X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sat Jun 27 09:01:00 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A41414E.5020406@post.pl>
References: <4A402B98.7030601@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0906230011y307a10eai342f366cc40a49f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A41414E.5020406@post.pl>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:00:40 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0906270000p6b8e19c0l2839487e7e90a337@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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:  On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 23:55, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > > Interestingly, Wikipedia itself doesn't care
	about the quality of its > > content; it only cares about quantity. > >
	I would disagree with that. Quantity makes nice PR and so it gets some
	>
	media attention, but there has been a drive for quality (=inline refs), 
	> lasting many years. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.9 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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5232315380347461561=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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:  On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 23:55, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > > Interestingly, Wikipedia itself doesn't care
	about the quality of its > > content; it only cares about quantity. > >
	I would disagree with that. Quantity makes nice PR and so it gets some >
	media attention, but there has been a drive for quality (=inline refs),
	> lasting many years. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.9 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============5232315380347461561==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636499007c7ecfd046d4f03e1

--001636499007c7ecfd046d4f03e1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 23:55, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:

> > Interestingly, Wikipedia itself doesn't care about the quality of its
> > content; it only cares about quantity.
>
> I would disagree with that. Quantity makes nice PR and so it gets some
> media attention, but there has been a drive for quality (=3Dinline refs),
> lasting many years.


There are some people on Wikipedia who believe in quality, but they have
little or no political power. No administrator will consider "My edits
brought the article to a higher level of quality, and here's why" as a vali=
d
counterargument to "You edit-warred to keep the sword-wielding skeletons
out!"  The standard "content dispute" [[thought-terminating clich=C3=A9]] i=
s
commonly invoked for this purpose.

As a contributor to many FAs and GAs I can attest
> personally that their quality has improved immensely over the years.


Remember how I mentioned I'd do RUG in part so I could study quajects on
platforms other than their original m68k?  Check out what happened to the
article of [[quaject]].  As Wikipedia articles go, this one was a pretty
good one.  Its deletion certainly did not increase Wikipedia's quality.

I'd
> again like to suggest a certain strategy of dealing with Soviet (or
> other) trolls, a strategy that's not easy but that in my experience
> yields near unchallangeable results (in terms of putting high quality
> content on top of Google's results): instead of edit warring,
> concentrate on getting an article promoted to GA/FA.


Actually, I suspect GA/FA works because it has a tendency to attract
outsiders to the article, thus making edit warring less viable.  It doesn't
appear to work in Baltic articles, possibly because the long-standing
Wikipedia conflict has scared off everybody who might be attracted, or
possibly because so few outside Wikipedians are interested about it.

Also, given the new "1RR for everybody" regime, we might actually *have*
most of the tactic advantages from GA/FA on all Eastern European articles
now.  I'm not convinced it'll lead to higher quality, but I guess it remain=
s
to be seen.

I do like to think
> that one of the reasons Irpen-Ghirla-ska stopped challenging Polish
> topics and withdrew is because they lost the fight on enough key
> Polish-Soviet articles (Katym, PSWar, Soviet invasion of Poland, history
> of People's RoPoland, and a few others) that they (or their bosses? :>)
> realized that they lost those topics.


Well, their disapperance *is* quite a mystery.  But maybe it's just that
Nashi's money ran out.  News reported Nashi's funding shortages already las=
t
year.  Or maybe, FSB promoted them a step closer to their level of
incompetence, and their replacements aren't yet as skilled as they are.
 Maybe they're just waiting for HTC to manufacture a sufficient number of
new "reliable sources" for them.

> 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
> > repeating Wikipedia's mistakes.  But that's probably far, far away in
> > the future.
>
> Unfortunately, I think that the snowball effect (Wikipedia's size) means
> that no replacement is possible. The only route is to reform the system.


They're most definitely vulnerable at least to disruptive innovation.
 Accordingly, the mathematician in me concludes that Wikipedia is not
unreplaceable; we just have to figure out the cheapest way to exploit it.
 Dedicated DI is rather expensive, but exploiting DI in another field might
be feasible, and there may be other useful methods.

In either case -- both reformation and replacement -- we should probably
start discussing the problems of Wikipedia, and how they could be removed
(in reformation) or avoided (in replacement).

