Mailing List Archive

Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues.
> It is helpful that on Wikipedia the editorial process is largely
> transparent, so the question "how did it get like this?" can actually
> be answered. Wikipedia is not reliable, but it turns out that how
> paper encyclopedias and newspapers were written was similarly
> susceptible

In the case of newspapers probably yes. In the case of encyclopedias,
I think not. There are severe problems with the Wikipedia coverage of
philosophy which you wouldn't find here, for instance. And so for the
humanities generally. When I make this point on Wikipedia, the answer is
usually that Wikipedia is for pop culture, whereas encyclopedias are for
'proper culture' or 'high culture' or whatever. I don't really understand
this
distinction.

Meanwhile, a quick test for line wrap. asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf
asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf
asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf
asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf
asdf sadf sadf asdf asdf asdf sadf sadf

Peter


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
On 29 August 2010 17:18, Peter Damian <peter.damian@btinternet.com> wrote:

> In the case of newspapers probably yes.  In the case of encyclopedias,
> I think not.   There are severe problems with the Wikipedia coverage of
> philosophy which you wouldn't find here, for instance.  And so for the
> humanities generally. When I make this point on Wikipedia, the answer is
> usually that Wikipedia is for pop culture, whereas encyclopedias are for
> 'proper culture' or 'high culture' or whatever.  I don't really understand
> this
> distinction.


The answer is probably that we're not finished yet and need more
participation from people interested in writing encyclopedically in
the area.

Basically, the answer is interested contributors bothering to put in
the effort, same as any other area. Hard work over the course of
years, as usual.

There are things that could be done. Professors who set students to
editing can help the content along very nicely. Getting the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy released under CC by-sa would increase the
quality of the world's phiosophy knowledge nicely (it's not like it's
a commercial website).

Think of our successful areas and why they are successful. Our hard
science articles are generally excellent, and sometimes almost
readable by humans. Why are they good? Why did people with the
requisite knowledge bother writing stuff up? How can we duplicate this
in other lacking areas?


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Moran" <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
issues.

>>I don't really see this as a problem with Wikipedia anyway.

Do you mean the problem of experts being generally discouraged? I was
talking about the problem of there being serious errors in articles,
particularly in the humanities. I agree with David that when it comes to
facts and figures, Wikipedia is pretty good. For many of the hard sciences,
also good. But it's a disaster zone in the humanities. That's the problem I
am referring to.

On credentials, I agree, but I wasn't talking about credentials. I was
talking about people with a reasonably good knowledge of their subject. In
philosophy, all the editors who have made good contributions have some
background in the subject. I was emailed by one today, complaining how it
was descending into complete chaos. I told her not to bother and just to
step back from the whole thing. Then the problems would become more obvious
and perhaps people would be motivated to improve the way the system works.

>>I've mentioned before that this was wrong for almost 2 years, and it
went through various edits and reformatting over that time:

yes I documented a similar problem here

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html

which still haven't been fixed.

>>all three said something to the effect of "I'm going
to pretend I've never read that because otherwise I'll have to correct
it and I'm not prepared to spend the evening argue the toss with a
teenager.

Quite. How does Wikipedia improve its rules, or governance, or software to
resolve the current problems with the *articles*?


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
> Unfortunately, credentialism doesn't work.

And I wasn't suggesting it would.

>> Embarrassing Wikipedia in blog posts seems to work, one factoid at a time

Well I hope so. However when I wrote this

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html

The only correction was to remove the plagiarised material and one eccentric
section and slap a template on the article. And that was only because I
personally knew the guy who made the correction. And the problem I noted in
the post here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-versus-equality.html
'the puppet Turkish administration' is still there. I expect someone from
here will fix it now. But as someone else noted, it's like when a
politician publicly helps a needy family for the sake of the newspapers,
leaving millions of other needy families in a needy state. That's how I
feel about fixing Wikipedia entries.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
*I would have bought the 'not finished yet' argument 5 years ago. Perhaps
even 3 years ago. But now? Every article in my area of expertise has
stagnated.* <SNIP> *All I am saying is that there is a serious and growing
problem and that someone needs to recognise it for what it is.*

