I know a few people who are subject matter experts in their chosen fields, who similarly cannot write the Wikipedia article on their subject. But they are often invited to write the Scholarpedia article on their subject.

[Sxeptomaniac]

The readers would tend to be those more ignorant of the topic, and unable to contribute meaningfully to the article.

Hence the paradox of an encyclopedia, wishing to educate its readers, drawing its contributors from the same readership.

The requirement for education would not exist unless those able to contribute to the subject were far outnumbered by those who are not able. Yet Wikipedia discriminates against experts. That is the true reason the project is skewed towards material which has no educational content.

Returning to your point that this is all difficult to change and should not be a worry. There is a continuing need to point out to the Wikipedia fanatics, many of whom read this forum, that there are some serious problems to be fixed. The only way to start fixing a problem, is for everyone to recognise there is one.

On your point about tendentious subjects, that is also a serious problem, but it is connected with the one we are discussing here. When the culture and environment is inimical to subject matter experts, and that the view of an expert on the Peloponnesian war is considered equally with that of 'Randy from Boise', the result is going to be bad.

And some of this is where I would disagree, and think we will probably end up having to agree to disagree. I think the costs/risks outweighs the benefits to trying to create any system which would give experts elite status. Mainly, who determines which editors are experts, which ones are impostors, which are just waving diploma-mill degree, which are experts but editing outside their expertise, and which people have impressive credentials but are ultimately cranks? Anyone given the ability to make those decisions would have huge power, so how do you prevent that power from being abused?

We already have problems with editors taking it upon themselves to band together and decide who the experts are, doing their best to drive away anyone who disagrees with them. Worse yet, they have repeatedly tended to slant the biographies of those they consider "anti-science."

Instead, I think the rules on WP need to be set up a bit better so that experts will easily know how to use their expertise to address content disputes. After all, a big part of being an expert is knowing where to look for good sources, which would, in theory, give them the upper hand in an article dispute.

Personally, I don't think there's any reason 'Randy from Boise' can't work alongside an expert in an article. What shouldn't happen is 'Randy' gaining the upper hand in a dispute or even just fighting the expert to a standstill purely by using WP's rules, which happens way too often. I don't think giving the expert special status would be a good way to go about addressing the problem, though.

If Newton were alive today, he would not be allowed to write the article on The Calculus.

If Einstein were alive today, he would not be allowed to write the article on Relativity.

I know a few people who are subject matter experts in their chosen fields, who similarly cannot write the Wikipedia article on their subject. But they are often invited to write the Scholarpedia article on their subject.

If you mean that you feel it's wrong that the WP:COI rule would be used against them to prevent them from contributing, then I'd agree it's wrong. COI is heavily abused on WP. From what I've seen, it was originally intended as a warning for editors to help them avoid getting in trouble for tendentious behavior. Now, it's a weapon against experts, as they usually will have some connection to the subject.

On the other hand, if you think it's wrong that researchers can't put their work on WP before it's been reliably published elsewhere, I'd disagree, as it's something WP will probably never be equipped to handle, as it would require a fundamental shift in the intended purpose of the site. If Scholarpedia is filling that role, so much the better.

[Moulton]

There really isn't any good reason for a researcher to turn to Wikipedia. There is Google Knol, for example, where one can post a version of their research suitable for a general audience, and include references to the peer-reviewed literature.

[ulsterman]

After all, a big part of being an expert is knowing where to look for good sources, which would, in theory, give them the upper hand in an article dispute.

That sounds very plausible and ought to be true. Were it true then Wikipedia would be significantly better than it is. What's the fallacy? Professor X comes along to an article where he is an expert and produces good references to scholarly books and peer-referenced journals. Young Mr Y, who knows nothing, links to web sites, articles in newspapers and trashy paperbacks. Professor X is appalled. He knows these other references are worthless, but how does he prove it? They pass WP:RS, and they probably pass WP:V more eaily than his scholarly print references that aren't on the web or even your average local library.

[everyking]

After all, a big part of being an expert is knowing where to look for good sources, which would, in theory, give them the upper hand in an article dispute.

That sounds very plausible and ought to be true. Were it true then Wikipedia would be significantly better than it is. What's the fallacy? Professor X comes along to an article where he is an expert and produces good references to scholarly books and peer-referenced journals. Young Mr Y, who knows nothing, links to web sites, articles in newspapers and trashy paperbacks. Professor X is appalled. He knows these other references are worthless, but how does he prove it? They pass WP:RS, and they probably pass WP:V more eaily than his scholarly print references that aren't on the web or even your average local library.

