Saturday, September 01, 2007
Another reason to dislike Wikipedia
So it looks like Wikipedia is taking an important first step in losing the essence of what makes it good and noble, the extremely equal level of user power, while not gaining the thing that sets a real encyclopedia apart from the Wiki version: articles written primarily by experts in the field rather than hobbyists (and occasionally utter cranks). And it's only going to exacerbate one of the biggest problems I have with Wikipedia, what I referred to in a previous post as "little administrator fiefdoms," and will almost by necessity decrease turnaround speed for changes. Is better quality control enough of a payoff?
To summarize, "The Foundation" is proposing implementation of an edit-approval system for Wikipedia, meaning that a select class of people would end up making the decisions on suggested edits instead of the edit-this-page system that exists now. And if Simon is correct here, it's a lot farther along than proposal. (Edited to add: one of the big points the pro-proposal people seem to be making about it is that all logged-in users could see proposed changes immediately, which makes the whole thing seem pretty odd, and I'm not sure is something I'd be touting.) I'm not wholly up to speed on the thing, obviously, but it doesn't make me feel better about Wikipedia, which I'm skeptical at best about anyway. I'd personally prefer complete liberty or rigorous peer review, not this watery combo. Thank you to Simon for bringing this to my attention.
To summarize, "The Foundation" is proposing implementation of an edit-approval system for Wikipedia, meaning that a select class of people would end up making the decisions on suggested edits instead of the edit-this-page system that exists now. And if Simon is correct here, it's a lot farther along than proposal. (Edited to add: one of the big points the pro-proposal people seem to be making about it is that all logged-in users could see proposed changes immediately, which makes the whole thing seem pretty odd, and I'm not sure is something I'd be touting.) I'm not wholly up to speed on the thing, obviously, but it doesn't make me feel better about Wikipedia, which I'm skeptical at best about anyway. I'd personally prefer complete liberty or rigorous peer review, not this watery combo. Thank you to Simon for bringing this to my attention.
Comments:
<< Home
Your skepticism is fair, and I think it's important to remember that the whole Wiki concept is by design limited - pure democracy is rarely the route to best knowledge (contrast the tenure system in American universities which permits research and publication independent of "democractic" editing - another flawed system that has a place among the tools available in the world of information). I don't have deep knowledge about Wikipedia's "surveyors", but in general I'd suggest that it's important to keep in mind that some people do have more expertise in some areas than do others, and that expertise should count for
something in the validation of information (not, however, of opinion).
I think the best way to use Wikipedia is and has always been to quickly identify the level of information nominally available on a subject, primarily as a springboard to real independent investigation.
something in the validation of information (not, however, of opinion).
I think the best way to use Wikipedia is and has always been to quickly identify the level of information nominally available on a subject, primarily as a springboard to real independent investigation.
I completely agree with you about Wikipedia's main value.
Unfortunately, the "surveyor" status is solely going to be based on seniority--tenure and number of edits--which makes it fairly silly.
Unfortunately, the "surveyor" status is solely going to be based on seniority--tenure and number of edits--which makes it fairly silly.
The concern about this promoting "little administrator fiefdoms" seems unfounded given that the access to mark revisions as 'unvandalized' will be given to virtually all regular contributors.
"I'd personally prefer complete liberty or rigorous peer review"
What about both? Those two things are exactly what this proposal is meant to achieve.
First, removal of page 'protection' and 'semi-protection' so that all users can edit every article. That's your 'complete liberty'. A level at which everyone can make all the changes they want... and anyone can choose to view those unrestricted article versions if they wish. Currently most changes to Wikipedia are reviewed (and vandalism reverted) within a few minutes on average. There is no reason that the new system wouldn't allow that to continue (indeed, it should make the process easier/faster) and thus the practical 'impact' of this change is that the minority of edits by very new/unregistered users will not be displayed by default during the few minutes it takes to review them... vandalism is kept out of sight of the 99% of Wikipedia users who only read pages during the brief time it takes to clean up. Which will remove the need to protect those pages and allow all users to make updates to them.
As to rigorous peer review... it isn't possible on Wikipedia currently. The articles are in a constant state of flux. Even if you got a bunch of 'experts' together and they were able to pin it down long enough to say, 'this is correct'... three weeks later it could be completely different. Flagged revisions will change that. It will be possible to flag a particular version of a page as having been through that "rigorous peer review"... and then available for viewing by anyone who wants to see a 'professional quality' article on the subject.
This is a great leap forward in Wikipedia's ability to control vandalism, allow open access to update its pages, AND subject articles to intensive review to assure the highest quality.
"I'd personally prefer complete liberty or rigorous peer review"
What about both? Those two things are exactly what this proposal is meant to achieve.
First, removal of page 'protection' and 'semi-protection' so that all users can edit every article. That's your 'complete liberty'. A level at which everyone can make all the changes they want... and anyone can choose to view those unrestricted article versions if they wish. Currently most changes to Wikipedia are reviewed (and vandalism reverted) within a few minutes on average. There is no reason that the new system wouldn't allow that to continue (indeed, it should make the process easier/faster) and thus the practical 'impact' of this change is that the minority of edits by very new/unregistered users will not be displayed by default during the few minutes it takes to review them... vandalism is kept out of sight of the 99% of Wikipedia users who only read pages during the brief time it takes to clean up. Which will remove the need to protect those pages and allow all users to make updates to them.
As to rigorous peer review... it isn't possible on Wikipedia currently. The articles are in a constant state of flux. Even if you got a bunch of 'experts' together and they were able to pin it down long enough to say, 'this is correct'... three weeks later it could be completely different. Flagged revisions will change that. It will be possible to flag a particular version of a page as having been through that "rigorous peer review"... and then available for viewing by anyone who wants to see a 'professional quality' article on the subject.
This is a great leap forward in Wikipedia's ability to control vandalism, allow open access to update its pages, AND subject articles to intensive review to assure the highest quality.
# posted by 
: September 10, 2007 12:46 PM
: September 10, 2007 12:46 PM
Yes, Anon, I'm aware of the party line. I disagree completely about the proposal achieving either thing I'd like. The current proposal will encourage people to rush to 100 or 200 edits or whatever the number is for them to be surveyors, or it will discourage people who have just one relevant thing to add. The supporters of this change seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths ("It really won't change much at all!" "It'll be a great big positive change!")--I suspect it'll be more like the first, and somewhat like putting varnish on a turd.
Post a Comment
<< Home
