One “very senior Wikimedian,” we are told, “came to think of the project as a ‘city built by Asperger’s.’ ”
If you get the paywall, it’s readable at http://archive.today/R2rnW
You must log in or register to comment.
And yet… it’s orders of magnitude better than anything that came before it, and nobody’s found a better way to do it.
Do you mean print encyclopedias? If so, heavy disagree.
what are their advantages over wikipedia?
Being written by professionals, each article written by a single person with an editor controlling their work – these two things lead to far better written text, more consistently organised material cross-article, with a good selection of the most relevant information in each article. Wikipedia is amateurs dumping all sorts of info (which they don’t always even understand properly) that they come across elsewhere online onto the site, and even the “deletionists” can’t really contain this tendency. Carefully written articles with a head and tail are rare and largely products of individuals who really know their shit, but that meticulous type of work is inevitably diluted in the overall landscape of the site.
Note: I’m a fairly regular Wikipedia editor. It’s useful and fun.* But when I need some non-trivial info in fields I’m somewhat adept in, I prefer skipping Wikipedia.
* Although WP in some smaller languages isn’t, some versions are actively harmful due to the amount of misinformation or propaganda, and I would vote for deleting them entirely, including my own contributions. I don’t think there’s any print encyclopedia so hopelessly bad that I’d throw it into the fire. But this is kind of outside the frame of discussion, I admit.
That control is usually about political correctness as defined by the organization making the encyclopedia in question. People often say Britannica is good, no fucking way, those people have just forgotten how miserable it is compared to Wikipedia.
It isn’t. Yes, political control exists and has shaped encyclopedias (it has also shaped Wikipedia). The editorship however mainly has to focus on keeping stuff consistent and meaningful for the reader. You have to have no real involvment with scholarly writing if you think just letting random scholars write whatever they think is important will lead to a good encyclopedia.
To put it more concretely, I’ve read extensive editorial notes by the editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia from 1950s/60s, i.e. a govt project in an authoritarian country - the editor was an avowed Marxist and it was no secret, yet his notes were absolutely leading the project in the right direction, he was insistent on critically revising the inherited nationalist political narratives, pruning lots of rhetorical fluff and nonsense, “saying it like it is”. It had its bias (pro-Yugoslavian, pro-communist), and it was pretty clear about it, you know where to expect it if you don’t like it, and frankly the critical stance was justified. The second edition from 1980s actually caused controversies because lots of powerful people disliked it interfering with their own nationalist narratives. Even in an authoritarian country you can’t keep everything under control. The encyclopedia is to this day a treasure trove of valuable information that the existing Wikipedias of ex-Yugoslavian countries can only lick the balls of (in part because they are or have until recently been managed by illiterate fascists, as is the case for Croatian and Serbian WPs).
Sounds like the only real problem is all those jackass “deletionists”…
If an article is so niche no one ever looks at it, then it eats up zero bandwidth. Just the data storage for a small text file.
Nothing should ever be deleted, there’s no fucking benefit to that
If they weren’t acting up, then activity dying down wouldn’t matter
It’s the biggest repository of human knowledge ever, it existing and being freely accessible to the planet is massive.
But if they stop keep deleting “niche” content from Wikipedia, then people won’t have to use Fandom instead.
You know, the commercial, ad infested wiki that was also founded by a Wikipedia co-founder.
It’s the biggest repository of human knowledge ever
Internet Archive and Libgen are incomparably bigger.
I mean, a municipal dump contains arguably many more printed words than Wikipedia, but that doesn’t mean it contains more information, nor is it easily cataloged for access.
I’m noticing a pattern of you reducing arguments down to meaningless and out-of-context metrics in this entire comment section.
Have you actually ever used Libgen and Internet Archive (its book collection specifically)?
Yes. Libgen.whatever is a russian-operated “free” library.
I can find José Saramago books there, but no info on the author himself.
Are you trying to compare libgen with Wikipedia? They don’t really serve the same purpose.
“free” library
Pirate library. I don’t think this aspect has to be downplayed.
I can find José Saramago books there, but no info on the author himself.
You can find his biographies, criticism, analyses, the very sources that Wikipedia is using.
They don’t serve the same purpose, correct. But as far “repositories of knowledge” go (the phrase that kicked off this sub-discussion), they count as such, and they are massive, I have no doubt they’re bigger than WP. English Wikipedia has 7 million articles while Anna’s Archive (which mirrors Libgen and a big part of Internet Archive - but far from all of it!) says it has 70 million books and 200 million articles. Cut the number in half, or even in third due to duplicates if you want, to get a more realistic number, it’s still bigger.
Pirate library
Sure, yes. Acknowledged.
It is true that the referenced information is present in libgen, but it is not succinctly summarized for consumption, and that is the function Wikipedia fulfills for most users.
I can understand the pitfalls of allowing updates from the public, but I think it’s widely accepted that Wikipedia does more good than bad.
It’s really difficult to understand your point of view on this, especially when you indulge in semantics arguments.
but it is not succinctly summarized for consumption, and that is the function Wikipedia fulfills for most users
You may have noticed that this is precisely what I’ve disagreed on with two other users in this thread, who claimed that Wikipedia should contain as much information as possible. I agree with you, it is good to have an encyclopedia that summarises the most important, and directs towards further materials for further deeper study.
