Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is failing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,563,293 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{essaysort|importance=high}}

{{Shortcut|WT:WIF}}
{{Shortcut|WT:WIF}}
{{oldmfd|date=19 February 2007|result='''snowball keep'''| votepage = Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing}}
{{oldmfd|date=19 February 2007|result='''snowball keep'''| votepage = Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing}}
{{oldmfd|date=21 February 2008|result='''nomination withdrawn'''| votepage = Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (2nd nomination)}}
{{oldmfd|date=21 February 2008|result='''nomination withdrawn'''| votepage = Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (2nd nomination)}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Essays|importance=high}}
}}
{{archive box|auto=long}}
{{archive box|auto=long}}


Windows Registry Editor Version 5.0
==Redirect==
This article should be redirected to [[WP:NOT#Failing]]. &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] • 2007-02-14 15:41Z</small>

=="A modest proposal"==
I think I have a pretty clear solution for this problem:

:1. Flag all articles with their rated [[WP:1.0|Class and Priority]] (averaged if more than one [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|project]] has rated them)
:2. Flag any unrated article with "Unrated, but presumed a Low-priority [[WP:STUB|Stub]]-class"
:3. Outright warn readers that any article not rated [[WP:FA|F.A.]] should be treated with ''caution''.
:4. Readers that articles rated below [[WP:GA|G.A.]] should be treated with ''blatant suspicion''
:5. Have Wikipedia ''not return searchs results for articles rated below G.A. directly, but with an intermediate page saying basically "we have no good article on this topic, but do have one that is inferior; do you still want to see it?"
:6. 1-year limit on ''every'' article, to achieve G.A. status, or be auto-deleted (can be recovered to userspace for further work)
:7. 1-month warning before this happens.
:8. 3-month limit on Stubs to achieve Start class.
:9. 1-week warning.
:10. Direct ''advocacy'' of removing [[WP:RS|unsourced]] information from articles; reverting such a deletion will trigger a new [[WP:3RR|1RR]] rule with regard to unsourced information. The [[WP:UWT|uw-unsourced tags]] for warning users against the addition of such material would be used with the same vigor and consequences as the [[WP:VANDAL|uw-vandalism]] warnings.

What else tough but quality-reinforcing can be thrown in...?

:11. De-sysop every [[WP:ADMIN|admin]], without exception (but maybe a 2-month warning) that does not pass [[Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter|the enhanced Diablo test]], and make it part of Policy at [[WP:RFA|RfA]].
:12. Add [[WP:NHIST|fame and importance criteria]] back into the [[WP:N|notability]] concept, until such time as [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] agrees we have G.A. or better articles on every important topic that should be in an encyclopedia.

How's that? I think every article but maybe 10, maybe even less, that I've spent any significant work on would get nuked under this policy, but I'd sure be working hard to improve those few gems up to better-than-[[Encyclopaedia Britannica|Britannica]] F.A. standards instead of futzing with 300 stubs of dubious merit here and there! And we'd be rid of the "[[Fanwanking|fancruft]]" that may complain consumes 90% of WP's human and electronic bandwidth.

Or then again, uh, maybe Wikipedia ''isn't'' failing. Perhaps some people just have highly personal particular expectations that aren't being met?

&mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 23:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

: Your first set of suggestions are amazing. But I do not agree with the second part starting from "What else tough but quality-reinforcing can be thrown in...?"
: I recommend this suggestion to be seriously considered. --[[User:169.229.6.145|169.229.6.145]] 00:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::: &#91;I'd forgotten all about this post, did not watch this page, and certainly didn't expect this level of feedback about it.&#93; Um, just in case this wasn't clear to anyone: '''''I WAS KIDDING'''''. I thought that the "[[A Modest Proposal]]" heading would give that away. I actually think a handful of the ideas have a ''grain'' of merit apiece, if de-extremized, but ''please''. The proposal as a whole was meant as an ironic comment on the projectpage to which this talk page is attached. Anyone who knows me on here at all would know this was a joke from point #12 alone, give how hard I argued for months against such subjective nonsense. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I took your last two points as an obvious joke. But you should have been much more outlandish with the rest if you wanted them to be clearly humorous. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::I made your list numbered, hope you don't mind. I think number 5 would do amazing things for overall quality, as would number 8 (I suggested something similar to that a while back). 6 and 7 would also help a huge amount. Of course, many people would probably object to GA being used as a standard, but in principle I think those four measures would absolutely transform things in a very short time. I'd also add that new articles which cite no sources a week after their creation should be speedy deletion candidates. We have to get some things right from the very start.
::For me as well, that would mean a lot of my articles getting wiped. Even though I enjoyed writing FAs particularly, and did 24 of those while I was actively editing, I made loads more unreferenced stubs. I expect the majority are still stubs, a year or two years on. The encyclopaedia would hardly be much worse off if they were temporarily removed. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Your numbering didn't seem to stick; looks like someone reverted it, not understanding [[WP:REFACTOR]]. For the record, people should feel free to recast a talk page bullet list as a numbered list if they [[WP:AGF|honestly]] think that will be somehow useful, and people need to get over their YOYOW possessiveness about their talk page posts; [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] [[The WELL]]. I put the numbering back, just so these followup discussions make sense (and noting again, as above, that the entire post is an ironic joke.) &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::These are excellent ideas, although I need to mention that there are numerous B-class articles of very high quality, whose authors have not initiated the whole "nomination" thing.
:::Consistent with your ideas, I'm thinking of starting a '''WikiProject Unassessed Articles''' that would allow us to rank articles for importance and quality, even if they don't have a sponsoring WikiProject of their own at present. Does that seem like a good idea to the people here? Hoping for constructive feedback, [[User:WillowW|Willow]] 00:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::This would be duplicative of existing efforts. The [[WP:1.0]] project is already handling this. The WikiProjects, like [[WP:BIO]] are using their article rating system. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:Other than our stub, there is '''no''' information on the web about [[Meade Island]]. Would you delete a valid, attributed, irreplaceable (on the Web) article simply because it has a stub tag on it? I share Worldtraveller's views on unattributed information, but I find the idea of deleting brief but fully attributed stubs absolutely deplorable. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::The fictional "me" that wrote this piece would say, "Yes! If no one cares enough about your silly little island and its article, it is self-demonstrably non-encyclopedic, and will never, ever have a Featured Article, and since the goal of WP is for every article to eventually achieve F.A. status, it ''must'' go." In reality I'm a quasi-[[M:Inclusionism|inclusionist]], so of course I would not ''actually'' advocate removal of a well-sourced stub, and I think hard-core [[M:Immediatism|immediatists]] need to go soak their heads. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:Heh, following these standards Wikipedia would never have gotten off the ground at all. :] --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That was half the point (the other half being that an arguably rational position can be defended that ''things have changed'' ergo WP's nature has to, to "keep up with reality". I leave it to the reader/editor to determine just how defensible that view is; ''cf.'' User:Worldtraveller's material below, and the very existence of this document. If it were ''absurd'' it would be ignored. But the fact that is sparks honest debate doesn't mean that it ulitmately represents the truth either.) &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

