Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:41 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: You would need some examples to credibly demonstrate this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Good_and_evildiff=379134639oldid=378943442 An example of a restore, from 2008. 'Perfection by reduction' experts trimmed it down to virtually nothing. Note that that second paragraph could use some trimming, but the essence of its definition was removed entirely. Rolling the stone back up the mountains is what I might term this... i.e. the practice of mining old page versions for a version to revert back to. It seems slightly wrong somehow, and it would be WP:LAME for people to edit war over different old versions: this version is best, no, THIS version is best, you are both wrong, clearly the FIRST EDIT was the best... That would be a new phenomenon of page history edit warring that becomes more likely as the age of Wikipedia increases and the page versions for any one page increases as well. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 14 August 2010 05:37, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: Of course the older revisions remain in the history and anybody is free to extract a snapshot that he considers to be superior to the present one. I just did this at [[matter]], but the issue though is that there's no way to really see what gold exists in previous versions, unless you know what already exists there and understand what erosion has taken place. I've had to investigate articles in the past and there are some effective time-saving methods such as: looking at the editing as composed of different waves, characterized by the identity of the major editors; performing diffs at timely intervals (three or six months, say) to identify large scale changes. You might miss a shortlived improvement of course, but you still pick up on any significant trends in degradation. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
It seems to me that the isms we get are to do with the relatively poor decision making process we have. I think the current 'judicial' system involve admins is rather broken. The problem is that the RFCs/AFDs etc are too prone to vote stuffing of one form or another, the most benign source of which is probably 'noticeboards', whereas the most malign is presumably sockpuppets or even paid stooges. In theory admins should sort most of these problems out, as they're supposed to follow the policies, rather than treat it as a vote, but because the admins are voted in/out via a popularity contest they usually go with the popularist vote. Perhaps the wikipedia would do much better to go with a random jury selection process to make the actual decision, and then have an admin action it. There would be downsides but I would tend to think that that would probably be more normative to what the reader expects when they read the article. -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. That seems to be a description of entropy. Of course the older revisions remain in the history and anybody is free to extract a snapshot that he considers to be superior to the present one. Citizendium has done that and continued to work on articles in a more restricted environment. One or two other projects have done something similar. At least one, which I worked on briefly, was intended to produce finished products rather than ongoing works. But note that entropy is unavoidable on an encyclopedia even if an article is complete. In time the knowledge on the subject of the article changes and the quality of the article, judged according to that knowledge, degrades if it is not updated. For instance, articles about the early interplanetary probes Voyager 1 and 2 written in 2002 would not properly reflect the knowledge on the same subjects available to the writer in 2010. Is there any subject on which the definitive article has been written? In the short term, undoubtedly, but in the long term (and it's becoming obvious that the content of Wikipedia is for the long term) there is no subject on which we will not advance our knowledge to the point at which a significant revision of the relevant Wikipedi article would be merited. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote: That seems to be a description of entropy. It is. I had thought destruction was the salient concept here, in keeping with our old tradition of creating -isms (deletionism, (did I coin that?) inclusionism, etc.) Of course the older revisions remain in the history and anybody is free to extract a snapshot that he considers to be superior to the present one. I just did this at [[matter]], but the issue though is that there's no way to really see what gold exists in previous versions, unless you know what already exists there and understand what erosion has taken place. Matter is an example of a case where 1) everyone knows the common definition and 2) the technical definitions can sometimes contradict, hence 3) rewrites to include these advanced caveats turn the article into WP:NONCE. But note that entropy is unavoidable on an encyclopedia even if an article is complete. [..] the quality of the article, judged according to that knowledge, degrades if it is not updated. + -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: It is. I had thought destruction was the salient concept here, in keeping with our old tradition of creating -isms Yes, henceforth I pledge to transcend the usage of -isms of anysuch kind. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. You have an erroneous assumption: that there is perfection or that even a high quality article says all that anyone would ever want to know on the topic. It tends to proceed in a cycle. Well-written, someone adds more stuff they think is missing, someone polishes the writing once more, someone adds more stuff. Those who did the polishing get *really annoyed* at the people adding more *stuff*, but it probably benefits the reader. People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its polished writing. Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. - d. I don't think you have to have delusional ideas about article perfection to understand that at as article quality increases, the chance that any individual edit will improve it decreases. - causa sui ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 9 August 2010 21:29, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you have to have delusional ideas about article perfection to understand that at as article quality increases, the chance that any individual edit will improve it decreases. Not at all. The leap from is to ought, however, is fallacious and an important and damaging error. [1] It's the something must be done, this is something, therefore this is a good idea fallacy. - d. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 9 August 2010 21:34, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Not at all. The leap from is to ought, however, is fallacious and an important and damaging error. [1] It's the something must be done, this is something, therefore this is a good idea fallacy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem ... except that the something must be done is also questionable. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 9 August 2010 21:34, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Not at all. The leap from is to ought, however, is fallacious and an important and damaging error. [1] It's the something must be done, this is something, therefore this is a good idea fallacy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem ... except that the something must be done is also questionable. - d. Imperfection is, in fact, an art, an art we need to master, see: http://thesatisfiedlifenetwork.com/templates/System/details.asp?id=31327fetch=31815 Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I wish to summarize David, but I think he's talking about a different thing, not about FAs, but how quality articles evolve over time, especially as major facts (or received wisdom) changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I think is better than not, as I'm sure most of us do. Maybe Constructionism as an opposite to Destructionism? I think another term used is eventualism. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
But Eventualism implies that articles will get better over time, that the article's value over the long term matters more than its value in the short term. I think Destructionism raises the point that article quality goes in both directions, which is a point worth making whatever it's called. And to those asking for an example, not to be glib, but here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Delisted_good_articles On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I wish to summarize David, but I think he's talking about a different thing, not about FAs, but how quality articles evolve over time, especially as major facts (or received wisdom) changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I think is better than not, as I'm sure most of us do. Maybe Constructionism as an opposite to Destructionism? I think another term used is eventualism. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 8/6/2010 9:13 PM, William Beutler wrote: I'm not completely sure where SC was going with his observation about Destructionism -- I took it as a clever play on Deletionism and all the other -isms, to point out a phenomenon he's noticed on at least En-WP, which I recognized immediately. I think we're comparing apples with oranges here. From how I see it, destructionism identifies the nature of articles themselves over time while deletionism (as well as the other established -isms) identifies the nature of editors' behaviors and mainspace philosophies. That being said, some other comments: I do believe that the quality of articles do deteriorate over time, especially when not watched or updated. That is the inevitable nature of an open editing environment. This may be due to several reasons; this could be that the article doesn't have many watchers or that the main contributor(s) is/are no longer watching the article or no longer cares. This allows editors who do not know nor likely care to chip away at the article's quality and accuracy to a point where it either becomes apparent a cleanup effort is needed or that a GA reassessment or FA review is needed. Also, standards for promoting articles to GA or FA were lower than they are now, mostly due to the overall quality of Wikipedia articles steadily increasing. I opine that most articles that were promoted to FA in 2006 or earlier would not meet today's more stringent FA standards. Case in point, I just finished with an FA review of Nintendo Entertainment System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System) which ended up being delisted from FA status. It was promoted back in January 2005. I think both of my last two paragraphs come into play as, while a very popular article with over 200 people watchlisting it, nobody took any efforts to cleanup or maintain the article those 5 1/2 years it was an FA, and you get a lot of users who do not know better as far as verifiability is concerned who add whatever they want with nobody checking or challenging it. On the other hand, when I combed through the article in detail, I was surprised to see how poor the quality of the article was, that this would not pass for GA let alone FA today. This brings us back to one of the original standing orders of Wikipedia way back in its early years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Historical_archive/Rules_to_consider) of Always leave something undone. Personally, I reject such principle as I believe users should contribute as much as they possibly can to an article. If others can contribute something different, great; if not, we have over 3.5 million