And users have to fix it - Not the people running it.
By definition, it's an open encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute. That's what's great about it! It supports our ideals of open access and modification of information.
The problem is that the information being placed is sub par. I'm sure the submitter had their best intentions in mind when they contributed, but the average Joe can't compete with proffesional editors and fact finders like encyclopedias do.
So yes, we reach the point where wikipedia looks subpar. That's unfortunate, but an undeniable fact.
Don't get me wrong - Ther are quite alot of knowledgable articles that rival or surpass the proffesional standards we're being judged by!
But how many stubs are there? How many articles are there that contain only the barest of information? How many could use some serious grammar and spell-checking?
Alot.
And the article is correct - Things are only as strong as the weakest point. And wikipedia has alot more of those than it does anything else.
So what's the solution? Well, the people submitting need to offer higher quality work, and there should be some standard of quality - It is enforced to a point in some things, but too often do I see people who share a view backing each other up to the point that anything that doesn't quite fit in with their ideology is cut or edited.
Is this the majority? No! Of course not! But it exists, and the problem does need to be taken care of.
Some articles in the system, like the ones revolving around Bloody Sunday, have a good discussion going on about the accuracy of the information, and the nonpartisanship of the people submitting.
But there are other articles with the same problem, but none of the solution.
People do need to get involved and help fix things up. People do need to continue submitting. I think having alot more people interested in just editting to raise the written word level of the content would help out as well, and thankfully, I've seen a rise of people doing this.
Even advanced grammar checkers still work very poorly compaired to sitting down, reading it yourself, and then having an english inclined friend do the same.
I suppose LaTeX support is nice for the math geeks, though you would think that they are already using a program with support for it if they need it.
If the community decides MySQL is now the work of the devil, it's not like there aren't other solutions out there, among them just using current MySQL versions. The project will just branch off from the last open source release before the switch to Evil Commercialization (TM). The license does support this, doesn't it? I must confess, I'm not exactly sure what license MySQL uses for it's releases.
There are also plenty of other SQL options out there. Postgres is one I use for various things, and I've found it to be more powerful and more effecient than MySQL. The only drawback is that alot of apps out of the box don't support it.
Of course, that would change if everyone stopped using MySQL.
That's one thing I love about open source: The power of choice
And people still leave it enabled in absurd situations like this. Hopefully MySpace and the other journal-esque sites who still have javascript enabled get a clue.
While their poor security only affected themselves this time, someone with more malicious intent could easily take advantage of this for alot more destructive actions than merely viral friendmaking.
Certainly! Of course, those are the sort of things that are important in the business world. Of course, there is development in OSS projects that are part of business, but the majority are done because the people developing want to be developing it.
The article inquestion is talking about OSS, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I know I would never volunteer to help out a project I wasn't interested in. Why would anyone else?
For money? Well, there are some out there, but you could get a job at a commercial software company and probably be recieving a better paycheck, and have the same satisfaction as you would working at one of the few commercial OSS businesses.
For something to add to your resume? There are plenty of projects out there, I'm sure you can find one that you would enjoy being part of.
Everything I've ever done that 'needed' to be done, I enjoyed doing.
If you're not enjoying what you do, why are you doing it? Chances are, someone else is capable of doing it, and would enjoy their time doing so.
But, as a programmer, if the project I'm working on isn't something I want to do, and enjoy doing, why am I doing it? Even in the workplace, all of my projects are fun to me - That's why I decided to work there!
And as open source projects are generally done as an aside, why volunteer to work their if the project doesn't interest you anyway?
If you're not enjoying what you're doing, why are you doing it?
Slashdot Mirror
Never said I should be the one to do it :P
And users have to fix it - Not the people running it.
By definition, it's an open encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute. That's what's great about it! It supports our ideals of open access and modification of information.
The problem is that the information being placed is sub par. I'm sure the submitter had their best intentions in mind when they contributed, but the average Joe can't compete with proffesional editors and fact finders like encyclopedias do.
So yes, we reach the point where wikipedia looks subpar. That's unfortunate, but an undeniable fact.
Don't get me wrong - Ther are quite alot of knowledgable articles that rival or surpass the proffesional standards we're being judged by!
But how many stubs are there? How many articles are there that contain only the barest of information? How many could use some serious grammar and spell-checking?
Alot.
And the article is correct - Things are only as strong as the weakest point. And wikipedia has alot more of those than it does anything else.
So what's the solution? Well, the people submitting need to offer higher quality work, and there should be some standard of quality - It is enforced to a point in some things, but too often do I see people who share a view backing each other up to the point that anything that doesn't quite fit in with their ideology is cut or edited.
Is this the majority? No! Of course not! But it exists, and the problem does need to be taken care of.
Some articles in the system, like the ones revolving around Bloody Sunday, have a good discussion going on about the accuracy of the information, and the nonpartisanship of the people submitting.
But there are other articles with the same problem, but none of the solution.
People do need to get involved and help fix things up. People do need to continue submitting. I think having alot more people interested in just editting to raise the written word level of the content would help out as well, and thankfully, I've seen a rise of people doing this.
Even advanced grammar checkers still work very poorly compaired to sitting down, reading it yourself, and then having an english inclined friend do the same.
I suppose LaTeX support is nice for the math geeks, though you would think that they are already using a program with support for it if they need it.
If the community decides MySQL is now the work of the devil, it's not like there aren't other solutions out there, among them just using current MySQL versions. The project will just branch off from the last open source release before the switch to Evil Commercialization (TM). The license does support this, doesn't it? I must confess, I'm not exactly sure what license MySQL uses for it's releases.
There are also plenty of other SQL options out there. Postgres is one I use for various things, and I've found it to be more powerful and more effecient than MySQL. The only drawback is that alot of apps out of the box don't support it.
Of course, that would change if everyone stopped using MySQL.
That's one thing I love about open source: The power of choice
And people still leave it enabled in absurd situations like this. Hopefully MySpace and the other journal-esque sites who still have javascript enabled get a clue. While their poor security only affected themselves this time, someone with more malicious intent could easily take advantage of this for alot more destructive actions than merely viral friendmaking.
Certainly! Of course, those are the sort of things that are important in the business world. Of course, there is development in OSS projects that are part of business, but the majority are done because the people developing want to be developing it. The article inquestion is talking about OSS, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I know I would never volunteer to help out a project I wasn't interested in. Why would anyone else? For money? Well, there are some out there, but you could get a job at a commercial software company and probably be recieving a better paycheck, and have the same satisfaction as you would working at one of the few commercial OSS businesses. For something to add to your resume? There are plenty of projects out there, I'm sure you can find one that you would enjoy being part of.
Why be an architect if you don't enjoy designing buildings?
Why be a web master if you don't enjoy building webpages?
Why be a insert job here if you don't enjoy whatever the job is?
So why be a programmer if you don't enjoy programming?
Everything I've ever done that 'needed' to be done, I enjoyed doing. If you're not enjoying what you do, why are you doing it? Chances are, someone else is capable of doing it, and would enjoy their time doing so.
But, as a programmer, if the project I'm working on isn't something I want to do, and enjoy doing, why am I doing it? Even in the workplace, all of my projects are fun to me - That's why I decided to work there! And as open source projects are generally done as an aside, why volunteer to work their if the project doesn't interest you anyway? If you're not enjoying what you're doing, why are you doing it?