::Well, Hesperian, if actually the article says all that reasonably can be said about the island, then it shouldn't be marked as a stub. Stub means 'very small article which will be expanded later'. I think when SMcCandlish said 'delete' he made clear that didn't mean delete really, but move or hide or otherwise take out of article space.
:::I actually meant (in a devil's advocate way) ''delete'', though intentionally left in the caveat that any so-deleted article would be userspaced on request for further work. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::CBD, you're quite right, but then what got Wikipedia off the ground will not necessarily correspond to what will transform it into a reliable and authoritative reference work. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 00:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think that it says all that reasonably can be said. But I do think that anyone seeking information on this obscure island would search the Web with very low expectations, and would be overjoyed by how much information Wikipedia has. Making this information inaccessible would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 01:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Or, to put the devil hat back on, requring people who believe the island to be of encyclopedic value to ''really'' do their homework and make a fantastic article about it. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::::So what is stopping it saying all that could be said? How long is it likely to stay a stub, in the absence of an incentive to expand it? [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 01:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::(i) The difficulty of sourcing information, which I believe to be out there, even if I haven't found it yet. (ii) In the absence of an "improve or delete" imperative, it will probably still be a stub in 100 years. That is an argument in favour of such an imperative, only to those who think well-written, neutral, fully attributed stubs are a bad thing. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 01:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Do you see it as a problem if unfinished articles remain unfinished indefinitely? Shouldn't we have an incentive to encourage people to finish articles rather than just stub it and run? By the way, ''fully attributed'' does not apply to the vast majority of stubs, and I think perhaps the article we're talking about right now shouldn't be called a stub. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed, sounds like a "Start"-class article, though I haven't looked at it myself (and not like I'm an authority on such things; just saying I'm agreeing in principle, not on specifics. :-) &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, changes like this now would be ''worse'' than having it that way from the start. With the restrictions in place from the beginning you'd have a very slow process which would probably die of inertia, but could plod along and amount to something after a hundred years or so. Basically... Nupedia. Putting strictures like this into place NOW? Immediate insanity of unimaginable scope. A hundred thousand screaming Pokemon/South Park/Boy band/Whatever fans all going ape shit simultaneously. The site would be completely trashed and never recover. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::: Addendum to "Proposal": 13. So, when they cross the line, ban them. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I doubt they'd have that much impact actually. I doubt many people would get angry, especially if restrictions were only placed on new stubs with a much more generous timescale for existing ones - similar to how unsourced images were purged. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:: To me (1), (2), (3) and (4) seem excellent suggestions. The rest are a bit radical though. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 02:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::: Ya think? >;-) I'm frankly surprised that 1-4 went over well! That's kind of scary actually. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:I imagine that implementing such an idea would devestate a large proportion of the encyclopedia. Assuming that people could stomach the idea of working to have it deleted, to work to have it deleted (like building a sandcastle where the waves are lapping). Some articles might be recreated over time and deleted again a year later. Result: more wasted effort. In reality, most people would just leave. --[[User:Seans Potato Business|Seans]] '''[[User talk:Seans Potato Business|Potato Business]]''' 02:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::That was the idea I was trying to get sarcastically across, in opposition to the essay this talk page belongs to. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::I wouldn't believe for a second that most people would leave. Yes, according to [[WP:1.0/I]], assuming no-one did any stub expansion, 64% of all articles would be under threat; but without any incentive at all to expand or improve, then most of them will never become non-stubs anyway. The project would be much better off if they were merged into broader articles. If we had a culture that viewed barely-started articles as a bad thing, and a suitable length of time before sanctions against them were enacted, huge numbers of stubs could be expanded. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:Obviously this is a terrible idea, but there might be something useful to fish out of it. Some of the worst elements of this proposal:
:* Any unrated article is assumed starting out to be an unimportant stub. What? 1.0 has about 193,000 articles assessed out of {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. The others are ''all'' unimportant stubs? I just had a look at a few of my own articles - [[computational phylogenetics]], [[implicit solvation]], and [[homology modeling]] all fall into the unassessed category; they may not be that important, but they certainly aren't stubs. This proposal assumes that we can realistically get all (or at least the vast majority) of articles assessed. I don't know, I'd rather be writing them than writing 'B' on the talk page.
:* In practice, 'B' is used to mean 'this article is in a usable state'. There is no accessible rating above B for most individual assessors. Claiming that all B-level articles are of low quality or should be treated with 'blatant suspicion' is nonsense.
:* The GA process ''cannot'' cope with the massive influx of articles that would result from something like this. GA is already perpetually backlogged, and the quality of the reviews varies so enormously that it's effectively useless as a means of getting feedback on an article. The number of people just clearing the backlog, reviewing articles that they know nothing about, can only increase. If I can use my own as an example again (those are the ones I remember, you know ;), [[computational phylogenetics]] failed GA with a review that said, and I quote, "the prose, I was starting to fell asleap". (It later got a much more useful review from an expert, fortunately.)
:* Since assessments are given by a single user, what's to stop me from thinking, 'hm, I wrote this pretty okay stub 2.9 months ago and nobody's edited it since, but it's pretty big for a stub, I'm just going to call it start since it would be dumb to delete it'. With 1.6 million articles, are these things going to be noticed? If they're going to be policed more strictly, where will we get the police?
:* Unsourced statements aren't evil. I categorically oppose any variation of '''all'' unsourced material will be deleted, period' because some people have such incredible difficulty with concepts like 'common knowledge', and this causes a have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife situation, since nobody wants to be on the side of lax referencing and low standards.
:A less invasive idea: introduce a simple wikiproject certification scheme. Binary decision, 'this article is usable as a reference on the topic' or 'this article is not usable as a reference on this topic'. The intuitive response to the limitations of the existing assessment system is to add ''more'' dimensions, but that would only worsen the inter-project inconsistencies. Also, the emphasis on ''utility'' eliminates the tendency in grading schemes to use them as relative rather than absolute ranks; if an article is 'start' under the current system but hits all the basic points on a subject and contains a reference to a source of more information, it could still be certified as usable. Articles that are claimed by a wikiproject but not certified as usable can be tagged to notify the reader of their deficiencies. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]]
::Exactly. WP ''isn't'' broken. It's doing a great job as-is, with the human resources available. It's a true wonder, and expecting it to be wonderful x 1000 is just silly (like [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing]]). &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> &#91;[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::What's silly is replying to data showing significant problems with a statement as bland as 'it isn't broken'. That really doesn't advance the discussion at all. If you have evidence to show exactly how Wikipedia cannot be improved and is not suffering from any significant problems in producing high quality encyclopaedic content, please share. I see nothing at all in what you've said here that demonstrates any serious problems with the analysis in the essay. I invite you to have a look at [[Tool]], [[Litre]], [[Market]], [[Dictatorship]], [[Mind]], [[South America]], and [[Herodotus]] and consider whether they meet the standards you'd expect of a high quality encyclopaedia. All are on [[WP:VA]]. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== Stop focusing time and effort on inconsequential articles about things that do not exist! ==

