Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
2012/9/12 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com Wikipedia is just not the right place to settle controversies. maybe the solution would be simply to make a quick article on wikipedia explaining the controversies, and giving references to different point of view. that was the initial way wikipedia was designed, not to hold the truth, but the hold the truthS
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the articles is a treasure trove. T
RE: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
Terry, Eric You ever open a Sampler box of Godiva or other fine chocolates and find that are a few that you do not like as well as the rest... Most are close to heaven, of course ... Wiki is like that. You pass over the one or two that you do not favor (i.e. cherry-filled) and savor the rest. For those of us who dabble in the cutting-edge - trying to make sense of LENR - Wiki is fully one-half the value of the internet. It is simply too onerous to convey complicated ideas without it, since a Wiki citation avoids a couple of pages of needed text in your posting, in favor of a more cogent explanation. Here is an apt spur-of-the-moment example, by way of a metaphor for a force that is so powerful, that you can kill it off one day, and it will be back in full regalia the next: The king is dead, long live the king QED - Yup, wiki's even got that bit of self-contradiction covered. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the articles is a treasure trove. T
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come about in the last ten or so years. The Model T Ford was also incredible. It was wonderful breakthrough technology. My mother drove one at age 13 through the streets of New York City. She said that people who grew up in a world where cars are everywhere cannot imagine how liberating they were. Along the same lines, young people today who grew up with computers have no idea how difficult it was to use typewriters and pens, and paper reference books. The Model T was great, but it was a first-generation product. It had a lot of problems. It was dangerous. It worked well on dirt roads and rough surfaces, but by the mid 1920s paved roads were becoming more common, speeds were faster, and in any kind of wind the Model T was blow all over the road. It lasted for a long time, but was eventually replaced with the Model A and by competing cars from other manufacturers. Wikipedia was a good first generation product. It is still quite useful, just as Model T cars were used well into the 1940s. But it is unwieldy, poorly designed in many ways, and the administrative structure is chaotic, corrupt, and badly in need of replacement. Henry Ford said wanted to keep making the Model T forever but he was finally forced to stop, and upgrade. Ford was forced to upgrade mainly by competition from GM and other car companies. For years, he had the whole market to himself. If GM had not starting eating his lunch, he would have cranked out Model T cars for another decade. What we need is competition with Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it appears to be natural monopoly the way telephone service was until the 1980s, and the way microcomputer operating systems are today. A natural monopoly produces a hegemony, in these cases ATT and Microsoft. They happened to come along first, in a situation where the first to arrive takes everything. Wikipedia is the same way. As I said, Wikipedia is good for some things but not others. If fails when the encyclopedia entry is controversial. The main problems are that it allows anonymous editing, and it has no respect for authorities in complicated, specialized subjects. I hope that it is reformed, or -- if it is not -- that some competing encyclopedia arises. Perhaps another encyclopedia can be established that specialized is scientific subjects such as cold fusion, and that does a better job using more traditional academic standards. We can leave the present Wikipedia to deal with popular culture, Japanese comic strips, and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
refer-a-pedia wiki-ference On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the articles is a treasure trove. T
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very controversial subjects. harry On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: As I said, Wikipedia is good for some things but not others. If fails when the encyclopedia entry is controversial. The main problems are that it allows anonymous editing, and it has no respect for authorities in complicated, specialized subjects. I hope that it is reformed, or -- if it is not -- that some competing encyclopedia arises. Perhaps another encyclopedia can be established that specialized is scientific subjects such as cold fusion, and that does a better job using more traditional academic standards. We can leave the present Wikipedia to deal with popular culture, Japanese comic strips, and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very controversial subjects. I do not think that will happen. The Wikipedia management would not agree. I do not see any need for that. Here is how I imagine it might work: Someone else starts an on-line encyclopedia of science, based on traditional academic standards. Maybe the APS or a university could do this. Gradually, more readers turn to the academic website. Wikipedia articles on science are read less often. They are not updated as much. Some are revised with information from the academic site, and links to it. (I don't like the APS policies toward cold fusion but I suppose they can handle other subjects better than Wikipedia does.) Getting back to my analogy, the Model T was not replaced overnight. It was replaced gradually over many years as competition heated up. Sales at GM overtook Ford in 1927. That was the year Ford finally stopped producing the model T. The car was improved over the production run. It wasn't the exact same machine from 1908 to 1927. Wikipedia has also been improved. It might be improved again, with a better structure, to address the weaknesses that I and others have pointed out. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very controversial subjects. I do not think that will happen. The Wikipedia management would not agree. I do not see any need for that. Here is how I imagine it might work: Someone else starts an on-line encyclopedia of science, based on traditional academic standards. Maybe the APS or a university could do this. Gradually, more readers turn to the academic website. Wikipedia articles on science are read less often. They are not updated as much. Some are revised with information from the academic site, and links to it. (I don't like the APS policies toward cold fusion but I suppose they can handle other subjects better than Wikipedia does.) Getting back to my analogy, the Model T was not replaced overnight. It was replaced gradually over many years as competition heated up. Sales at GM overtook Ford in 1927. That was the year Ford finally stopped producing the model T. The car was improved over the production run. It wasn't the exact same machine from 1908 to 1927. Wikipedia has also been improved. It might be improved again, with a better structure, to address the weaknesses that I and others have pointed out. - Jed I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands. The controversial subject should also be moderated but not in anonymity. harry