The problem you mention is actually the stagnation of edits. Any article
that has some common public interest will be read and corrected by many
people, which will generally be good for its quality. Sure, more interested
people will equally mean a larger share of vandals and nonsensical edits,
but a fairly small group of productive editors can keep a much larger group
of vandals at bay without to much effort; Huggle is a proof of concept for
this, since only a handful of editors are required to keep out most of the
obvious vandalism.

However, in cases where an article stagnates lower quality edits may go
unnoticed for a longer time. Take our article's on faily unimportant
secondary schools for example - most people interested in these article's
are students and teachers of that institution, which means that the quality
of the edits is likely to be fairly low (Students add themselves or attack
the school, while teachers try to promote the school). Hence, the existence
article was edited about 500 times in 3 years, which means that fairly
little people are correcting changes or adding content. As a result it is
more prone to degeneration then an article that is edited several thousands
of times. More attention is better - even an edit war can be a good thing in
this context, since both sides of the issue will try as hard as possible to
keep their prefered version, eventually balancing the article into a version
which adheres admirably to a neutral point of view.

*But as someone else noted, it's like when a politician publicly helps a
needy family for the sake of the newspapers, leaving millions of other needy
families in a needy state. That's how I feel about fixing Wikipedia
entries.*

That is of course one way to view it - but i would argue that the politician
example (hopefully) isn't accurate as it would suggest that people only edit
in case they receive a personal benefit. Personally i hope that most people
edit and improve for less selfish reasons. Or to phrase it as another
comparison: A singular brick cannot build a house, and as of such people may
deem carrying one futile, since would have to carry many times many bricks
in order to build anything useful (Let alone fight decay). Yet if thousands
of people carrying a single brick they can build a castle. There are many
problems in the world, but is the amount a reason to say that fixing one of
them is futile, just because there are many others?

~Excirial.

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Peter Damian
<peter.damian@btinternet.com>wrote:

> > Unfortunately, credentialism doesn't work.
>
> And I wasn't suggesting it would.
>
> >> Embarrassing Wikipedia in blog posts seems to work, one factoid at a
> time
>
> Well I hope so. However when I wrote this
>
> http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html
>
> The only correction was to remove the plagiarised material and one
> eccentric
> section and slap a template on the article. And that was only because I
> personally knew the guy who made the correction. And the problem I noted
> in
> the post here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-versus-equality.html
> 'the puppet Turkish administration' is still there. I expect someone from
> here will fix it now. But as someone else noted, it's like when a
> politician publicly helps a needy family for the sake of the newspapers,
> leaving millions of other needy families in a needy state. That's how I
> feel about fixing Wikipedia entries.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
On 08/29/2010 10:25 AM, Peter Damian wrote:
>
> Do you mean the problem of experts being generally discouraged? I was
> talking about the problem of there being serious errors in articles,
> particularly in the humanities. I agree with David that when it comes to
> facts and figures, Wikipedia is pretty good. For many of the hard sciences,
> also good. But it's a disaster zone in the humanities. That's the problem I
> am referring to.
>

Purely my personal take, but I've noticed problems on both the expert
and non-expert sides in the humanities more than in science-related
articles. On the one hand, people seem to more naturally understand that
they need good sources in science, that a newspaper article needs to be
used carefully (and weighted relative to better sources), etc. People
don't always seem to sufficiently realize that, say, philosophy or
sociology should also be treated similarly.

On the other hand, though, I've noticed science and especially math
experts to be generally more friendly in working with non-experts,
though there are plenty of exceptions. I've *very* rarely seen a math
professor resort to credentialism or looking down on inexpert
contributors, even though we have some very well-credentialed
mathematicians. Some have nearly saintly patience in explaining their
edits and why the article should be changed in the manner they propose.
But I've noticed depressingly many "ugh, as a PhD in [thing], I can't
believe I have to argue with these idiots" elitist huffs from humanities
professors and grad students.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vandenberg" <jayvdb@gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
issues.