Much effort is expended on documenting the intricacies of the Star Wars universe, or anime cartoons, or obscure characters from comic books, etc. This is not only amateurish for an encyclopedia, but the time spent making these articles and editing them could be better spent on articles that actually belong in an encyclopedia.
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:71.131.43.48|71.131.43.48]] ([[User talk:71.131.43.48|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.131.43.48|contribs]]) 07:33, 21 February 2007</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:The obvious fallacy is the notion that those same editors who work on that sort of thing would spend their time writing scholarly material if we somehow got them to cut out the cruft. This is unrealistic. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::This is true, but if there were far fewer comic and cartoon articles, you might find that far more academics and experts were interested in getting involved. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I doubt it. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, no matter how many articles like that there are. Academics and experts are still going to be skeptical of an encyclopedia whose fact checking method is hoping that if something is wrong, someone will wander by and correct it. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::The academics and experts I know and chatted about the wiki with never minded the pop articles. Their problem with the wiki is this.
:::Everyone bases their work on the work of others. In order to avoid being wrong, they can only
:::*make sure there is no fault in their original parts and
:::*make sure there is no fault in their choice of sources.
:::Sources can be wrong, and one can't check everything, so there is no guilt in falling for the mistake somebody else made. It is just that ''one's choice of sources has to be reasonable''. They have to be things that, if wrong, "could have misled anyone", because otherwise. The wiki, not even claiming to be definite, cannot serve this purpose. So if any mistake from the wiki were to be propagated in scholarly work, the academic/expert himself would have made a mistake, in an environment where single mistakes can end careers. This is an unacceptable risk. The presence of pop articles is entirely unrelated to that. [[User:Denial|Denial]] 13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:What is intrinsic in a set of data's contents that make it encyclopedic or not? What makes data amateurish versus professional? Why is it inconsequential to include data based on an individual's perception of that data's worth? I think the real problem here is the perception of what individuals, and consequentially groups of like minded individuals, subjectively find to be worthy of inclusion. The question needs to be asked, if the technology exists to include everything, why exclude something? To me, at least, it seems to boil down to individual's need to feel that their contribution is important, or more specifically, that their contribution is more important then someone else's contribution. Unfortunately for those who are trying to maintain, or establish, a degree of specificity in regards to Wikipedia's content, that design had long ago been abandoned. Wikipedia is no longer an online Encyclopedia in the most traditional understandings of that word. It is now become a tool by which a world's worth of human beings search for and contribute to it's collective understanding of their experience as living part of that world. This is, in my opinion at least, a far nobler ambition then that of the production of a simple encyclopedia. Why is there such a resistance to it? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zenasprime|Zenasprime]] ([[User talk:Zenasprime|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zenasprime|contribs]]) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Because the dissidents are eventually driven away, leaving those who favor the current system behind. [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 As Larry Sanger pointed out], "the cultures of online communities generally are established pretty quickly and then very resistant to change, because they are self-selecting; that was certainly the case with Wikipedia, anyway." I've been hacking away at it for years, and they won't budge. It's time for a paradigm shift. I think the demand for it is building up. See my essay, [[Wikipedia:There is a deadline]]. Our solution be partially outside of this wiki. [[User:Obuibo Mbstpo|Obuibo Mbstpo]] ([[User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo|talk]]) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia fail when ... ==

The wiki fail, when ...
* it is '''not''' a wiki.
The encyclopedia fail, when ...
* it is '''not''' an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia fail, when ...
* it fail to be '''wiki''' and '''encyclopedia''' at the same time.

It is '''not''' a wiki, when ...
* It does not have a freedom to edit and publish with [[Wikipedia:assume good faith|good faith]].
* The editors do not have a [[Wikipedia:wiki mind|wiki mind]] or [[Wikipedia:wiki spirit|wiki spirit]].
--[[User:Ans|Ans]] 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:The question is, is the wiki- bit subsidiary to or more important than the -pedia bit? If aspects of a wiki system conflict with aspects of an encyclopaedia building project, then what gives? [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:: If they conflict, then wikipedia '''fail''' :) --[[User:Ans|Ans]] 12:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Why so? [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: That's simple, since "if" it can't be both wiki and pedia at the same time, then it fail to be wikipedia, or it shouldn't be called wikipedia. --[[User:Ans|Ans]] 10:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think what is leading to failings is the assumption that a wiki is good for every single aspect of writing an encyclopaedia. I think many people love the idea of a wiki so much that they are not willing to accept that it ''can'' conflict with the aims of the project. I think it would be great if more people saw that a wiki is amazingly good for ''generating'' content, but useless for ''maintaining'' it. Editors are forced to spend more and more time reverting vandalism instead of writing articles, and if you don't watch an article quite carefully it will soon degrade under the pressure of vandalism and poor edits. At the moment the project is like an assembly line where the finished product keeps on getting put back onto the conveyor belt. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

== Too popular causing it to fail? ==

Could the fact that WP (1) has become so popular and (2) the fact anyone can edit both be failing WP keeping it from being a true resource for accurate information? I will give you two examples in line with the above: 1) Trying to find the exact city where an individual was born (it was not listed in this site's article), I typed the person's full name and his US birth State (the info given in the WP article) into Google. The top results I got were the WP article as well as word for word copycat articles on Answers.com and several other sites. Making the assumption that the article was first created here (though I have no proof either way), if any of the information happened to be incorrect, it not only corrupts WP as a reasource but several others that copied the article from here (possibly done due to the site's popularity). Checking several other articles I got the exact same type of copy-paste results from WP to these other sites. 2) [[Diane Ladd]]: "At this time, there is some contention about her birth year. Some claim she was born in 1932 and others claim 1942." Despite 80 edits, no one has "facts" of when this person was born because of what "different sources say"? I have never encountered a general "It could be this or it could be that" comment in a [[Encyclopædia Britannica|Britanica]]. If I wanted to look for information on someone similar, having seeing this, WP is less likely a place I would come because I then feel the need to reverify everything -- something which I have less of a need to do using a professional, static encyclopedia. '''Comments?''' — [[User:CobraWiki|CobraWiki]] <sup>([[User talk:CobraWiki| <font color="darkgreen">jabber</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/CobraWiki|<font color="blue">stuff </font>]])</sup> 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'm confused. The first part of your criticism makes some amount of sense, although I'm not sure why it's a sign of failure. But the second part makes no sense to me. Why would you ''want'' an encyclopedia to always present something as the truth, even if it's in contention? Wouldn't you prefer an unbiased encyclopedia that just tells you about the controversy, without taking a side in it? -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry to confuse. My point is that I believe the second example is actually in contention only because the "sources" are possibly unsoured assumptions themselves or a mix of results on the web rather than a "no one really knows" situation. Both can't be true, and I'm sure if research was done using actual paper birth records, a single answer would be derived rather than there be any contention, which is what a typical encyclopedia does over partly information found on the web. To further explain this, I know for a fact that [[Jimmy Reed]] was born in the not-so-well-known town in Mississippi called Dunleith. However, many biographies credit him to being born in nearby Leland, Mississippi where he spent his childhood. For others who aren't certain, this could be in contention but I know it as fact, so what web sources say is irrelevant, however, anyone could very easily get into a revert war with me over the issue because a web search for this information shows an equal number of sites claiming each to be his home. How can WP be viewed as a good/accurate source of information on this specific piece of information if people can't agree on something that shouldn't even be debatable since he was only born in one of the two towns? This small example leads me to a larger believe that any information found here should not be taken as fact directly and should always met with some skepticism, which I don't think is a good word to be used with any information source that wants to maintain high stands (and it is most often these little things more thna the larger ones that show whether or not the standards are being met). That is why it concerns me. Maybe "fail" is too strong of a word to use, though. — [[User:CobraWiki|CobraWiki]] <sup>([[User talk:CobraWiki| <font color="darkgreen">jabber</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/CobraWiki|<font color="blue">stuff </font>]])</sup> 06:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== The assumptions are incorrect... ==