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands. Exactly. To simplify: Just have signed articles, like in Encyclopedia Britannica. You can have multiple authors. If the subject is controversial, you can two articles, one by supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? The controversial subject should also be moderated but not in anonymity. Right. That is is in line with what Larry Sanger wrote: http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/09/05/on-the-moral-bankruptcy-of-wikipedias-anonymous-administration/ (I appended a comment.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
I wrote: If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and only one article per topic. (Actually, you are not supposed to have a point of view.) I do not understand why they have this rule, or why they are so opposed to articles with distinct, separate points of view. It reminds of newspapers and TV news from the 1950s to 1990s, when they tried hard to be neutral. Meaning objective. Some people considered Walter Cronkite the epitome of reliable neutrality. He had an aura. I never thought the newspapers were neutral. Frankly, I prefer the approach newspapers had in the 19th century and again today, where you knew which side the editorial staff sympathized with. You could judge how objective they were by reading different accounts of the same story. Incidentally, you do have to give Wikipedia credit for knowing about and discussing their own weaknesses, such as their fetish for incorporating all points of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise The see the problems, but they don't do anything about them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
2012/9/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands. Exactly. To simplify: Just have signed articles, like in Encyclopedia Britannica. You can have multiple authors. If the subject is controversial, you can two articles, one by supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? I agree. there is a strong demand of specific lobbies to have their own wikipedia-like. Wikiliberal (for liberal economics, not US liberal...) some green wiki ... We have set a wiki on lenrnews, but we don't have much resource to feed it... I just wood like to have basic information, description of various point of view , even if negative, with arguments. anyway, is it productive if LENR reach the market in 12 month... The controversial subject should also be moderated but not in anonymity. Right. That is is in line with what Larry Sanger wrote: http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/09/05/on-the-moral-bankruptcy-of-wikipedias-anonymous-administration/ (I appended a comment.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
in fact I've heard of wikipedia spitrit in the old time : it was to express reasonable opinion, all reasonable opinions, with reference data, show controversies, ... but on some subject I follow I've see that peer-reviewed but non mainstream point of view get thrown out by ideological non scientific lobbies... some subject that are proved scientifically are presented as controversial or fringe, while their are mainstream in the technical domain, yet unpopular in popular ideology... (see ormesis)... clearly wikipedia sine 5-8 years have been cleaned by some non scientific powerfull lobbies (and not corporate)... More over I see more and more fringe science , but popular for those lobbies. funnily on a vulgarization science , futura-science.fr, I've seen the same thought-police, allowing very fringe discussion, but violently rejecting some serious non consensual discussion, like LENR.. 2012/9/12 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I wrote: If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and only one article per topic. (Actually, you are not supposed to have a point of view.) I do not understand why they have this rule, or why they are so opposed to articles with distinct, separate points of view. It reminds of newspapers and TV news from the 1950s to 1990s, when they tried hard to be neutral. Meaning objective. Some people considered Walter Cronkite the epitome of reliable neutrality. He had an aura. I never thought the newspapers were neutral. Frankly, I prefer the approach newspapers had in the 19th century and again today, where you knew which side the editorial staff sympathized with. You could judge how objective they were by reading different accounts of the same story. Incidentally, you do have to give Wikipedia credit for knowing about and discussing their own weaknesses, such as their fetish for incorporating all points of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise The see the problems, but they don't do anything about them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and only one article per topic. (Actually, you are not supposed to have a point of view.) I do not understand why they have this rule, or why they are so opposed to articles with distinct, separate points of view. It reminds of newspapers and TV news from the 1950s to 1990s, when they tried hard to be neutral. Meaning objective. Some people considered Walter Cronkite the epitome of reliable neutrality. He had an aura. I never thought the newspapers were neutral. Frankly, I prefer the approach newspapers had in the 19th century and again today, where you knew which side the editorial staff sympathized with. You could judge how objective they were by reading different accounts of the same story. Incidentally, you do have to give Wikipedia credit for knowing about and discussing their own weaknesses, such as their fetish for incorporating all points of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise The see the problems, but they don't do anything about them. - Jed It reminds me of the persistent absuse that has occured within some institutions. The abuse persists because it happens behind closed doors, but in the case of wikipedia anonymity serves the function of closed doors. It also reminds me cyber bullying. There are probably (new) laws against cyber bullying that could be applied to wikipedia. Harry