other articles that need work or similar attention. There is more than enough work to go around for everyone. (The problem is IMO is that the vast majority of them hover around and devote all their time and energy to only a select few articles like Obama or heaven forbid Pikachu, for instance.) -MuZemike ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK, maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs reach the front page, unhelpful editing pretty much always follows. I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. I strongly disagree. Exposing them to the sort of casual editing they get being on the front page is the final stage of content review. These are not precious, polished jewels. They are working pieces of informational text. They need regular shaking up. Content is more important than polish. Moves to preserve polish over content are fundamentally wrong. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
I question the real-wiki nature of this concept. If the article quality on the whole genuinely has gone down, then there's always the revert button. Sometimes reverting part or all of an article back months or years is perfectly justified. Point of fact I've done it. More usually, it's arguable, and If it's arguable, then it probably hasn't gone down in aggregate much or at all, it's better in some ways, worse in others; and that's a very different thing. On 07/08/2010, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: But Eventualism implies that articles will get better over time, that the article's value over the long term matters more than its value in the short term. I think Destructionism raises the point that article quality goes in both directions, which is a point worth making whatever it's called. And to those asking for an example, not to be glib, but here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Delisted_good_articles On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I wish to summarize David, but I think he's talking about a different thing, not about FAs, but how quality articles evolve over time, especially as major facts (or received wisdom) changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I think is better than not, as I'm sure most of us do. Maybe Constructionism as an opposite to Destructionism? I think another term used is eventualism. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 17:06, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: This brings us back to one of the original standing orders of Wikipedia way back in its early years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Historical_archive/Rules_to_consider) of Always leave something undone. Personally, I reject such principle as I believe users should contribute as much as they possibly can to an article. If others can contribute something different, great; if not, we have over 3.5 million other articles that need work or similar attention. There is more than enough work to go around for everyone. I think such a principle misses the point that there's no such thing as a finished article. Rather, those who think an article can ever be finished are wrong. I would change it to the statement There is always something that hasn't been done. Hence the difference between a featured article and the perfect article. There is always something to be done. Stopping people (including IPs) from even trying to do it, for any reason other than the editorial conflict reasons that articles are protected or semiprotected, is in denial of this. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
I don't think I'm putting polish above content, at least that's not my intention. I agree that content is more important, and it deteriorates just the same. Stevertigo's comment that started this thread included the supposition that in some article perfection has already been achieved -- well, that I don't agree with, and so I don't think there is any such thing as a final stage of content review except existentially. The final stage is not the end. So I am in favor putting loose restrictions around certain classes of articles, be they FAs or BLPs. I think what I'm saying is, less well-developed articles and those which carrying lower stakes benefit more openness, because it increases the chance that they will be improved (many have nowhere to go but up). But when an article is functionally complete -- where the record of known facts and significant viewpoints is set, barring future developments -- then I think something like flagged revs is a good idea. It's a small-c conservative viewpoint, about protecting what is good. And I wouldn't even necessarily go so far as flagged revs, I just think an editor should be more than an IP or unconfirmed user before they get to tinker with those articles . On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK, maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs reach the front page, unhelpful editing pretty much always follows. I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. I strongly disagree. Exposing them to the sort of casual editing they get being on the front page is the final stage of content review. These are not precious, polished jewels. They are working pieces of informational text. They need regular shaking up. Content is more important than polish. Moves to preserve polish over content are fundamentally wrong. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 18:04, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: But when an article is functionally complete -- where the record of known facts and significant viewpoints is set, barring future developments -- then I think something like flagged revs is a good idea. It's a small-c conservative viewpoint, about protecting what is good. And I wouldn't even necessarily go so far as flagged revs, I just think an editor should be more than an IP or unconfirmed user before they get to tinker with those articles Personally I wouldn't objecting to putting FAs into flagged revs for the day they're on the front page. This would present the pretty face and still allow the IPs in. But I don't feel strongly enough to particularly press the point. