Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Achieving validation on Wikipedia

Walkerma suggested I post this here: User:TidyCat/Achieving_validation_on_Wikipedia. It's a detailed analysis of the subject of article validation, along with several ideas about how it might be achieved. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. --TidyCat 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a thorough reading tomorrow, but looks good so far. I don't know if you've seen Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wiki_Sort, but the ideas seem similar.the1physicist 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have commented on your proposal on its talk page.the1physicist 19:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I found TidyCat's analysis to be an excellent summary of all the discussions about article validation. I will re-read tomorrow and make my comments about the proposals. Thanks for an excellent job. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month?

Maybe there could be a collaboration of the month to work on Core Topics which should be FA status? Comments? Gflores Talk 00:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, as long as we can get people who will write material. I must admit to being rather disappointed with the main Wikipedia COTW. In assessing core topics articles I found humanities to be a stub, so I nominated it for COTW and I was thrilled to see it get around 18 supporters; it became COTW for last week. However I (a chemist!!!) was the only registered user except one to make any significant contribution to the article, largely because as the nominator I felt obliged to write something. If we can get 3 or 4 people who are willing to WRITE content (not just discuss it), then this would be a great way to get some of the weakest articles looking at least B-Class ("usable"). Unfortunately myself I feel very stretched already covering assessments on two sub-projects. Can interested people sign up at the end of this section? Walkerma 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Would it be better to work through the general WP:COTW and, for nonstubs WP:AID? That's what I was trying to do when I was here more. Maurreen [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I've started a rudimentary Core Topics Collaboration of the Week at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTW Please join us! Maurreen (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

'Nother Idea

This is sort of like a "late submission", but not really, since this project is not really on a timeline or has a deadline. I have an idea that wouuld probably work pretty well, but it needs some work that I can't do.

  1. A new version of MediaWiki needs to be released that has the "Special:PopularPages" feature
  2. The first x most popular pages (I think probably 1,000 or 1,500) all need to be listed in a table (excluding, of course, Wikipedia:, User:, and other such pages)
  3. Each page on the table will be checked for factual accuracy, and the checked version will be archived on a subpaged

Does this sound good/possible? -AtionSong 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This idea sounds reasonable to me, and the addition of a "most popular pages" feature would be nice. However I wouldn't know how to go about getting a software change like that done. Currently we only have Special:Mostlinked which is not the same thing at all. If you can get the change done, we could set up a sub-project to work on it, it would complement the core topics and make sure we didn't miss out any popular articles. One comment, though - I seem to recall one time stumbling across a list of "most popular Google searches for Wikipedia" and other than the obvious #1 search for Wikipedia itself, the most popular by far was pornography! The lesson is, most popular does not always mean the most appropriate choice! Let us know if you can get the software change done, and we can help with the articles. Walkerma 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Any page like a "Special:PopularPages" would have to be visible only to admins. Otherwise they'd immediately become a major target for vandals. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure that would be technically feasible. MediaWiki had a page view counter that would have been useful for this kind of thing, but it was turned off because trying to run it with the squid network configuration we're running would cause huge lags when writing the access logs in the database. I imagine that something like Special:Popularpages would have to run in a similar manner, obtaining page hits from all the squids in order to get an accurate reading, which is exactly what got disabled. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What is purpose of Version 1.0?

I thought Version 1.0 was meant to a superior version of Wikipedia in which articles were of a guatanteed quality of accuracy and good writing, and were protected against the Wikipedia Law of Inevitable Deterioration which currently makes trying to write quality articles an exercise in futility. I have been waiting for Version 1.0 to get off the ground so that I can start writing for it and stop wasting my time with the current deeply unworkable structure. But now I find that the purpose of Version 1.0 is to be "to identify a set of articles that would be suitable for release in print, CD and DVD." That is not what I joined Wikipedia to do. The really good thing about Wikipedia, for all its glaring flaws, is that it is a brilliant use of new media. I am not interested in writing for a static, old-media encyclopaedia - not unless I am being paid, anyway. This is very disappointing. Adam 04:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The WP1.0 project is indeed based on "static, old-media" systems, so it sounds to be wrong for you, although it is true that we are trying to identify quality articles for that release. However I suspect Wikipedia:Stable versions may be what you are looking for, take a look! Walkerma 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. But before I go - what is the point? The world doesn't need another print encyclopaedia, or even another CD/DVD encyclopaedia. These are dinosaurs, museum pieces. This project is like Gutenberg ignoring his printing press to concentrate on producing better-quality illuminated manuscripts. Go and read Mr Wales on why Wikipedia was founded in the first place. Get with the program, you guys. Adam 09:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your view is a not uncommon objection, and I see from the archives that you have voiced this objection in the past. I accept your viewpoint, but we need to "agree to disagree". You may well be right! Time will tell whether or not I wasted my time working on this. Here are a couple of quotes that make the points better than I could, though:

"Wikipedia 1.0 should be primarily about producing a single end product that is suitable for printers to print, cheaply. This will mean that we'll want to work for a state such that a printer could receive a CD-ROM from me in the mail and start producing books as easily as possible." Jimbo Wales, 20 August 2003.

"Hi, I'm in Toronto, Canada. I want to distribute a CD-based version of Wikipedia for free to urban schools. Poor students need a free Encyclopedia -- while many may have some sort of Windows based computer at home, quite a number don't have the money to pay for the internet." A new user, 29 January 2006.

THIS is the purpose of Wikipedia 1.0. Walkerma 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that Walesian quote: my opinion of him goes down accordingly. It is a quite wrong-headed objective, based on the unsound assumption that poor people have better access to big fat books than they do to computers. I have just returned from two weeks in Laos, a very poor country. In every town, towns far too small to have libraries or even schools in some cases, there are internet cafes full of kids sending emails and playing computer games. The way to reach the world's poor is online, not via books. "Poor students need a free Encyclopedia" - indeed they do, and that is just what we are giving them, right now. Adam 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent response! I hope you're right. As we close, though, I'd like to mention a second reason why I (and others too, I suspect) work on WP 1.0. I believe that by focusing a lot of effort on the quality, accuracy, and validation of articles, this project having a good effect on Wikipedia as a whole. For example we have contacted 83 WikiProjects in the last few weeks, asking them for lists of quality articles. In response, we have seen new article lists generated, assessment schemes, new article improvement collaborations, and many discussions on quality. Just having an outsider looking at the group's work and asking, "What quality articles do you have?" or "What are your most important articles?" is (I think) very beneficial to many projects. Take a look at this list or this discussion, which are typical. Getting people to look at the "big picture" and quality issues is always a good thing - and something I suspect you also support. Cheers, Walkerma 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, you never asked the Swedish Wikipedian's Notice Board. As it so happens, I had already set up a list of quality articles. Please see Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Swedish quality articles. Regards, Fred-Chess 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
In the process of creating a static version (print, DVD) of Wikipedia we will create systems that identify accuracy and good writing. Even if you have no interest in static versions, you should realise that the very process of creating such versions will cause Wikipedia to evolve in way that's probably very much in line with what you want anyway. — Matt Crypto 18:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)