Again, the point I disagreed on with the other poster is simply on what’s the “biggest repository of human knowledge ever”. You seem to agree that the shadow libraries are bigger, and that settles it, we don’t have to disagree further. Being the biggest repository does not, of course, mean that it should be the only repository, that others are bad, or whatever else. Different repositories can fulfill different roles in the sharing of knowledge.
I can understand the pitfalls of allowing updates from the public, but I think it’s widely accepted that Wikipedia does more good than bad.
I don’t think I disagreed with the latter point, except when I mentioned the smaller borderline fascist wikis somewhere ITT. When it comes to English and some other large WPs I definitely don’t disagree.
Maybe you’re just supposing that we disagree on something when we really don’t, so you can’t lead the discussion to the point where we’d finally clearly disagree. I provided some criticism of Wikipedia, that doesn’t mean I think it’s bad wholesale. Wikipedia is complicated. I’ve spent quite a while editing it, as well as using traditional encyclopedias. I just negatively reacted to some comments in this thread, the harsh dismissal of traditional encyclopedias, and the somewhat overrated view of Wikipedia.
The reason I down voted you is you’re ignoring duplicative information…
And mainly because instead of asking questions to learn, you just went off with a halfbaked thought and presented it like it was fact.
Do better
I certainly ignored “duplicative information”, because I don’t even know what those words are supposed to mean.
You haven’t asked any questions either, you made up a claim and are now seemingly very insulted when an obvious correction is pointed out. Those two sites contain hundreds upon hundreds of thosands of entire books, entire encyclopedias, and god knows how many scientific articles, inevitably way more stuff than Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia editor should have them open in a tab while editing ready to verify the existing sources and look for new ones.
because I don’t even know what those words are supposed to mean.
How many websites about Pokemon do you think are archived?
How much of that info is duplicative (meaning it exists multiple times)?
If 2 gigs of data all says charmander evolves into charazard, why is that worth more than a single text string saying it once?
You haven’t asked any questions either
I already understand it…
You don’t even know what “duplicative” means, and were too lazy to even look it up, you just wanted to argue about how your opinion matters more than facts.
marked by duplication
With no context I didn’t know what you might have meant by “duplicative information”. Now it makes sense, apparently you think Internet Archive is just Wayback Machine, with its archived duplicate Pokemon websites. Which is comically false, try to dial down your arrogance. Perhaps you could have asked questions about whether I really think Internet Archive’s collection of Pokemon sites contains more knowledge than Wikipedia, or maybe something else:
What did they do with the books after they scanned them?
Made them free to access and download, if the book is in the public domain or under a Creative Commons license. Allowed limited access if copyrighted (through some weirdly legal solution where they technically “loan” the book to you while you view it in your browser), although that option has been partly limited in the recent years due to lawsuits by book publishers.
Congrats bud.
You kept going long enough I’ll never try to clarify anything for you again, every single reply you make to one of my comments from here on out will not receive any further clarification and you’ll always believe it’s 100% correct.
It won’t be, but I won’t see it to tell you that anymore.
So you win, enjoy it.
Edit:
2-0 bud!
Apparently I blocked your original account already, the streak continues
I’ll never try to clarify anything for you again,
As if you tried to clarify anything up until this point anyway 🤣
TL;DR: This is largely a review/summary of The Last Best Place on the Internet: A Human History of Wikipedia by Richard Cooke
Great article OP! First time I’d heard Wikipedia was in decline. I can’t see it ever going away.
Yes, the readership is not doing well. It won’t go away any time soon, but one day it might end up a ghost town. If everything develops linearly, which it might not.
Wikipedia is and has always been shit. It’s where institutions go to write down their propaganda so it sounds authoritative. In fact it’s the precursor to AI in that sense. It’s credentialism all the way down. If something is said somewhere by anyone, then it becomes a source. Unless that source is not
approved ofinstalled by the powers that let wikipedia gracefully host its websites.If a page regarding a political or historical event isn’t under constant scrutiny, state actors and “trolls” will gradually alter it until it says nothing conclusive at all. Everything must be up in the air, everything must be “neutral” (when language itself is political…)
Also think about the incentives. You’re a government. You have people working full time to redact history. You CAN and you WILL threaten people who write the wrong version of history. This is not even hidden, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Wikipedia–U.S._government_conflicts
They can see it happening, they can document it happening, and they can’t do shit to change it because they’re not a peer to peer project. Like the fediverse for that matter, it’s all vulnerable to the same exact “a guy in a suit rang your doorbell because the server is on your premises” tactic.
So in conclusion, believing that “wikipedia good” and “AI bad” is an incredibly naive way to understand the world. Read up on Wittgenstein and Sapir-Whorf and tell me how this isn’t literally their theories being implemented.
The way it’s usually treated by laymen, as here, Sapir-Whorf theory is pseudoscience, and you’re not even really talking about language but about information. As for Wittgenstein, you’re grossly banalising his work.
This is not even hidden
Yeah. Really makes you think…