...thereby invalidating any logical conclusion the essay may reach. Specifically assumption no. 2:

* ''That articles which are not either FA or A-class fall below the standards that a reference work should demand of its content.''

Virtually every article in the [[Micropedia]] of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] would, if included in Wikipedia, be start- or stub-class, having no references, no named contributors and only a couple of paragraphs of text. I think we should be aiming for more than that, but I think B-class is fine and GA-class more than enough, and there's nothing wrong with start- or stub- class for obscure topics – [[User:Qxz|Qxz]] 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, we have more Featured Articles than there are articles in the [[Macropedia]]; and then the GA and A-class articles on top of that, all of which are larger than anything EB has outside the Macropedia. So we're already well past "Britannica-standard" in terms of quality – [[User:Qxz|Qxz]] 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

:Have you read the [[Template:grading scheme|criteria]] by which these gradings are given? For B-class articles ''...a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work''. For GA-class, ''other encyclopedias could do a better job''. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 00:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Then the gradings are being handed out wrongly, which invalidates the first assumption instead. Unless you're taking "other encyclopedias ''could'' do a better job" literally – that is, if another encyclopedia chose to "feature" that topic in whatever way they have of doing such things, it would be better than Wikipedia's version. However this ignores the fact that in most cases no general encyclopedia ''has'' done a better job, and a more specialist work would need to be consulted to find a better article – and of course Wikipedia can never hope to beat all specialist works in their field, making this irrelevant as an assessment – [[User:Qxz|Qxz]] 01:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Also, what "class" would ''you'' assign the ''Micropedia'' articles to? Start- or stub-class, as I suggested (and seems to fit the definition of the classes most closely)? If so, then by the arguments here Britannica has completely and utterly failed as an encyclopedia too, as has every other encyclopedia ever written. When you come to that sort of conclusion, it's time to go back and question your assumptions – [[User:Qxz|Qxz]] 01:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:::So what is wrong with the gradings? What should be different? If Wikipedia can never hope to beat specialist encyclopaedias then it must be failing if it is trying to do so.
:::No, I don't think stub or start classes apply to micropaedia articles. They have extensive systems in place to ensure that each article, long or short, is edited and vetted by several layers of process before it gets published. We don't have that. I don't think many people at all would say that Britannica articles are often "still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element", or "At best a brief, informed dictionary definition". [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

::I looked at a couple of Britannica online articles (university subscription) when this essay was first publicized. They were very long; often one article on Britannica corresponds to five or more articles here. But if the parts of the EB article were split into the corresponding five articles, each one would rate no higher than Start class, because the coverage is quite shallow. In short, comparison with EB is only reasonable for a small number of articles about basic topics. For the majority of articles, as Qxz points out, there is no other encyclopedia that covers them, so whether another encyclopedia covers them better is a vacuous question. The fact that the topics are covered is already an initial success. [[User:CMummert|CMummert]] · <small>[[User talk:CMummert|talk]]</small> 04:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Can you give examples of Britannica articles that could reasonably be described as start class? That is, "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element...Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added". [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Assuming you have access to Britannica, how would you judge, say, ''La Chanson de Roland'' or Naryn River? On what we'd call "core topics" Britannica is mostly very good but their fringe articles are often lacking somewhat. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 12:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::An article like [[Naryn River]] should not, in my opinion, be marked as a stub here. It says really all that needs to be said; it will never be a 20kb brilliant article. As for its comparison with Britannica, well, they too say basically all that needs to be said, although they quote 700km for length where we have 807. I wouldn't describe either article as lacking. The other one I can't see right now but can look at from work on Monday.
:::::This touches on what I think is a major problem - that because FAC increasingly approves articles that are way way over the recommended size ([[WP:SIZE]]), a lot of people think that short articles are no good. Instead of writing long articles on the most important subjects and short or even very short articles on anything else, increasingly people write massive amounts on articles that really don't require massive amounts, and neglect short articles because it clearly is not possible for them to become FA-style long articles. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 14:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::I think that a lot more ''could'' be said about the Naryn River - what lives in it, what effect it has on the local economy, the geographical features and so on. It's possible that no-one knows this stuff, but in an ideal world it would be there. I think, based on our assessment scale, that stub or perhaps start is a fair rating. I do agree, though, that we tend to over-value length, throughout the project.
::::::Your argument seems to be based on the fact that a large numbers of articles rated similar to (or even higher than) this one means that Wikipedia is failing. Do you see this article as an exception, then, either because it is more informative that average or because it covers a smaller topic than average? --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Yes, I can give several examples of start-class Britannica articles.
:::::1. The WP article on [[group (mathematics)]] is significantly better than the short section on "group theory" in the "algebra, modern" article on EB. If that section of the EB article were rated here, it would be start class.
:::::2. Look at the WP article [[Aldol reaction]] and compare it with the short paragraph on EB in the section "Aldol reaction" in "Chemical compund". Again, the EB section would be rated start-class.
::::I don't believe this is a rare phenomenon - most of the articles I see on EB are written far more shallowly than their corresponding articles here, except for a few basic topics such as planets, countries, etc. If our goal was to write extremely long articles in summary style, ''then'' it might be worth comparing to EB, because that is what most EB article seem to be. [[User:CMummert|CMummert]] · <small>[[User talk:CMummert|talk]]</small> 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