>Irony. David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence.

Actually David wrote the page. I thought it was interesting ...

>Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
>and our processes have not always been victorious over it. Simply
>put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
>suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that,
>proportionally speaking, Wikipedia pollutes the interweb more than CZ.
>Compare the rationalwiki page for CZ and WP. I wonder how large their
>WP page would be if a similar level of critical analysis was applied.

... but as you say, byte for byte, there may be a similar level of
'pollution'. I wonder if it was 'credentialism' that was the problem, or
just the lack of editors. I joined CZ when it was formed, with one other
philosophy editor http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Peter_J._King who had
defected from Wikipedia. He was a good philosopher but had some kind of
stupid row with Larry and left. I found it difficult to edit in a vacuum so
I left also. And that was the end of "credentialled" philosophy on CZ.
Larry is not a bad philosopher himself and has credentials but he was in a
management role. He has this naive faith that academic philosophers would
come flocking to CZ and fill the gap but they didn't. So in the end he
lowered the entry barrier and the rest is history.

In summary, the evidence as far as my discipline is concerned is that Sanger
wrongly expected the project to attract credentialled academics. It didn't.
He allowed a number of uncredentialled or 'less credentialled' editors in,
and the results are much as David Gerard describes them.

Peter


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
On 31 August 2010 20:16, Peter Damian <peter.damian@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Actually David wrote the page.  I thought it was interesting ...


No, that section was substantially written by Trent Toulouse.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic. I looked at the article on
Young Earth Creationism in CZ
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism . It comes in from
some heavy criticism in the RationalWiki article
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Citizendium for being "heavily (and "expertly")
edited by Conservapedia sysop RJJensen".

But when I look at the article it is not so bad. It is actually quite
refreshing. It is mercifully short, and tells me the basic facts I need to
know about YEC, i.e. what it is, who has defended it and why, and a bit of
history. I expect the same article in WP would come with a pack of
disclaimers like the health warning on a fag packet, skull and crossbones
and all, thousands of citations, statements that practically all scientists
say it is complete rubbish, plus a few sentences later on by a rogue YEC
that was not spotted by the police, together with other conflicting
statements so it all reads like a confusing usenet thread. As I say, the CZ
article quietly says what it needs to, and does not attempt advocacy. Indeed
it says

"The Biblical story was not a contentious issue until the 19th century, when
theologians started reinterpreting the Bible as a historical document
(rather than divine revelation), and geologists such as James Hutton and
Charles Lyell developed evidence, based on their analysis of geological
processes and formations, the earth was not a few thousand years old but, in
fact, several millions of years old. The appearance of Charles Darwin's On
the Origin of Species in 1859 and the associated Theory of Evolution,
provided evidence that life was much older than 6,000 years. Most Protestant
theologians by 1900, including those opposed to the theory of evolution,
rejected the 4004 BC model and argued the earth was very old. Many
evangelical theologians adopted a figurative interpretation of the first two
chapters of Genesis."

Quite right. I shall look at the Scientology article next.

Peter





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
Peter Damian wrote:
> Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic.
You are. Are the Citizendium forum and mailing lists so completely dead
that issues with its articles cannot be discussed there?

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
From: "John Vandenberg" <jayvdb@gmail.com>

>Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
>and our processes have not always been victorious over it. Simply
>put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
>suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that,
>proportionally speaking, Wikipedia pollutes the interweb more than CZ.

