On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that
> does not exist.
> I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the
> product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to provide
> it in a SMART way.  We lose out when we do not do the best we can. Our best
> is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to
> ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes they
> may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half
> arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior.
> Thanks,

This is a kind of discussion that cyclically comes back, and I guess
there is no correct answer. Wikipedia was born on the internet, and is
designed to work on the internet, which means that as soon as it
provides good links and good connection between links, it helps to get
access to knowledge. It is not something that is supposed to be read
from the beginning to the end (it's simply too big), so it is
difficult to talk about the quality of the product as a whole. There
are good articles, bad articles, wrong articles, uncovered topics; so
the experience really depends on the reader's needs. Automatically
created articles generally offer a good base, they're as accurate as
their sources in providing basic data, and are often a good base to
build upon. In some cases no one will build upon them, but even thus
they do fulfill a need. Indicators are a simplification of a more
complex object, so they can only tell a limited amount of things. We
know that article count can be inflated by automatically creating
stubs on very specialistic topics, average page weight by adding
code-rich templates and so on, but as soon as people are aware of the
fact, I don't see the problem.

We are now at a stage where a huge number of articles already exist,
and where a big share of the creation content can be automated; if we
stop now building the encyclopedia, we still have a great product that
can help people; a lot of data could be kept up to date using only
automated tools, although it will eventually look "old". At the end of
the day, classical Latin literature has had no active community for
centuries, and is still perfectly usable.

Marco (Cruccone)

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to