Reminding is easy, it's analyzing that it's complex. 

I suspect that editors and readers are probably a little bit smarter than 
generally assumed. It's quite "obvious" that editors understand what is an 
encyclopedia, after years. When I make an informal survey, statistically the 
"smarter" students in the class or in the group of people in front of me at an 
event are those who already edited something or who want to know more or are 
willing to compile a form to state their opinion or similar. 

Plus, every topic is multifaceted somehow, it's the same for the most popular 
ones. It's strange when long-time editors seem to miss this aspect. There is 
always a specific disease, an historical event, a place or a person in a family 
history linked to a most searched topic. You can detect many missing specific 
things just focusing on a core topic and starting from there. Again, maybe it's 
worth reminding also how our editors are quite good at doing this, and this 
type of information is therefore a starting point. In some of this comments, it 
always look like an end per se. 

Seriously, if someone is so superficial to just edit something with no depth 
because it's on a list, (s)he will just do something equally superficial 
somewhere else. Clinically, I might state that it's probably a good thing if 
this occur in an area with huge focus, it actually lowers the possible 
long-term disfunctionalities induced by a rigid approach, something that it's 
more subtle to detect in less supervised areas.

in any case, these lists can change a lot from area to area so it is not even 
driven by the "mass", if you give a country in South America or Asia the same 
focus on a western country you end up with very unusual guideline. it's nice to 
know that you expertise in an area even if less taken into account in the 
average community around you, it's useful in a different part of the word. 



    Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 13:32:12 CET, Amir E. Aharoni 
<amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:  
 
 ‬

> The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 😱
>
>
I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is
*only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and
not once, but repeatedly.

However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about what *is* in
demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the
choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to
"popular".

While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with
Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that
most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless,
reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering
popular topics won't hurt.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>  
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to