On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Yann Forget <yan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that the core content of Wikipedia should be educational, not trivia. Well, here's our core content (5 thousand or so out of 3.x million): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded As it happens I've been proofreading articles of late; under nobody's say-so I've decided to work my through The Time 100: http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/leaders/ I'm only through the first 12. I have to say, I've been delighted by what I've seen. 12 out of 3.x million isn't a much better sample than the two or three this thread has so far been offered. So all we can say at this point is that "one user thinks that nothing is better since 2005" whilst "another user thinks that what we have in 2010 is delightful". Which brings us back the question: what is the quality of our content? Well this list of the 1,000 most important articles as judged by [waves hand, but I think we'll grant that they think [[Biology]] more important than [[Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo]] ] doesn't give any figures but does show the quality rating for each article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_topics_-_1,000 Scanning with my eyes I see a lot of green, where green = B. So there is your answer, probably. Wikipedia's grade is B. What does B mean? Here we are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:B-criteria Hey, that sounds pretty good! So: In 2010 we can say "Wikipedia is pretty good". Unfortunately this still leaves the question: was Wikipedia pretty good in 2005? I find I feel absolutely no compulsion to attempt to answer this. But since it is a question of importance to Peter Damian he will of course present data of comparable complexity to mine after the weekend. Deciding whether to give money to an educational charity that "has made 1,000 educational topics available for free which are pretty good" is a matter for one's own heart. > Of course, the quality of most articles has improved, but I would like > to see some serious study about this unbalance [between triv and educational > content], and what WMF > intends to do to correct this. Correction implies wrongness. There will always be more television programmes, long playing records, popular beat combos and innovative sex toys than there will be Einsteins, paradigm shifting scientific discoveries and philosophical enquiries. These are the degraded times in which we live. I suspect the popularity of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in his day was rightly castigated for being nothing more than a tawdry narrative of Miller's arses. Society really started to go downhill in the 14th century and absolutely nothing has improved since then. But since we must live with the triv/education imbalance that Chaucer burdened us with, we can at least pray that the twelve year old who religiously edits [[Numb3rs]] (sic) now might be editing [[mathematical modelling]] in a decade's time; after all the second is wikilinked in the first. It's surely not too much to ask that someone clicks his mouse once each either side of puberty? But I agree with Yann... we should remove our article on [[Crazy Frog]]. Isn't it horrifying to think how broad our coverage is? I can't tell you how angry I feel when someone tells me they know of Wikipedia. I'm glad at first, of course, but when they tell me they were searching Google for [[Hanson (band)]] and we were one of the top ten hits, I am repulsed. I am forced to think "Bleurgh! We don't want *that* *sort* *of* *person* here!" And, no, I am not mollified when they say "I found out that one member had a [[pulmonary embolism]], I didn't know what that was, so I clicked. And there someone had spelt 'heart' as 'haert' so I changed it and from that point I got excited about Wikipedia." This sort of story I find eminently vomit-inducing and I generally stalk their contributions waiting for them to do something else objectionable so that I can get the mods to ban them. Unfortunately he hasn't done anything that falls outside the guidelines yet, these last five years, but he will one day and I'll be there. I estimate that about 70% of our content should be jettisoned. That 70% of material does absolutely nothing but pique people's prurient interest in Wikipedia, it brings undesirable people on board that then have the temerity to add sourced contributions to core articles, and I suspect these people then go off and tell other people about Wikipedia. I mean, who needs it? User:Bodnotbod _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l