Actually, Wikipedia does have several (not just one) methods of internal review, by "peers" (defined as wikipedian volunteers reviewing other wikipedian's work). Take a look at the featured article, good article, and peer review processes. Some processes are naturally more rigorous than others, but there's also a rough rating system attached to articles as well. The problem with the review system, however, is that the vast majority of articles aren't covered by the featured and good ratings systems; out of over 2 million articles, there's only 1,749 featured articles and 3,188 good articles, which isn't even close to 1%! The overall review processes are also currently suffering from a general shortage of good reviewers, and particularly expert-level reviewers, not to mention huge backlogs at all of the nominations listing pages. There is, of course, a current effort underway at improving Wikipedia's review processes.
"the other can fit in one's pocket without ripping a hole in it."
I don't know many people that walk around with the latest copy of Encyclopedia Brittanica in their pocket? "Excuse me, sir? But is that an encyclopedia in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"
I take issue with this statement, because I know for a fact that the UK has the best military in the world.
Without getting into a, "my country can kick your country's ass debate," I will say that the UK military has come a long way since the days that they were wearing bright red coats and getting their ass kicked in north america,...;-) But seriously, folks. I wouldn't want to be an enemy of either the US or the UK military; and since we're allies, the enemies have to face both, together, more than likely.
Back to the topic, I have to say that NASA has done quite well with their "meager" little budget. They got quite a bargain on these two cars,... Of course, if NASA did have the same budget as the military, we'd probably be on Pluto by now,...;-)
According to this, the BBC signed an agreement with Micro$oft, er,... the devil,... back in September of 2006 to collaborate on, "search and navigation, distribution and 'content enablement'". Makes you go, "Hmmmmmmmmm?",...
Why should we care about dumb things like curing cancer when we can make faster processors for computers with less sand?!
There are some of us that actually use these "faster processors" made with "less sand" to actually do things like "curing cancer", you insensitive clod [obligatory]!;-)
This isn't really a problem. Home childhood chemistry sets are pretty much for losers anyway,... you can get everything you need (and then some) from these guys. Plus, a lot of the really cool stuff can be made with relatively easy-to-obtain ingredients; take Nitrogen Triiodide, for example -- a highly unstable explosive compound. Not terribly difficult to synthesize using ammonia and iodine.
The old chemistry sets of the days long past were particularly nice for their easy-to-read and understand instructions for doing things, which was nice for kids to learn. But these days, most of those instructions are pretty easily found on the internet.
"It is said that papers in string theory are published at a rate greater than the speed of light. This, however, is not problematic since no information is being transmitted." - H. Kleinert.
Very true. Seriously, if I am in the market for a cell phone, I want just that . . . a CELL PHONE! I'm not looking for a device that can take excellent photos (already own a dSLR), play MP3s (already have an iPod), watch TV (on a 2" screen, nonetheless?), and pick the kids up from school, cook them dinner, make sure they do their homework and tuck them in for bed,. . . Some of these devices are just a tad overkill these days,. . .
if you were to ask washington why they won't let in alot of foreign goods, they would tell you 'it's not good for the American people'. why is it not good? 'it hurts American businesses' how does that hurt the American people? 'well, it hurts the economy'...
Hasn't seemed to be a problem for Wal-Mart and China, yet?
In seemingly unrelated news, Duke University ceases to exist, somehow evaporated by a wave of unknown positron emission energy. But little seem to care, since Duke sucks anyways!
I dunno about that,... has anybody driven between Arizona & California recently. On a recent trip from Phoenix to San Diego, we were stopped on I-8, both ways. Going into California, a CA state officer stopped all traffic and asked what our origin and destination were. Going the other way, a federal border patrol agent stopped all traffic entering Arizona, inquiring the same, but asking more questions, like, "Is everyone in your car a US citizen?" He didn't ask to see a driver's license or other identification, but I suspect this is coming. And this is on a trip from Phoenix, Arizona, to San Diego, California! The Mexican border was close, sure, but it was never crossed!
You must be new here,... the correct response for your statement should have been phrased beginning with, "In Soviet Russia,..."
Another trend? Wikipedia's quality review system.
