[WikiEN-l] Destructionism
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. You have an erroneous assumption: that there is perfection or that even a high quality article says all that anyone would ever want to know on the topic. It tends to proceed in a cycle. Well-written, someone adds more stuff they think is missing, someone polishes the writing once more, someone adds more stuff. Those who did the polishing get *really annoyed* at the people adding more *stuff*, but it probably benefits the reader. People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its polished writing. Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its polished writing. Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. I do work hard at polishing ledes, and Im not unhappy when something Ive written stands the test of time. But there are times when it seems that open editing model itself was nothing more a bad idea. I guess this idea reflects a bit of that pessimism. :-) The 'decay into mush' point is well made. Its difficult sometimes for one to justify to oneself the effort required to overcome mush-ism - particularly when its an adversarial system (WP:BRD). Its the adversarial systems which seem to be paradoxically constructive and destructive at the same time. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right. As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK, maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs reach the front page, unhelpful editing pretty much always follows. I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: People come to Wikipedia for its breadth of coverage, not its polished writing. Indeed, some articles decay into mush. I didn't say polishing was easy - it isn't, which is why the people who do it get so resentful. I do work hard at polishing ledes, and Im not unhappy when something Ive written stands the test of time. But there are times when it seems that open editing model itself was nothing more a bad idea. I guess this idea reflects a bit of that pessimism. :-) The 'decay into mush' point is well made. Its difficult sometimes for one to justify to oneself the effort required to overcome mush-ism - particularly when its an adversarial system (WP:BRD). Its the adversarial systems which seem to be paradoxically constructive and destructive at the same time. -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see it as a terrible thing that editing be slowed down on those articles, for instance. It took a lot of considered work to get there. Maybe it should take some consideration to change them. Remember that film Six degrees.. There was an anecdote about the kids artistic success being due to their schoolteacher knowing when to take the kid's crayons away... -SC ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right. Does it happen very often? Most revocations are due to us raising the standards we require rather than due to articles deteriorating. If an article has deteriorated to the point where it isn't worthy of FA any more then wouldn't it be better just revert to the last FA worthy version? If the FA criteria are such that there are edits that we don't want to revert but that make an article no longer worthy of FA, then we need to change the FA criteria (since they don't fit with our actual views on what makes an article better or worse). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
I do think that kind of degradation happens over time, and not just because a FA made the front-page. So, I would favor locking a FA on the front page for 24 hours, FWIW. So that's my position on dealing with FAs... just lock 'em for awhile. Obviously I agree that standards have risen over time -- if I look back at articles I created in 2006-7 when I first got involved, I can see why some might recommend them for deletion now (although they did persist and were improved thereafter). I'm not completely sure where SC was going with his observation about Destructionism -- I took it as a clever play on Deletionism and all the other -isms, to point out a phenomenon he's noticed on at least En-WP, which I recognized immediately. As little as I wish to speak for him, nor do I wish to summarize David, but I think he's talking about a different thing, not about FAs, but how quality articles evolve over time, especially as major facts (or received wisdom) changes. In that case, I default to the status quo on en-wp, which I think is better than not, as I'm sure most of us do. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right. Does it happen very often? Most revocations are due to us raising the standards we require rather than due to articles deteriorating. If an article has deteriorated to the point where it isn't worthy of FA any more then wouldn't it be better just revert to the last FA worthy version? If the FA criteria are such that there are edits that we don't want to revert but that make an article no longer worthy of FA, then we need to change the FA criteria (since they don't fit with our actual views on what makes an article better or worse). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has already been achieved or nearly achieved, yet articles remain open to editing. -SC You would need some examples to credibly demonstrate this. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Destructionism
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote: Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as they degrade. It happens, all right. Does it happen very often? Most revocations are due to us raising the standards we require rather than due to articles deteriorating. If an article has deteriorated to the point where it isn't worthy of FA any more then wouldn't it be better just revert to the last FA worthy version? If the FA criteria are such that there are edits that we don't want to revert but that make an article no longer worthy of FA, then we need to change the FA criteria (since they don't fit with our actual views on what makes an article better or worse). I think part of this is what David was saying about adding new content. Being an FA is a lot more then just content and adding not perfect/good enough prose that adds important and encyclopedic information shouldn't be reverted just because it isn't good enough to be on an FA. Obviously the preference would be to try and rewrite that new info to be good enough for an FA. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