: I think I can best summarize this by saying that no, I don't think Wikipedia is failing, I think that as it has grown people's expectations have grown with it and the quality the project is ''supposedly'' now aiming for is simply not achievable. But that doesn't mean it has failed. The assessment classes are entirely a by-product of the "Wikipedia 1.0" subproject, and have been adopted by various WikiProjects; people are confusing conformance to their criteria with the original goals of the project. If we ignore them, and just ''look at the articles'', and compare them with (a) what is to be found in other encyclopedias and (b) what our core policies say an article should be like, I think we will actually turn out to be doing reasonably well. There is still, of course, an imperceptibly huge amount of work to be done, but ''we are not failing'' – [[User:Qxz|Qxz]] 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

::The FA class articles are supposed to equal traditional encyclopedias with ''fact-checking'' and ''writing style''. But Wikipedia, because it is not paper, is aiming for significantly more ''depth'' than traditional encyclopedias. The fact-checking and writing style issues in the [[condom]] article, for example, are in areas outside the scope of a traditional encyclopedia article. The very basic information (what is it, what are pregnancy rates among users) is just as good or better than traditional encyclopedias. But the article is in no shape to be nominated for GA or FA status, because insufficient work has been done on the expanded coverage unique to Wikipedia.
::Saying that the small percentage of FA articles is evidence Wikipedia is "failing" is basically saying it has failed to ''greatly exceed'' traditional encyclopedias, not that it has failed to equal them. [[User:Lyrl|Lyrl]] <sup> [[User talk:Lyrl|Talk]] </sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Lyrl|C]] </sub> 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

== Dire state of philosophy articles ==

Wiki has attracted some attention from philosophers in a series of posts [http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com here]. [[User:Dbuckner|edward (buckner)]] 10:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:Philosophy I expect to be a hard case for some time. The science and math articles on Wikipedia are the best not just because the type of people to contribute are likely to be inclined to it; it's also because technical topics are not as likely to attract fringe crusaders. The religion articles at least benefit from a healthy number of both supporters and detractors, so that extremes can be dulled to a proper consensus. And while pop culture attracts a large number of mediocre contributions, there are also dedicated "good" editors to organizing that, and there are verifiable "right" answers and complete articles for those topics. Philosophy, unfortunately, attracts large numbers of both fringe theory cranks and well-meaning pretentious idiots. Frankly, the pretentious idiot can do more damage than a vandal, because their work may look reasonable to an amateur and require an expert to notice that it makes absolutely no sense. Even worse, considering the small number of true experts vs. people who read a cool book at the bookstore, many of the actual philosophers are massively riven over philosophical topics, and there are a fair number of Ph.Ds out there with their own weird theories who should be allowed nowhere near Wikipedia. (Whatever happened to that proposal to grant a speedy exit to people who didn't technically break policy, but polluted good articles with bad edits, thus driving off the experts?)

:Take the above with a grain of salt as I am a self-admitted amateur in the field. I sincerely hope that we don't drive all the ''good'' philosophy contributors away with senseless bannings. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::When I was at one philosophy class at university, I remember the lecturer saying that these days, nobody is capable of writing a comprehensive '''and''' high quality work on the entire history of philosophy, by reason of the scope of the subject. So perhaps Wikipedia's failure should not be perceived as so much of a big deal, although I also believe it has better chances of writing such a work than anybody else.&mdash;[[User:Toccata quarta|Toccata quarta]] ([[User talk:Toccata quarta|talk]]) 05:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

== (yawn) ==

This alarmist article pronounces:

:: [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|Vital articles]] lists 1182 articles on topics that can be considered essential. These topics should have articles of the very highest quality - ideally a featured article.

Is whoever wrote this studying to be a demaogogue who thrives by alarming the uninformed public? Reading the sentence above inclines me to think the rest of this polemic will probably be boring and uninformative. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, well... a number of us tried to improve the article, but we weren't "allowed" to. The original editor has since left, so, please, go for your life if you think that you can fix the article! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 13:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Have you tried reading the first sentence at the vital articles article? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.179.87.236|81.179.87.236]] ([[User talk:81.179.87.236|talk]]) 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

=== (contagious yawn) ===

As an ''authoritative'' online resource, the Wikipedia has been, is, and always will be a failure. It is the Wikipedia's nature to fail in that sense because the number of "editors" producing non-authoritative articles is uncountable. I can't count them all; you can't count them all; all of us counting at the same time might be able to count them all if we leave out all of the sockpuppets and remote vandal-bots. This makes their number legion.

Where the Wikipedia is outrageously successful is in being the [[Cliffnotes]] of the Internet. The number of mirrors is still countable, but it grows every week because the Wikipedia is perhaps the best non-authoritative, non-citable resource for information in the known universe, not including my Aunt Zelda's gossipy online coffee clutch. The Wikipedia is the best place to read up on things personally unknown when we as editors take the time to include outside, reliable and verifiable sources in the vandalizable articles-of-note we write, but the concept of an authoritative Wikipedia is an unreachable ideal, an asymptotic limit if you will, and it is nowhere near the asymptote yet. [[User:Hotfeba|Hotfeba]] 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:I don't know when this feature was added, but one thing that helps our articles to be more authoritative is '''the ability to render PDF copies of wikipedia articles''', which can be hosted elsewhere on the Internet and do include a copy of the GFDL. While this does not fully address concerns over editor anonymity, at least having un-editable copy elsewhere does reduce the damage from vandalism, even as it introduces real challenges for website-subverting hackers. [[User:Hotfeba|Hotfeba]] ([[User talk:Hotfeba|talk]]) 00:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

== Who "features" the articles? ==

I don't get it. Who is given the authority to decide which articles pass off as "excellent?" How does this rating system work, exactly? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.65.196.182|70.65.196.182]] ([[User talk:70.65.196.182|talk]]) 15:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:See [[Wikipedia:featured articles]]. The process is not secret. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== I think Wikipedia is a laughingstock ==

Everyone in my school thinks it is lame. [[User:Belicia|Belicia]] ([[User talk:Belicia|talk]]) 03:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:Everyone here thinks your school is lame. (Check the talk page for a REAL laugh.) [[User:Orethrius|Orethrius]] ([[User talk:Orethrius|talk]]) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is lame. It's not even creditable. It's so bad, teachers won't accept Wikipedia articles as references. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.171.66.108|67.171.66.108]] ([[User talk:67.171.66.108|talk]]) 21:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Questioning the Standard ==

The purpose of an Enclopedia.... <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.246.55.6|99.246.55.6]] ([[User talk:99.246.55.6|talk]]) 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:A real encyclopedia hires experts on topics to write articles. It also sources material from sources determined reputable by neutral experts on the topics. Unfortunately for wikipedia they don't have this luxury. While they stick to policies that apparantly don't work it will remain known as a second class imitation. Maybe put some of those funds to better use letting the public know how imperfect it really is instead of burying those comments in obscure texts and passing the policies off as "high standards" and fighting off lawsuits. [[Special:Contributions/196.207.44.240|196.207.44.240]] ([[User talk:196.207.44.240|talk]]) 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

==No surprise==

I have published statistics about good and bad articles and then had to fight the afd zealots; I'm not even sure I can find them in my userspace any more.