--=20
Andres Soolo

--001636499007c7ecfd046d4f03e1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 23:55, Piotr Konieczny <=
span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">&gt; Interestingly, Wikipedia itself doesn&#39;t care abo=
ut the quality of its<br></div><div class=3D"im">
&gt; content; it only cares about quantity.<br>
<br>
</div>I would disagree with that. Quantity makes nice PR and so it gets som=
e<br>
media attention, but there has been a drive for quality (=3Dinline refs),<b=
r>
lasting many years.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are some people o=
n Wikipedia who believe in quality, but they have little or no political po=
wer. No administrator will consider &quot;My edits brought the article to a=
 higher level of quality, and here&#39;s why&quot; as a valid counterargume=
nt to &quot;You edit-warred to keep the sword-wielding skeletons out!&quot;=
 =C2=A0The standard &quot;content dispute&quot; [[thought-terminating clich=
=C3=A9]] is commonly invoked for this purpose.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> As a contributor to many FA=
s and GAs I can attest<br>
personally that their quality has improved immensely over the years.</block=
quote><div><br></div><div>Remember how I mentioned I&#39;d do RUG in part s=
o I could study quajects on platforms other than their original m68k? =C2=
=A0Check out what happened to the article of [[quaject]]. =C2=A0As Wikipedi=
a articles go, this one was a pretty good one. =C2=A0Its deletion certainly=
 did not increase Wikipedia&#39;s quality.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I&#39;d<br>
again like to suggest a certain strategy of dealing with Soviet (or<br>
other) trolls, a strategy that&#39;s not easy but that in my experience<br>
yields near unchallangeable results (in terms of putting high quality<br>
content on top of Google&#39;s results): instead of edit warring,<br>
concentrate on getting an article promoted to GA/FA.</blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>Actually, I suspect GA/FA works because it has a tendency to attr=
act outsiders to the article, thus making edit warring less viable. =C2=A0I=
t doesn&#39;t appear to work in Baltic articles, possibly because the long-=
standing Wikipedia conflict has scared off everybody who might be attracted=
, or possibly because so few outside Wikipedians are interested about it.</=
div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, given the new &quot;1RR for everybody&quot; regim=
e, we might actually *have* most of the tactic advantages from GA/FA on all=
 Eastern European articles now. =C2=A0I&#39;m not convinced it&#39;ll lead =
to higher quality, but I guess it remains to be seen.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I do like to think<br>
that one of the reasons Irpen-Ghirla-ska stopped challenging Polish<br>
topics and withdrew is because they lost the fight on enough key<br>
Polish-Soviet articles (Katym, PSWar, Soviet invasion of Poland, history<br=
>
of People&#39;s RoPoland, and a few others) that they (or their bosses? :&g=
t;)<br>
realized that they lost those topics.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well,=
 their disapperance *is* quite a mystery. =C2=A0But maybe it&#39;s just tha=
t Nashi&#39;s money ran out. =C2=A0News reported Nashi&#39;s funding shorta=
ges already last year. =C2=A0Or maybe, FSB promoted them a step closer to t=
heir level of incompetence, and their replacements aren&#39;t yet as skille=
d as they are. =C2=A0Maybe they&#39;re just waiting for HTC to manufacture =
a sufficient number of new &quot;reliable sources&quot; for them.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class=3D"im">&gt; I con=
tinue to believe that Wikipedia needs to be replaced with something<br>
&gt; designed in a better way, with safeguards in place to keep it from<br>
&gt; repeating Wikipedia&#39;s mistakes. =C2=A0But that&#39;s probably far,=
 far away in<br>
&gt; the future.<br>
<br>
</div>Unfortunately, I think that the snowball effect (Wikipedia&#39;s size=
) means<br>
that no replacement is possible. The only route is to reform the system.</b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>They&#39;re most definitely vulnerable at lea=
st to disruptive innovation. =C2=A0Accordingly, the mathematician in me con=
cludes that Wikipedia is not unreplaceable; we just have to figure out the =
cheapest way to exploit it. =C2=A0Dedicated DI is rather expensive, but exp=
loiting DI in another field might be feasible, and there may be other usefu=
l methods.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In either case -- both reformation and replacement -- w=
e should probably start discussing the problems of Wikipedia, and how they =
could be removed (in reformation) or avoided (in replacement).</div><div>
<br></div></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--001636499007c7ecfd046d4f03e1--


--===============5232315380347461561==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============5232315380347461561==--


