The General Notability Guideline is our friend here. Because we require articles to be verifiable that particular scenario doesn't apply - we frequently have people try and add articles and content in situations as unverifiable as the one the NY Times details. But we reject such content.
Where I believe our crowdsourcing model breaks down is when we don't have a crowd, or we work too quickly for crowds to form: - Speedy deletion where an admin and maybe one other editor will summarily delete stuff, in theory only if it meets some strict criteria. - Our smaller wikis. We now have about a thousand, and the wisdom of crowds is inherently vulnerable to subdivision of crowds. A "One wiki per language, plus one multilingual wiki for all those things where we work across languages" would be a better model. WSC On 8 July 2012 00:18, ENWP Pine <deyntest...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I thought this was interesting so I’m passing it along. This sentence > particularly caught my attention: “The answer, I think, is to take the best > of what both experts and markets have to offer, realizing that the > combination of the two offers a better window onto the future than either > alone.” Substitute the word “crowds” for “markets”, and perhaps there is > something here that could be applied to Wikipedia in our quest for quality, > mixing the best of expertise and crowdsourcing. I’d be very interested in > hearing comments from other Wikipedians. > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/sunday-review/when-the-crowd-isnt-wise.html > > Cheers, > > Pine > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