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 07/08/2010, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Personally I wouldn't objecting to putting FAs into flagged revs for the day they're on the front page. This would present the pretty face and still allow the IPs in. But I don't feel strongly enough to particularly press the point. Personally I think that eventually *all* FAs should be put at least under flagged revision. Or that seems IMO to be a reasonable goal (long term) if the flagged revisions experiment works out and they get rid of any remaining performance issues. The reason is that improving articles is going to get more and more difficult; there will have been lots and lots and lots and lots of really smart people that have polished those articles over many, many years, and the chances of any random edit being an improvement is, realistically, going down with time, particularly for FA articles. Past some point, say, 90% of edits to the highest quality articles are going to be by somebody not understanding something or vandalising something. On some articles we're probably already there, but people are somewhat in denial about it. Which isn't to say we'll ever going to have *provably* seen the last edit on any article, which is why flagged revisions seems a reasonable idea, rather than locking. - d. -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: snip The reason is that improving articles is going to get more and more difficult; there will have been lots and lots and lots and lots of really smart people that have polished those articles over many, many years, and the chances of any random edit being an improvement is, realistically, going down with time, particularly for FA articles. This is not true for articles where the story has not yet finished and updates are needed. I often use Hurricane Katrina as an example. This hurricane took place in August 2005. It was promoted to FA-level in June 2006 (over four years ago), but as time went by it was noticeable that no-one was really updating the article to include the ongoing legacy of this natural disaster. I would sometimes comment on this, but nothing much got done. It was defeatured in March 2010, with the discussion seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hurricane_Katrina/archive1 The concerns expressed there didn't include is the article up-to-date, but look at the article and ask yourself if it really covers in the detail you would expect, what the continuing impact on the area is? Maybe the information is in other articles? We have articles like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_New_Orleans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering_and_infrastructure_repair_in_New_Orleans_after_Hurricane_Katrina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_New_Orleans_Back_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_Architecture_and_the_rebuilding_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_It_Right_Foundation_New_Orleans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_civil_works_controversies_(New_Orleans) Some of those articles are in a very poor state. My conclusion is that if I want information on how New Orleans and the surrounding area recovered and is recovering (or not) after Hurricane Katrina, and what the long-term effects are, I have to look elsewhere (i.e. not on Wikipedia), though there is some bits of it in these places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans#Post-disaster_recovery The Census Bureau in July 2006 estimated the population of New Orleans to be 223,000; a subsequent study estimated that 32,000 additional residents had moved to the city as of March 2007, bringing the estimated population to 255,000, approximately 56% of the pre-Katrina population level. Another estimate, based on data on utility usage from July 2007, estimated the population to be approximately 274,000 or 60% of the pre-Katrina population. These estimates are somewhat smaller than a third estimate, based on mail delivery records, from the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center in June 2007, which indicated that the city had regained approximately two-thirds of its pre-Katrina population.[30] In 2008, the Census Bureau revised upward its population estimate for the city, to 336,644.[31] Most recently, 2010 estimates show that neighborhoods that did not flood are near 100% of their pre-Katrina populations, and in some cases, exceed 100% of their pre-Katrina populations.[32] There are some hints of the population figures in the Hurricane Katrina article, but not much, mainly this bit in the economic effects section and this bit in the lead section: Nearly five years later, thousands of displaced residents in Mississippi and Louisiana are still living in trailers. Reconstruction of each section of the southern portion of Louisiana has been addressed in the Army Corps LACPR Final Technical Report which identifies areas not to be rebuilt and areas and buildings that need to be elevated. Though to be fair, it is not actually that normal for natural disaster articles to go into the level of detail about the aftermath and long-term reconstruction as would be possible here. But it should be clear that articles about contemporary events need constant updating as the histories get written. Articles about the past, for which the major histories have already been written, only tend to need updating when new scholarship and histories are written, and that, I agree, does need careful integration with the existing articles. I sometimes think getting an article to FA-status too soon can impede its future development. There is a right moment to push for an article to get to FA level, and there is a wrong moment as well. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Destructionism