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The main problems are that it allows anonymous editing, and it has no respect for authorities in complicated, specialized subjects. I hope that it is reformed, or -- if it is not -- that some competing encyclopedia arises. Perhaps another encyclopedia can be established that specialized is scientific subjects such as cold fusion, and that does a better job using more traditional academic standards. Encyclopedia for cold fusion would be quite good idea. Although wikiversity's resources are quite comprehensive. What I would add to the wikiversity, is a good and comprehensive video lecture series about the topic. I think 30-90 45 mins video lectures would be great. If lecture series is well made, it will find very fast good reviews and thus it increases a lot the gredibility of arguments. The main difficulty with cold fusion is, that it is very difficult to evaluate the reliability of sources. I think that your criticism about wikipedia is disproportional. Controversial subjects are not that important, because usually there are very good reasons why they are controversial. Wikipedia is just not the right place to settle controversies. If something cannot be settled without writing 'walls of text', then we must seriously question whether it can be expressed in wikipedia, without that people get false impressions while they are reading compact wikiarticles about the topic. I think that it would be good idea to have in paraller, more specialized version of wikipedia. I would dream about wiki like online community that would be used also for original research and debate. However discussion should civilized and moderated. Something like light peer review process, that before any comments are published, they are reviewed by several established experts and editors. And if necessary, feed back and suggestion for change are given before publishing. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
The rules/policies are absolutely ok when applied by editors with common sense or for non-controversial articles. For articles on controversial topics a group of editors will feel that they have to protect the article from evil POV pushers. They have a mission: Wikipedia must not expound fringe ideas In some cases they do the right thing by deleting really bad sources, but they have simply lost any form of perspective, they overshoot, some willingly, some unwillingly. They turn the article into a dark alley where only they rule. There is no way to evolve an article in such atmosphere. Those who tried all got blocked or banned, as there will always be a reason to ban an editor. polite POV pushing is suffient. Uninvolved editors who really enjoy working on wikipedia stay away from controversial articles. Wikipedia is based on consensus and just as crooks in a dark alley the editors will have reached a consensus to misuse the rules/policies. Example: The indian scientific journal current science was dismissed by one editor as not reliable source, because they had published a paper by Steven Krivit and it was argued that their peer review is not done properly and that the journal is not significant. The atmosphere is already so devoid from common sense that such a argumentation is simply accepted by fellow editors, just to keep a paper from being mentioned in the article. Wikipedia fails with the set of editors that make up the consensus. POVbrigand On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com, an expert in Wikipedia, wrote descriptions that seem contradictory to me. First he says the policies are great, then he says they are not followed: If you are interested in helping with Wikipedia, do register, but be aware that it can be an abusive community, the policies and guidelines are fantastic, and commonly not followed. They are not followed because the users who understood them gave up pushing the boulder up the hill and watching it roll back again. . . . I do not see how a set of rules can be fantastic when they are routinely ignored. A rule is only fantastic when it is enforceable. The rules lead to many problems: Users who persisted in insisting on policy, against the desires of any kind of cabal or informal collection of editors pushing a particular point of view . . . That is, the Arbs know how to be administrators, they all come from that, but they don't know how to *manage* administrators. They are chosen by popularity, not for management skills, and Wikipedia overwhelms even the best of them. It seems to me you need rules that people can live with and that do not overwhelm even the best administrators. Rules that result in people being overwhelmed need revision. The larger community *does* support the guidelines and policies, the cabals attempt to subvert them and even sometimes openly oppose them. If the larger community supports these things, why are they not enforced? Is there no enforcement mechanism? In that case the rules are inadequate. Look, want to accomplish something on Wikipedia? No, I hope it withers away. Maybe what Abd has in mind here is that the rules are good and with a little tweaking they would work. It seems to me these rules were invented for Wikipedia. They do not work well because they are novel. I am conservative. I think it is better to apply old rules that were invented for conventional media and for conventional academic forums, such as the rules used to run physics conferences. Rule number one should be everyone has to use his or her real name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: No, I hope it withers away. I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come about in the last ten or so years. Obviously readers must beware. It is not good for the unlucky junior high school student who reads it uncritically. And there are articles, such as the one on cold fusion, that are guarded by ignorant trolls. But if one can apply a filter to everything one reads, Wikipedia is a trove of valuable information. Eric