I looked at the two following two pages

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey

The first of which (the CZ version) is mentioned in the RationalWiki page as
an abomination. The CZ version is better. It is still too long for such a
silly subject, but minute in comparison to the Wikipedia page, which is
endless. So yes, a serious study comparing the "crank quotient" between the
two encyclopedias would be interesting. I suspect WP would win (for
crankiness, I mean) hands down. I attempted to document some of it here

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Cranks

but gave up, there is just too much. There are whole categories of it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theosophical_philosophical_concepts .
And don't get me onto the subject of the gurus who are using the project to
self-advertise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber . That gets me very
close to what got me banned in the first place. (End of rant, sorry).

Peter


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
From: "Michael Snow" <wikipedia@verizon.net>
> Peter Damian wrote:
>> Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic.
> You are. Are the Citizendium forum and mailing lists so completely dead
> that issues with its articles cannot be discussed there?
>
> --Michael Snow

Sorry. It began with the David Gerard's assertion that 'credentialism'
leads to crank-magnetism, and a link to an article he wrote (with some other
RationalWiki editors) comparing Wikipedia with Citizendium. You think this
is not relevant? John Vandenberg also questioned whether a serious study
comparing the quality of articles between the two projects would not find
more problems with Wikipedia (I think he is right).

Peter


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snow" <wikipedia@verizon.net>

You are this Michael Snow, correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Snow

You are currently on the Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation and
previously served as chair of the Board of Trustees. You take exception, in
a thread which is explicitly about content issues in Wikipedia, with a post
that makes unfavourable comparison between Wikipedia and one of its
competitors. Why is this?

Peter


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
Peter Damian wrote:
> You take exception, in
> a thread which is explicitly about content issues in Wikipedia, with a post
> that makes unfavourable comparison between Wikipedia and one of its
> competitors. Why is this?
>
The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
speculation about what Wikipedia *might* have. If your intent is to
discuss content issues in Wikipedia, then you need to actually
explicitly discuss them. (Although I might suggest that you should
familiarize yourself with some of our other mailing lists and consider
whether another list, like wikien-l, is better suited to have this
conversation, since foundation-l exists for issues related to the
Wikimedia Foundation and the overall movement surrounding its projects,
not just Wikipedia.)

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Peter Damian
<peter.damian@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Vandenberg" <jayvdb@gmail.com>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
> issues.
>
>
>>Irony.  David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence.
>
> Actually David wrote the page.  I thought it was interesting ...

I agree it was interesting, and does include some valuable
observations which highlight problems facing the CZ project.
Credentialism is one of them, but David's assertion that it is a
"pseudoscience haven" appears to be selective observation, or maybe
selective writing in light of the CZ article about WP, which makes no
mentions of the long history of pseudo-<x> problems on Wikipedia.

>>Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
>>and our processes have not always been victorious over it.  Simply
>>put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
>>suspect that an academically sound study would indicate that,
>>proportionally speaking, Wikipedia pollutes the interweb more than CZ.
>>Compare the rationalwiki page for CZ and WP.  I wonder how large their
>>WP page would be if a similar level of critical analysis was applied.
>
> ... but as you say, byte for byte, there may be a similar level of
> 'pollution'.  I wonder if it was 'credentialism' that was the problem, or
> just the lack of editors.  I joined CZ when it was formed, with one other
> philosophy editor http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Peter_J._King who had
> defected from Wikipedia.  He was a good philosopher but had some kind of
> stupid row with Larry and left. I found it difficult to edit in a vacuum so
> I left also.  And that was the end of "credentialled" philosophy on CZ.
> Larry is not a bad philosopher himself and has credentials but he was in a
> management role. He has this naive faith that academic philosophers would
> come flocking to CZ and fill the gap but they didn't. So in the end he
> lowered the entry barrier and the rest is history.
>
> In summary, the evidence as far as my discipline is concerned is that Sanger
> wrongly expected the project to attract credentialled academics. It didn't.
> He allowed a number of uncredentialled or 'less credentialled' editors in,
> and the results are much as David Gerard describes them.