My attempt to provide balance to biased articles was '''itself''' labeled an act of [[Wikipedia:POV pushing]]; to cap the irony, the afd zealots made me move that essay to [[User:Ed Poor/POV pushing]]. That's right: the only article which opposes POV pushing is in the userspace of a man put on indefinite probation for alleged POV pushing. Ah, the irony is delicious.

Solution? None until the overwhelming majority of contributors genuinely want to make good articles. We must return to the spirit of the old days - like 2002 to 2004 - when everyone was making a serious effort to assemble and present useful knowledge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:Wikipedia looks pretty good to me these days, Ed. I come here to "add to" or "edit" articles with sources, and usually all I do is learn more. What's your problem? Unable to finagle your POV into articles? [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] ([[User talk:Huw Powell|talk]]) 08:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::"when everyone was making a serious effort to assemble and present useful knowledge"? By that do you mean "when no one had yet realised I was a stealth creationist"?
::Ed, really, as long as the POV pushers like you are dissatisfied, Wikipedia is doing fine. <font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="#A9A9A9">The Black Rabbit of Inlé</font><sub>[[User_talk:The Black Rabbit of Inlé|<font color="#C0C0C0">(Talk)</font>]]</sub></font> 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::By the way, could you change the title of this section to "No Surprises"? Pretty please? <font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="#A9A9A9">The Black Rabbit of Inlé</font><sub>[[User_talk:The Black Rabbit of Inlé|<font color="#C0C0C0">(Talk)</font>]]</sub></font> 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that '''both''' comments included a personal attack; each also begs the question. Unless Wikipedians try to address the reasons it is failing, it will continue to deteriorate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:I'm very sorry you see my comment as a personal attack, Ed. Which part, specifically, constitutes an attack? Do you dislike being categorised as a creationist? {{User:The Black Rabbit of Inlé/sig|I have no idea whether that word is capitalised...}}

::It's the way you presented it. You aren't sorry. You called him a "stealth creationist" and put words in the guy's mouth. It's uncivil and you know it. I'm not a creationist myself, and I'm new to Wikipedia, but it's this garbage that turns good editors off. Yes, I know I'm late with this comment, but this is just... bad. [[Special:Contributions/74.5.110.177|74.5.110.177]] ([[User talk:74.5.110.177|talk]]) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:::+1 [[Special:Contributions/196.207.44.240|196.207.44.240]] ([[User talk:196.207.44.240|talk]]) 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

== Unreliable ==

You never know if something on the net is true, so that's why wikipedia is unreliable.
[[Special:Contributions/89.249.0.170|89.249.0.170]] ([[User talk:89.249.0.170|talk]]) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia is failing is failing ==

Any chance of an update, naysayers? [[user:Skomorokh|<span style="background: black; color: gainsboro;"><font face="New York">&nbsp;Skomorokh&nbsp;</font></span>]] 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

:[[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80"><sup>m</sup><u>bork<sup>3</sup></u></span>]]!) 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

::I forgot to stress: read it and learn it! Then read the essay. The essay does not claim that WP is failing, it reflects over various alleged failings of WP. There's no need to be dishonest over this. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80"><sup>m</sup><u>bork<sup>3</sup></u></span>]]!) 16:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

== "meager coverage of subjects"? ==

Are you joking! That's one problem Wikipedia DOESN'T have. Just take a trawl through the labyrinthine plehora of abstruse psychological subjects, for example, or the pharmacology of almost every synthesized drug in existence. Etc. ([[User:Psychonavigation]]) [[Special:Contributions/149.135.146.89|149.135.146.89]] ([[User talk:149.135.146.89|talk]]) 07:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

== Dartmouth University? ==

Dartmouth University hasn't existed in almost 200 years, I think you mean Dartmouth College.[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 15:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

== A Case-Study of the Failure of Wikipedia. ==

These Talk-Pages have been rather quiet lately. Perhaps those who agree that Wikipedia is failing have long gone away, while those who consider it a success are giving these critical pages the cold-shoulder?

Anyway, for those still interested in Wikipedia's performance, below is an archetypal example of the failure of a potentially good Wikipedia article. The history of this particular article exhibits many of the traits spelled out in this WP:WIF article, and also in these related articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Moon_is_made_of_Cheese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_Retention

'''THE SUBJECT -''' The example article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force). In simple terms it is about "how wings work". This subject lives somewhere in the middle of Applied Mathematics, the Physical Sciences, and Engineering. Given that humans have been reliably building heavier-than-air flying machines for well over a century now, we can assume that this subject is well understood and is not particularly "controversial". In fact, it is explained in a very black-and-white, mathematical, manner in many technical schools around the world.

However, a quick review of the subject shows that there are also many different "layman's explanations" available. These are inconsistent with each other, and over the years there have been many passionate debates about which of these bare-bones explanations is the best to give to non-technical people. (The current Lift article discusses some of these different explanations and their flaws.) Importantly, the people who design real aeroplanes only use the one, very well proven, but rather technical explanation for their work. In comparison, the debates about the different layman's explanations are usually of an ideological nature, and are invariably argued by people who lack a deep understanding of the proven technical version.

The Wikipedia Lift article was started in 2001. As might be expected for such a technical article, and given the nature of Wiki-editorship, the article was not ideal to begin with, and its quality varied up and down as different editors came and went. The following gives a brief account of the article's development over the last year or so. For reference, see the Lift-Talk pages starting from about the middle of archived Talk-Page-7, at "4. A Major Revision Proposed..." (May 2014), up to now (ie. July 2015, and what will eventually become archived Talk-Page-9).

'''THE MAIN EDITORS -''' The main editors' names are shortened below for easier reading.

* '''D'''. This editor is best described as the "Expert". According to his personal profile (now deleted) he spent his working lifetime as an Engineer at Boeing. Prior to retiring he was known as a "Boeing Technical Fellow", which loosely translates as tech-guru who knows how wings work. During his final years at Boeing he wrote a book about this very subject of Aerodynamic Lift, mainly intended to counter some of the poor explanations that are nowadays entering the teaching of the subject.

In the early years of the Lift article's development D made comments and suggestions for improvements on the Talk-Pages, but did not edit the article. By May 2014 he had developed a largely re-written version of the Lift article and offered it for consideration to the other active editors. Long consensus-building discussions followed. A largely approved version of D's "Major Revision" was adopted on 26 August 2014.

Here it should be stressed that although D was undoubtedly the most knowledgable editor working on the article, he never used his expert status to push any edits through. On the contrary, his position was often used against him by his opponents who frequently claimed he was using "argumentation from authority", which he never did. Also, I (the writer of this post) am most definitely not D, and have never met him. However, observing this last year's debacle, I do deeply sympathise with him.