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 1
Another downward trend on the english wikipedia seems to be that the overall article review system is suffering from several issues, including a general lack of reviewers to review articles for Good & Featured status, an almost total absence of reviewers at the peer review stage (except for the automated reviews by bots, which are pretty much useless), not to mention a constant state of bickering and infighting between reviewers of FA & GA articles. There is some current discussion to try and work on many of these issues; but it's too early to tell if it's making a difference.
I'll agree that there are far too many administrators on the english wikipedia (not sure about other languages, though). But I'll stop short of saying that they, "don't know how to tie their shoes." I've met quite a few admins that are reasonably good at editing, and quite competent. But many still have a little chip on their shoulder, and think they're something special because they're an admin. Adminship has delved into quite an elite social group out there, and there are many editors that feel that, after a certain amount of time editing, they just deserve to be an admin because, "it's their turn." This elitism is also propogated by many admins directly stating their "status" on their user pages, some of them almost in a bragging fashion. Plus, there's a whole category of users that want to be an admin, which, IMHO, it just a tad pretentious,...
What needs to happen is a serious mass-desysopping, down to a certain core group of very trusted admins (say about 100 or so), that would use their "powers" mainly to maintain certain core functions and other crucial areas of wikipedia. The extra admin function/tool to make reverting vandalism should be granted to any trusted user, and reverting vandalism should really just be the responsibility of everyone in pages that they watch. You simply don't need admin rights to revert vandalism. Furthermore, all administrators should identify themselves to the wikimedia foundation in writing (offline), and administrator status should not be granted to minors (under 18). Of course, none of this is likely to happen anyways, since it's always much easier to grant power than to take it away from those with power.
And no, I am not an "admin-reject". I've never applied for admin status, nor do I really want to. I see it as somewhat counterproductive to actually improving articles, and everything I've wantd to do on wikipedia so far has not required me to have the "tools" anyway. Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about becoming a part of some elite social blogging group that adminship has degraded into.
Re:Exposure of vandals, shills, and governments
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 1
Certainly, this is probably still true in some cases. Anyone remember that old slashdot article in 2006 about Wal-Mart's Wikipedia War? Wal-Mart itself was editing their own article, and waging war against everyone else that was inserting crap and unsourced madness into it. Strange as it may seem, that has largely stopped now, and both the main Wal-Mart article, as well as the Criticism of Wal-Mart article are quite stable today (except for some minor anonymous vandalism, but no major edit wars). Also, both articles are listed as Good Articles as well (though, IMHO, it will be a rather cold day in hell if they ever get to Featured status, much less on the main page itself!
As far as trivia sections are concerned, I don't think they belong in good, quality encyclopedia articles. How many articles on Britannica or Encarta or World Book have a trivia section? Seriously, it's just a listing of random facts. A good, thoroughly research and well written article should be able to integrate these isolated facts into a good, concise, article about the topic. So, such sections clearly don't belong among wikipedia's best content (articles that are featured or good).
But they do have their place. As lists of random information, trivia sections do allow less experienced users to add some important and notable facts about the article that could be integrated into the text. Good and experienced editors don't merely delete all trivia sections from articles, though there are certainly many that would. But the proper thing to do is to integrate these random facts into the article itself, allowing for the article to improve.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Wikipedia does have several (not just one) methods of internal review, by "peers" (defined as wikipedian volunteers reviewing other wikipedian's work). Take a look at the featured article, good article, and peer review processes. Some processes are naturally more rigorous than others, but there's also a rough rating system attached to articles as well. The problem with the review system, however, is that the vast majority of articles aren't covered by the featured and good ratings systems; out of over 2 million articles, there's only 1,749 featured articles and 3,188 good articles, which isn't even close to 1%! The overall review processes are also currently suffering from a general shortage of good reviewers, and particularly expert-level reviewers, not to mention huge backlogs at all of the nominations listing pages. There is, of course, a current effort underway at improving Wikipedia's review processes.
I don't know many people that walk around with the latest copy of Encyclopedia Brittanica in their pocket? "Excuse me, sir? But is that an encyclopedia in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"
Apple sues Gow's company for trademark infringement of "i-Limb".
Without getting into a, "my country can kick your country's ass debate," I will say that the UK military has come a long way since the days that they were wearing bright red coats and getting their ass kicked in north america,...
Back to the topic, I have to say that NASA has done quite well with their "meager" little budget. They got quite a bargain on these two cars,... Of course, if NASA did have the same budget as the military, we'd probably be on Pluto by now,...
