X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Tue Jun 23 12:33:20 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0906230011y307a10eai342f366cc40a49f7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A402B98.7030601@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0906230011y307a10eai342f366cc40a49f7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:32:55 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906230332l1afac8b6j5f5e399564bf9faf@mail.gmail.com>
From: radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview: I might steal some of these insights for an essay at
	some point. I think there's a definite over emphasis on generating new
	content - especially through the DYK awards - as opposed to making
	older
	articles better - there's no reward/incentive system for referencing an
	old, previously uncited article, or removing copy vio, or copy editing
	or even just removing blatant POV. Some of the reward/incentives for
	that kind of work are carried out through the "Project" system but
	overall you get a lot more brownie points in thinking up a new,
	sometimes even trivial, topic and starting from scratch rather than
	working with some of the messes that already exist. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.8 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] To Dig, Bio and all who are considering leaving
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  I might steal some of these insights for an essay at
	some point. I think there's a definite over emphasis on generating new
	content - especially through the DYK awards - as opposed to making older
	articles better - there's no reward/incentive system for referencing an
	old, previously uncited article, or removing copy vio, or copy editing
	or even just removing blatant POV. Some of the reward/incentives for
	that kind of work are carried out through the "Project" system but
	overall you get a lot more brownie points in thinking up a new,
	sometimes even trivial, topic and starting from scratch rather than
	working with some of the messes that already exist. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.8 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

I might steal some of these insights for an essay at some point. I
think there's a definite over emphasis on generating new content -
especially through the DYK awards - as opposed to making older
articles better - there's no reward/incentive system for referencing
an old, previously uncited article, or removing copy vio, or copy
editing or even just removing blatant POV. Some of the
reward/incentives for that kind of work are carried out through the
"Project" system but overall you get a lot more brownie points in
thinking up a new, sometimes even trivial, topic and starting from
scratch rather than working with some of the messes that already
exist.

Radek


2009/6/23 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:10, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
>>
>> Wiki can be stressful. I know it too, and I considered leaving too.
>
> I need to stress that it's not about wikis, it's about Wikipedia.
>>
>> But if you leave permanently, that would be a loss to Wikipedia. You all
>
> Aaand the cynic in me asks: why should I care about Wikipedia losing out?
> I think I don't care. =A0But after yesterday, I'm not sure enough, so it'=
ll
> need some meditation. =A0In any case, I believe a more worthwile concern =
is
> making sure that the topics I care about are accurately represented on
> whatever Google puts atop its search list.
> Interestingly, Wikipedia itself doesn't care about the quality of its
> content; it only cares about quantity. =A0All the big celebratory events =
are
> about Nth edit or Nth article created; article quality indicators are mer=
ely
> footnotes. =A0Perhaps, even the "war on editwarring" is, to some degree,
> rooted in this belief: a revert war is bad because half the edits in it
> shrink the article. =A0"Obvious vandalism" is only excepted because it's =
not
> about "edit-warring"; it's about *defacement*, and Wikipedia is a bit
> sensitive about its image if not about its quality. =A0All in all, for
> Wikipedia politics, caring about the quality of Wikipedia's content is a
> vice, not a virtue.
> I continue to believe that Wikipedia needs to be replaced with something
> designed in a better way, with safeguards in place to keep it from repeat=
ing
> Wikipedia's mistakes. =A0But that's probably far, far away in the future.
> --
> Andres Soolo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