Most people who call themselves experts don't offer any sources. That's why they make a big fuss about being "experts".

[anthony]

Personally, I don't think there's any reason 'Randy from Boise' can't work alongside an expert in an article.

I'm sure there are some Randys from Boise about whom that is true, and other Randys from Boise about whom that is false.

[KD Tries Again]

After all, a big part of being an expert is knowing where to look for good sources, which would, in theory, give them the upper hand in an article dispute.

That sounds very plausible and ought to be true. Were it true then Wikipedia would be significantly better than it is. What's the fallacy? Professor X comes along to an article where he is an expert and produces good references to scholarly books and peer-referenced journals. Young Mr Y, who knows nothing, links to web sites, articles in newspapers and trashy paperbacks. Professor X is appalled. He knows these other references are worthless, but how does he prove it? They pass WP:RS, and they probably pass WP:V more eaily than his scholarly print references that aren't on the web or even your average local library.

Most people who call themselves experts don't offer any sources. That's why they make a big fuss about being "experts".

The context, often enough, is the request for sources being used as gambit to inhibit progress on the article.

[Milton Roe]

After all, a big part of being an expert is knowing where to look for good sources, which would, in theory, give them the upper hand in an article dispute.

That sounds very plausible and ought to be true. Were it true then Wikipedia would be significantly better than it is. What's the fallacy? Professor X comes along to an article where he is an expert and produces good references to scholarly books and peer-referenced journals. Young Mr Y, who knows nothing, links to web sites, articles in newspapers and trashy paperbacks. Professor X is appalled. He knows these other references are worthless, but how does he prove it? They pass WP:RS, and they probably pass WP:V more eaily than his scholarly print references that aren't on the web or even your average local library.

Most people who call themselves experts don't offer any sources. That's why they make a big fuss about being "experts".

The context, often enough, is the request for sources being used as gambit to inhibit progress on the article.

There's also the problem that once one is an EXPERT, one has often forgotten precisely where what one knows is stated in the form that one knows it. If it ever was. Which is why university profs don't often just stand in front of classes and read texts, even if they've written one. (P.A.M. Dirac actually used to do exactly this, and it drove his students bananas.)

[EricBarbour]

Sheldon Cooper (T-H-L-K-D) is now 80k bytes, 110 references.

Hans Bethe (T-H-L-K-D) is still only 29k bytes.

[Ottava]

Sheldon has 275,658 while Hans has only 6,611.

The people get what the people want.

[Kevin]

Sheldon has 275,658 while Hans has only 6,611.

The people get what the people want.

Although in a purported encyclopedia that has no need of commercial success there is no need to give the people what they want. Education should surely be further reaching than that?

[The Joy]

Sheldon has 275,658 while Hans has only 6,611.

The people get what the people want.

Although in a purported encyclopedia that has no need of commercial success there is no need to give the people what they want. Education should surely be further reaching than that?

Indeed. People think that educational projects and institutions are to just turn out obedient workers (i.e. colleges and schools) or give people the latest Danielle Steele novel (i.e. public libraries). Well, guess what?



THAT IS NOT HOW EDUCATION WORKS! END COMMUNICATION!

[Maunus]

Sheldon Cooper (T-H-L-K-D) is now 80k bytes, 110 references.

Hans Bethe (T-H-L-K-D) is still only 29k bytes.

Just noting that Hans Bethe is not currently protected, which should mean that even those of you who are banned from wikipedia could expand your favorite biography while others expand theirs. The problem is not that stupidity exists, but that good men[m/f] do nothing.

This post has been edited by Maunus: Mon 5th December 2011, 10:44pm

[thekohser]

The problem is not that stupidity exists, but that good men do nothing.

Still perpetuating that gender bias in Wikipedia editors, huh, Maunus?

[Maunus]

The problem is not that stupidity exists, but that good men do nothing.

Still perpetuating that gender bias in Wikipedia editors, huh, Maunus?

fixed. Long live gender neutering.

[Detective]

The problem is not that stupidity exists, but that good men do nothing.

Still perpetuating that gender bias in Wikipedia editors, huh, Maunus?

On the contrary. He's asserting that although good men may be doing nothing, good women are beavering away.