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. You have an erroneous assumption: that there is perfection or that even a high quality article says all that anyone would ever want to know on the topic. It tends to proceed in a cycle. Well-written, someone adds more stuff they think is missing, someone polishes the writing once more, someone adds more stuff. Those who did the polishing get *really annoyed* at the people adding more *stuff*, but it probably benefits the reader. People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its polished writing. Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its polished writing. Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. I do work hard at polishing ledes, and Im not unhappy when something Ive written stands the test of time. But there are times when it seems that open editing model itself was nothing more a bad idea. I guess this idea reflects a bit of that pessimism. :-) The 'decay into mush' point is well made. Its difficult sometimes for one to justify to oneself the effort required to overcome mush-ism - particularly when its an adversarial system (WP:BRD). Its the adversarial systems which seem to be paradoxically constructive and destructive at the same time. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right. As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK, maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs reach the front page, unhelpful editing pretty much always follows. I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its polished writing. Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. I do work hard at polishing ledes, and Im not unhappy when something Ive written stands the test of time. But there are times when it seems that open editing model itself was nothing more a bad idea. I guess this idea reflects a bit of that pessimism. :-) The 'decay into mush' point is well made. Its difficult sometimes for one to justify to oneself the effort required to overcome mush-ism - particularly when its an adversarial system (WP:BRD). Its the adversarial systems which seem to be paradoxically constructive and destructive at the same time. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. Remember that film Six degrees.. There was an anecdote about the kids artistic success being due to their schoolteacher knowing when to take the kid's crayons away... -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right. Does it happen very often? Most revocations are due to us raising the standards we require rather than due to articles deteriorating. If an article has deteriorated to the point where it isn't worthy of FA any more then wouldn't it be better just revert to the last FA worthy version? If the FA criteria are such that there are edits that we don't want to revert but that make an article no longer worthy of FA, then we need to change the FA criteria (since they don't fit with our actual views on what makes an article better or worse). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
I do think that kind of degradation happens over time, and not just because a FA made the front-page. So, I would favor locking a FA on the front page for 24 hours, FWIW. So that's my position on dealing with FAs... just lock 'em for awhile. Obviously I agree that standards have risen over time -- if I look back at articles I created in 2006-7 when I first got involved, I can see why some might recommend them for deletion now (although they did persist and were improved thereafter). I'm not completely sure where SC was going with his observation about Destructionism -- I took it as a clever play on Deletionism and all the other -isms, to point out a phenomenon he's noticed on at least En-WP, which I recognized immediately. As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I wish to summarize David, but I think he's talking about a different thing, not about FAs, but how quality articles evolve over time, especially as major facts (or received wisdom) changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I think is better than not, as I'm sure most of us do. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right. Does it happen very often? Most revocations are due to us raising the standards we require rather than due to articles deteriorating. If an article has deteriorated to the point where it isn't worthy of FA any more then wouldn't it be better just revert to the last FA worthy version? If the FA criteria are such that there are edits that we don't want to revert but that make an article no longer worthy of FA, then we need to change the FA criteria (since they don't fit with our actual views on what makes an article better or worse). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. -SC You would need some examples to credibly demonstrate this. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right. Does it happen very often? Most revocations are due to us raising the standards we require rather than due to articles deteriorating. If an article has deteriorated to the point where it isn't worthy of FA any more then wouldn't it be better just revert to the last FA worthy version? If the FA criteria are such that there are edits that we don't want to revert but that make an article no longer worthy of FA, then we need to change the FA criteria (since they don't fit with our actual views on what makes an article better or worse). I think part of this is what David was saying about adding new content. Being an FA is a lot more then just content and adding not perfect/good enough prose that adds important and encyclopedic information shouldn't be reverted just because it isn't good enough to be on an FA. Obviously the preference would be to try and rewrite that new info to be good enough for an FA. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
