Re: quality.wikimedia.org and wikiquality-l launched

On 9/19/07, Monahon, Peter B. <Peter.Monahon-PVb/[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Peter Blaise responds:
>
>        Stable?  I think stability is the antithesis and death knell of
> any knowledge system, especially one that is community-based.  How about
> "accurate"?


       However, I can imagine an "article" with more than one "main
> page", perhaps a series of dated pages or other reasons for more than
> one, non-exclusive page on an article topic - that might be interesting.
>
>
>        For instance, I own and constantly refer to old dictionaries and
> encyclopedias.  I have many versions of the Focal Press Encyclopedia of
> Photography from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, up to 2007.  I
> see a vast difference through every 10 years when I compare each
> revision side by side.  Of course, the recent edition is about digital
> photography, but that does not mean I toss the earlier chemical-based
> photography encyclopedia - I want that always available, also.  The old
> versions are as close to being "stable" as I have, but which version?  I
> have dozens!  However, even the most abandoned photography practices are
> revisited today with new ways to explore the old styles of the chemical
> darkroom, so even the ancient texts are getting updates.  Perhaps having
> multiple wiki pages by date or other demarcation makes sense, which
> would be sort of like the disambiguation pages - "for *photographic
> development* see *chemical* here, see *digital* here".
>
>        So, what is the purpose of "stability"?  Are we really meaning
> "mature"?  Even that must be updated as people and science and knowledge
> matures - a never-ending process.  Now, we have "This page was last
> modified 14:51, 19 September 2007" so we can already can see how old a
> page is.  Does age really matter - is an article better or worse if it's
> last edits were a long time ago?  What concept are we looking for that
> we think we lack?  As quoted:
>                Quality assurance,
>                Filtering,
>                Labeling
>        ... and as identified by at
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/4_wishes_for_year_2007 (sorely in
> need of editing for accurate grammar translation)
>                Sustainability
>                Reliability
>                Outreach
>                Recognition
>
>        I see no stability "problem".  That is, I do not see implied
> instability as a source of conflict with any of the goals above.  As
> said in my opening, to the contrary, I believe that stability should
> never be a goal.  Stability is at worst is an observed happenstance, and
> at best a change to revisit, explore, and improve.
>
>        However, believing in change even for change's sake (how else
> would we ever learn *some* new things), I'm all for revisiting and
> exploring the idea of stability, even if it "merely" confirms for us
> that it is an unworkable ideal or goal.  Some day, the next wave of
> editors can revisit the idea of stability once again when they forget
> what we have learned.  Then the next wave of editors beyond them, and so
> on.
>
>        Wikis are more than just "quick to get started" building a
> massive amount of pages.  Because they are also always "quick to edit"
> immediately, every day, with each newcomer's thoughts, wikis are proving
> to be living, growing things.  Grow or die.  Wiki begets growth.
> Stability equals death.
>
>        I imagine that an article may "languish" unedited for many
> reasons without being stable, mature, or accurate, including:
>                - lack of interest
>                - lack of information
>                - lack of publicity
>                - contention
>                - fear, such as a minority viewpoint being withheld
> versus the dominance of a majority ("the earth is round" had to overcome
> a pre-existing *stable* viewpoint, for example)
>        ... I'm sure each of us has insight to expand this list of
> reasons for stability due to lacks of something.
>
>        However, I think a template or extension to MediaWiki software
> that allows visitors to rate the page on a range of criteria, with new
> criteria dynamically available - now THAT'S a great idea!  Something
> like:
>
> Others think this page is:
> 1.....................5...................10
> Needs work.....fine.....outstanding
> Inaccurate
> Incomplete
>
> What do YOU think? 1-10 [__] [ Submit ]  Comment on the discussion/talk
> page.
>
>        ... and just leave user reviews at the bottom of ANY page via
> template or extension.  Later, analysts can bot around looking to
> enhance pages that have received poor reviews, asses the overall scoring
> of new versus old pages, new versus old users, and so on.  You know, as
> carpenters say, measure twice before cutting once.  Maybe, pages
> generally go through a swinging pendulum from incomplete to fine to
> inaccurate to fine to needs work to fine to needs work to fine to
> outstanding, then back and forth between fine and outstanding the rest
> of it's life.  Maybe what one person would consider "stable" takes an
> average of two years to mature, but never really is "over" or
> penultimately accurate?  Maybe ...
>
>        ... and so on.  Any thoughts?
>
> - Peter Blaise
>
> PS - At wikimedia.org
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_an_account_on_the_Foundation_
> wiki I read "... [wikimedia.org wiki] is not a discussion place. Only a
> result of discussions on the other places are published..."  and at
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/About_this_site  I read "MediaWiki.org is
> not Wikipedia".


meaning that you shouldn't contribute encyclopedia articles or use Wikipedia
policies there.  It's for the software, not an encyclopedia.

THAT is the problem - we all don't believe in our own
> product or our own producers or our own customers enough to trust them
> and include them with equivalent consideration at all levels!  We might
> say, "How preposterous, to let anyone contribute to foundation


Why would we let them?  It's the corporate website.  Do you have let anyone
have write access to your corporate website?

or
> software projects!"


MediaWiki.org is an openly editable site.

 =8^o  But then, we once said, "How preposterous to
> let anyone contribute to an encyclopedia."  ;-)  Same, same.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>



-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.