There are some of us that actually use these "faster processors" made with "less sand" to actually do things like "curing cancer", you insensitive clod [obligatory]! ;-)
Hey! Computers have cupholders, too! Don't they? . . . Oh! I see! So that's why I can't read CD-ROMs on my computer! ;-)
Big deal. I'm still waiting for Agent Maxwell Smart's Shoe Phone,... ;-)
"640 AdWords ought to be enough for anybody!" --Larry Page, Founder of Google.
The old chemistry sets of the days long past were particularly nice for their easy-to-read and understand instructions for doing things, which was nice for kids to learn. But these days, most of those instructions are pretty easily found on the internet.
Very true. Seriously, if I am in the market for a cell phone, I want just that . . . a CELL PHONE! I'm not looking for a device that can take excellent photos (already own a dSLR), play MP3s (already have an iPod), watch TV (on a 2" screen, nonetheless?), and pick the kids up from school, cook them dinner, make sure they do their homework and tuck them in for bed,. . . Some of these devices are just a tad overkill these days,. . .
Hasn't seemed to be a problem for Wal-Mart and China, yet?
In seemingly unrelated news, Duke University ceases to exist, somehow evaporated by a wave of unknown positron emission energy. But little seem to care, since Duke sucks anyways!
"4 terabytes ought to be enough for anybody,..."
I dunno about that,... has anybody driven between Arizona & California recently. On a recent trip from Phoenix to San Diego, we were stopped on I-8, both ways. Going into California, a CA state officer stopped all traffic and asked what our origin and destination were. Going the other way, a federal border patrol agent stopped all traffic entering Arizona, inquiring the same, but asking more questions, like, "Is everyone in your car a US citizen?" He didn't ask to see a driver's license or other identification, but I suspect this is coming. And this is on a trip from Phoenix, Arizona, to San Diego, California! The Mexican border was close, sure, but it was never crossed!
You must be new here,... the correct response for your statement should have been phrased beginning with, "In Soviet Russia,..."
Another downward trend on the english wikipedia seems to be that the overall article review system is suffering from several issues, including a general lack of reviewers to review articles for Good & Featured status, an almost total absence of reviewers at the peer review stage (except for the automated reviews by bots, which are pretty much useless), not to mention a constant state of bickering and infighting between reviewers of FA & GA articles. There is some current discussion to try and work on many of these issues; but it's too early to tell if it's making a difference.
I thought you retired from wikipedia, Essjay? ;-)
What needs to happen is a serious mass-desysopping, down to a certain core group of very trusted admins (say about 100 or so), that would use their "powers" mainly to maintain certain core functions and other crucial areas of wikipedia. The extra admin function/tool to make reverting vandalism should be granted to any trusted user, and reverting vandalism should really just be the responsibility of everyone in pages that they watch. You simply don't need admin rights to revert vandalism. Furthermore, all administrators should identify themselves to the wikimedia foundation in writing (offline), and administrator status should not be granted to minors (under 18). Of course, none of this is likely to happen anyways, since it's always much easier to grant power than to take it away from those with power.
And no, I am not an "admin-reject". I've never applied for admin status, nor do I really want to. I see it as somewhat counterproductive to actually improving articles, and everything I've wantd to do on wikipedia so far has not required me to have the "tools" anyway. Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about becoming a part of some elite social blogging group that adminship has degraded into.
Certainly, this is probably still true in some cases. Anyone remember that old slashdot article in 2006 about Wal-Mart's Wikipedia War? Wal-Mart itself was editing their own article, and waging war against everyone else that was inserting crap and unsourced madness into it. Strange as it may seem, that has largely stopped now, and both the main Wal-Mart article, as well as the Criticism of Wal-Mart article are quite stable today (except for some minor anonymous vandalism, but no major edit wars). Also, both articles are listed as Good Articles as well (though, IMHO, it will be a rather cold day in hell if they ever get to Featured status, much less on the main page itself!
But they do have their place. As lists of random information, trivia sections do allow less experienced users to add some important and notable facts about the article that could be integrated into the text. Good and experienced editors don't merely delete all trivia sections from articles, though there are certainly many that would. But the proper thing to do is to integrate these random facts into the article itself, allowing for the article to improve.
I think somebody might already be planning this,... ;-)
I think I'll go ahead and register euthin .asia ...