* '''S and B'''. These two editors are the "Randies". Both these editors openly admitted that they have no technical understanding of the subject, beyond perhaps a middle-school level. In fact, S frequently insisted that it did not matter what editors thought or understood of the subject, or whether the article contained the "truth" or not, but simply that the article contained only citations from "Reliable Sources". More on this below, but a typical quote from S is, ''"... "Verifiability, not truth" is an old watchword of Wikipedia and no amount of yardage in filling this talk page is going to change that..."''. Similarly, at one stage when B disagreed with D's suggested wording of a subtle technical point, he argued ''"I am not going to embark on an undergraduate course in Fluid Mechanics just so I can continue to protect this article from dubious and misleading information..."''. It seemed that both these editors were quite proud of their ignorance of the subject, and also strongly believed that their lack of [[WP:COMPETENCE]] in no way limited their ability to edit the article.

* And there where many lesser contributors. '''Mr S''' was a long time editor of the article (5+ years) who claimed post-graduate qualifications in Mathematics, but with no specialist knowledge of Fluid Mechanics. Ultimately, he became a "Randy Enabler". '''Z''' was an unregistered IP-user who had similar technical knowledge to D, and supported his views, but while he commented at length on the Talk-Pages, he never edited. And there were some apparently highly experienced Wiki-editors who dropped in from time to time, but ultimately made no difference to the process. In fact, these very experienced editors were, for the most part, also "Randy Enablers".

'''THE DISPUTE -''' In its essence the point of contention was a small technical matter to do with details of the flow around a 2-dimensional wing-element. Early in the dispute this point of contention was named "The Statement", or simply "TS". It was a few sentences of "Simplified Explanation" that appeared in the introductory section at the top of the article. But in its essence, the dispute was an ideological argument about which of the layman's explanations mentioned above should be given pride of place at the top of the article.

D's opinion was that TS itself, as it was then worded, was too much of a generalisation, and in the specific circumstances in which it was being used, it was mostly wrong. That is, taken at face value it was only correct in one particular (tiny) instance, but incorrect everywhere else. So D considered it misleading and wanted it either removed from the article, or else rewritten with some sort of qualification added to point out its limitations.

On the other hand, S and B insisted that TS remain in its unapologetic form. The thrust of their argument was that TS was simple enough that they could understand it, and such a simple explanation is what is required at the top of the article. Furthermore, they had found citations from Reliable Sources (see next paragraph) that were very close to TS, so that was good enough for them. We note at this point that similar such arguments can be used to support the idea that the Earth is flat (easy to understand), or that sword wielding skeletons fought in the Peloponnesian Wars (technically true because the soldiers had skeletons inside them), or that the Moon is made of green cheese (there must be a citation, by someone, somewhere...).

Despite the great deal of argumentation on this small matter (for almost a year and more than two very long archived Talk-Pages), the dispute kept coming back to the issue of Reliable Sources. S and B had found some RSs (a total of five, in the end) supporting their view, and that was good enough for them. D argued that these RSs were too small in number and of too low a standard (ie. from non-specialist authors) to deserve [[WP:DUE_WEIGHT]]. His view, on the other hand, was supported by the many dozens of specialist books he had referenced. This didn't sway S and B, who doggedly insisted that their simple introductory explanation must appear at the top of the article.

The comparative style of the argumentation from the two sides is interesting. D's posts were mostly long, technical, and precisely worded. He seemed to be trying to educate the reader with a deep and rigorous understanding of the core issues involved, so as to clarify everything and show why TS was too misleading to appear in the article. By contrast, S and B's posts were very short, evasive of any matters that did not suit them, and dismissive, often rudely, of D's technical points.

For example, S and B would either ignore the question of the reliability of their RSs, or they would repeatedly, and bare-facedly, claim that their RSs were the best available, and, in fact, the only ones specifically discussing the matter. (Consider, here, how many RSs explicitly refute the notion of "sword wielding skeletons in ancient wars".) At one point S described D's posts as ''"...vast screeds of techno-verbiage [used to] swamp every discussion ... a perfect case of long-term WP:DISRUPTION."''. To which S added ''"... only ... when [D] is removed from the discussion and can no longer drown it out that the content issue can be properly addressed."''.

Interestingly, one of the most bizarre features of S and B's argumentation is that they both often claimed that they did NOT feel very strongly about the TS matter either way, just that they wanted to ''"...help improve the article..."''. But they never showed any sign of relenting.

Overall, the two main tactics used by S and B were persistence, made easier by their many short and repetitious posts, together with much Wiki-lawyering. This lawyering included many protestations that D was pushing his [[WP:POV]], refused to [[WP:LISTEN]], lacked [[WP:CIVILITY]], and so on. Apparently someone who patiently tries to explain difficult technical matters is being uncivil! These protests escalated to the extent that D was reported to ANI several times (at least twice, maybe more?). For example, see:

* WP:ANI #863-19 (Nov 2014). B writes, ''"I have tried to assist and provide technical input, as have others, but consensus appears to be distorted by one expert user who continually refuses to WP:LISTEN or accept opposing views. ... I am becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of his behaviour on the community. Please help..."''. Note the hypocrisy here, given S and B's refusal to "listen" to D's ''"...vast screeds of techno-verbiage..."''.

* WP:ANI #872-59 (Feb 2015). B tries again, ''"I am concerned about [D's] conduct towards myself and others. [He is arguing]... against other authors and implying they were not "aware of [technical details...]" ... I've had enough of arguing with him. Please evaluate his conduct and take any steps necessary to protect the community."''. To which S adds ''"...for many months now [D] has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. ... the excessive pedantry still trickles on. I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give D a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Wikipedia."''.

When S and B's first ANI appeal above (Nov 2014) failed to ban D from the article, they went back to another of their favoured tactics and insisted that the majority consensus was in their favour, and the matter had to be settled, NOW! So, with two editors in favour of TS, and only one ''"lone dissenter"'', as D was called, TS was installed in the article in its unapologetic, unqualified form. And, possibly as a result of the ANI, D temporarily left Wikipedia.

Shortly after, on 27 November 2014, Z reopened the dispute on the Talk-Pages, and supported all of D's arguments. This broke the claimed majority consensus, and brought it back to an even two-for, two-against. A little later, 5 December 2014, Mr S switched sides from being mildly in favour of TS, to being mildly against it. But he was not entirely sure. So D came back and again tried to patiently reason through the whole issue. But Z's blunt approach, such as decribing S and B as ''"dilettantes"'', caused the dispute to become more bitter. S frequently resorted to deleting Z's entire posts because of claimed [[WP:PERSONAL]]-Attack, even when the posts were only discussing technical issues. More ANIs were reported, and for a short time the article's Talk-Pages were protected from IP-users.

But progress was nil. D and Z kept trying to explain details of the Lifting-flow with their ''"vast screeds of techno-verbiage"''. S and B kept making short requests for such clarification, and then ignored them and instead claimed that the vast screeds were Personal Attacks warranting bans on D and Z. Mr S sat firmly on the fence.