An important distinction remains. CZ requires real names, and as I
understand it, the credentials of the contributors are a known
quantity, which adds a dimension in 'patrolling' process. This
obviously reduces the quantity of willing contributors, and
contributions. I'm surprised you found the quietness of CZ (the
vacuum) to be a problem, as your content on MyWikiBiz is usually
written solely by yourself, and many of your WP pages have mostly been
written by yourself.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snow" <wikipedia@verizon.net>

> The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
> Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
> an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
> speculation about what Wikipedia *might* have.

It was explicitly contrasting how Wikipedia actually is, or tends to be
like, as compared with the corresponding CZ article. I think the
observations were accurate and reflect pretty well what controversial
Wikipedia articles are like, namely festooned with supposedly reliable
citations, and bearing obvious battlescars from years of edit-warring. The
contrast was specifically prompted by a claim by Gerard that Wikipedia's
relaxed attitude to 'expertise' leads to better articles. I don't think it
does.

> If your intent is to
> discuss content issues in Wikipedia, then you need to actually
> explicitly discuss them.

I don't want to discuss content as such. I want to discuss generic and
systematic problems with the way Wikipedia is organised that lead to poor
quality articles. There needs first to be some recognition there is a
quality problem and that it is serious - I think there is an element of
denial that is evident from some of the replies here, as well as elsewhere.
Once the problem is recognised, there needs to be a careful examination of
possible causes for this. And then a further examination of how policy and
governance could be changed to address some or all of these causes. Does
that sound reasonable?

> I might suggest that you should
> familiarize yourself with some of our other mailing lists and consider
> whether another list, like wikien-l, is better suited to have this
> conversation, since foundation-l exists for issues related to the
> Wikimedia Foundation and the overall movement surrounding its projects,
> not just Wikipedia.)

I consider this is the best mailing list for the purpose. What do people
here think?

Peter


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues. [ In reply to ]
Hello,

I generally agree with Peter here.
I think that there is a general problem of quality on Wikipedia articles,
especially on articles about humanities, social sciences, etc.

I also agree that letting the usual process to care about articles quality
is not sufficient. In nearly ten years, there was enough time to fix the issue,
if it the current policies would be appropriate for dealing with this problem.

This also does not affect the English Wikipedia alone.
For what I know, it also affects the French Wikipedia.
So this list is appropriate to discuss this issue.

Regards,

Yann

2010/9/1 Peter Damian <peter.damian@btinternet.com>:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Snow" <wikipedia@verizon.net>
>
>> The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
>> Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
>> an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
>> speculation about what Wikipedia *might* have.
>
> It was explicitly contrasting how Wikipedia actually is, or tends to be
> like, as compared with the corresponding CZ article.  I think the
> observations were accurate and reflect pretty well what controversial
> Wikipedia articles are like, namely festooned with supposedly reliable
> citations, and bearing obvious battlescars from years of edit-warring.  The
> contrast was specifically prompted by a claim by Gerard that Wikipedia's
> relaxed attitude to 'expertise' leads to better articles.  I don't think it
> does.
>
>> If your intent is to
>> discuss content issues in Wikipedia, then you need to actually
>> explicitly discuss them.
>
> I don't want to discuss content as such.  I want to discuss generic and
> systematic problems with the way Wikipedia is organised that lead to poor
> quality articles.  There needs first to be some recognition there is a
> quality problem and that it is serious - I think there is an element of
> denial that is evident from some of the replies here, as well as elsewhere.
> Once the problem is recognised, there needs to be a careful examination of
> possible causes for this.  And then a further examination of how policy and
> governance could be changed to address some or all of these causes.  Does
> that sound reasonable?
>
>> I might suggest that you should
>> familiarize yourself with some of our other mailing lists and consider
>> whether another list, like wikien-l, is better suited to have this
>> conversation, since foundation-l exists for issues related to the
>> Wikimedia Foundation and the overall movement surrounding its projects,
>> not just Wikipedia.)
>
> I consider this is the best mailing list for the purpose.  What do people
> here think?
>
> Peter

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l