'''THE OUTCOME -''' After a period of RFC, starting 9 March 2015, the dispute went to Mediation on 1 April 2015 (yes, April Fool's Day!). The Mediator described himself as ''"...an untrained amateur to the area..."'', and summed up his approach as ''"One of the things I often look at as early as possible in any form of dispute resolution is a compromise. Would it be possible to include both [views] in the article?"''.

The Mediation then followed exactly the same pattern as the original dispute. D gave long technical posts explaining why TS was misleading and should not be at the top of the article. S and B doggedly insisted that TS must remain in its unapologetic form, even though they didn't feel too strongly about it either way.

After much discussion concerning tiny adjustments to the wording of TS, D asked ''"So, are you willing to make this small compromise or not?"''. S and B didn't budge. Much more to-and-froing, and D asked ''"So one last time: Are you willing to compromise or not?"''. S and B launched their same-old diversionary counter-arguments.

Finally, on 27 May 2015, D wrote ''"Your reasoning here defies common sense. ... Anyway, I'm tired of trying to rebut such arguments, and I'm leaving Wikipedia. It's been interesting trying to work with you."''. And D quit Wikipedia and deleted all his User-page and User-Talk-pages.

The Mediator, presumably someone who should be striving for a high quality Wikipedia, seemed quite happy with this outcome and wrote ''"I take it that ... as the main issues are resolved, I am no longer needed and this can be closed?"''.

S and B congratulated each other and started the rewrite. Within three days of D leaving, S wrote ''"I have taken the liberty of implementing the agreed outcome ... I consolidated ... then began trimming out some of the surplus, especially those which wandered off the focus of [TS]..."''. To which B added ''"Thank you, and many thanks for your patience and skill in improving the quality of discussion. As far as I'm aware, there is now no dispute between active editors."''

Mr S was also happy, saying ''"...the Lift article has always stirred up a lot of differing opinions ... Fortunately, the process appears to work ... Shame about D leaving - maybe he'll be back after a break."''

'''CONCLUSION AND OPINION -''' To this observer these past year's events are almost beyond belief. Two issues stand out:

1. An article that was greatly improved last year, thanks to a very knowledgeable editor's hard work, is now being dumbed-down again so that it includes an unqualified Flat-Earth explanation in the most-read, introductory, section.

2. Much worse, an acknowledged expert in the field, who had put in a huge amount of effort into improving Wikipedia, was hounded out of it by some of the most deplorably offensive behaviour this observer has seen in a long time. And the editors carrying out this reprehensible behaviour now have full control of the content of the article.

These two issues are obviously intimately related, and are seen throughout Wikipedia. Articles gradually degrade in quality because knowledgeable editors leave Wikipedia. And the knowledgeable editors leave Wikipedia because Wikipedia allows itself to be over-run by hordes of Randies who use the Five-Pillars guidelines to bludgeon the good editors out of existence. And all of this is overseen by, and actively assisted by, the Administrators and other highly ranked editors!

Ironically, and most hypocritically, the Pillar that seems to be most effective in these attacks is [[WP:CIVILITY]]. It seems that any disagreement, whatsoever, can be claimed to be a Personal Attack. This includes things as innocuous as D's patient explanation of difficult technical details. Thus any editor who disagrees with another's view, in any way whatsoever, is in breach of the house-rules, and is thus subject to eviction. The Civility Pillar in itself (or more precisely, its current implementation) guarantees the long-term failure of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

At a more general level, all of the Wikipedia house-rules taken together exhibit significant social irresponsibility. Their thrust seems to be "to put the rights of the amateur Wiki-editor first, and worry about good-quality articles last". This, no doubt, is good for the growth of the Wikipedia editorship. But very little thought is being given to the potential consequences upon society as a whole of misleading, or plain wrong, encylopedia articles. More on this below.

Regardless of above issues, Wikipedia is '''not failing''' as a website. On the contrary, it seems that nowadays any question submitted to any search engine will have a Wikipedia article at the top of the list, or very close to it. In this sense Wikipedia is becoming ever more successful. Why? Two features stand out:

1. No advertisements. The user knows they are not going to be bombarded with unrequested ads, and will have only what they asked for. Hence there is more linking to Wikipedia pages, and higher ranking of those pages. This "no-ads" business-model only works if the encyclopedia articles can be written at no cost. Fortunately, the Wikipedia-approach does this, with the editors being rewarded not with money, but with the "social prestige" they gain as prolific Wikipedia-ists. The downside is that the Randies inevitably outnumber available Experts, and while the Experts already have their social esteem, the Randies desperately seek it. Thus the Randies are more persistent in seeking control of an article, and with their greater numbers they invariably win.

2. Wikipedia is comfortable "one-stop shopping". Once in Wikipedia the user has links to countless other closely related subjects. All the different pages are of identical format, so easy to navigate. The fonts, colours, and general style of all the pages are consistent and easy on the eye. The whole of Wikipedia is thus like a successful fast-food chain, where the customer knows that the food is '''never top quality''', but it is also consistently '''never too bad'''. And the ambience is ... good enough.

The above suggests to this writer that Wikipedia will, indeed, keep growing and spreading its tentacles throughout society. In a sense it can be thought of as an invasive weed species, or a virus. As with both these cases, the fact that Wikipedia articles are '''not TOO bad''' (yet), is to their advantage. A particularly noxious weed is quickly eradicted by a watchful society. A deadly virus that kills very shortly after infection is self-limiting in that it doesn't have time to spread far. But the "not TOO bad" versions of weeds or viruses can spread widely, eventually pervading the whole of their environments.

Wikipedia articles are currently "not TOO bad" because there are still some good editors around, such as D above, who are prepared to put in the hard work of both writing the articles, and also battling the Randies. So Wikipedia will likely keep spreading throughout our society in the short term.

But what happens in the longer term? Will Wikipedia articles always remain "not TOO bad"?

Well, despite many teachers today warning against the use of Wikipedia in schools, the fact is that countless students use it, and they believe what they read in it. Soon those students will become the teachers of the next generation. The growth of free Wikipedia will gradually squeeze out the more expensively written, but more accurate, encyclopedias. The factual errors that gradually accumulate in Wikipedia articles will keep increasing in number because there is no process in place to catch and correct these errors. In fact, the Wiki-process described above encourages the accumulation of these errors. Eventually, as Wikipedia dominates the encyclopaedic landscape, its articles will be taken as the gospel truth. After several more generations neither the students, nor their teachers, will know which way is up.

But worst of all is that the Wiki-way of debating these issues, such as the processes outlined above that support the Randies at the expense of quality articles, will guarantee that eventually no one will know how to '''reason''' their way to the correct answers. For example, banning someone from a debate simply because they disagree with you is '''not good reasoning'''.

The future of society's encyclopaedic knowledge looks bleak. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/1.129.96.153|1.129.96.153]] ([[User talk:1.129.96.153|talk]]) 04:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 22:46, 3 September 2024

Shortcut

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.0

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_failing&oldid=1243884500"