Perhaps the most powerful example Wikipedia is CRAP
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:03 pm
Deep sea mining.
Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =826903615
BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt ... sea_mining
I very much doubt any of the people who think Wikipedia is a good idea, a benefit to mankind, something whose faults are minor and fixable by a process of reform, can explain the huge difference in quality here.
If Wikipedia can be this bad at even coming close to replicating what genuine reliable sources are doing for an issue this serious and with this global scale, then what use is it? It's not like the BBC has a special brief to produce this kind of material and the encyclopedia of crapness does not.
The BBC has to do this as merely one part of a wide ranging brief to "inform, educate and entertain" across all areas of knowledge, with what most seem to agree is an insufficient funding model for the purpose. Perhaps their quality here, is an idea they see it as a priority?
A deep dive (yes, intentional) into the Wikipedia page's history, reveals Wikipedia's truth.
The page was created in April 2007, but it only saw five! edits from then to 2010.
It remained a pretty poor stub until User:Unimanmike had a go at expanding it in 2010. In a series of edits, including through sand-boxing, he added 5,657 characters, supported by no less than 23 references (the article's first sight of a reference, at least independent ones).
This was a step change that was never to be repeated. And even their effort was only brief, lasting two months, and the guy's user page seems to indicate why - it was merely practice, or even maybe an actual assignment, for a 1st year university class.
Since then, the article has racked up a miserable total of only 200 edits, and the seemingly more impressive roll call of 127 editors being responsible for that belies the fact the most edits by a single user is just 8, and the vast majority performed just one or two edits (only 22 editors managing the big two). Obviously sandboxing isn't included, because Unimanmike copy-pasted in his efforts, but there's no sign of any later improvements of that kind. Later edits have barely doubled the article's size since 2010. The talk page shows zero sign of human life.
As such, the crapness is easily explained by the fact Wikipedians are clearly more interested in other topics, there isn't a single editor with an identifiable long term interest in it, much less a concerted collective active effort to raise its quality. What little does get done on the page, isn't examined beyond a cursory check that it's not vandalism.
Wikipedia was only ever going to work if it could attract highly motivated experts willing to put hundreds of hours into a topic, or thousands of basically competent editors willing to buy into the process of gradual improvement through small but value adding edits to a topic for years on end, and ideally, both types of contributor working together to produce a quality piece of work on the topic.
Their model has failed here, clearly. Even this idea that controversy=quality, has failed. But sadly, because they have managed to slop something together through simple editing that looks vaguely alright and free of obvious vandalism, certainly better than a blank page, it still somehow merits top Google ranking, way above the superior reliable source given above.
It doesn't seem to be much of a consolation that the Wikipediots themselves seem to recognise their failure, rating the article currently as mere Start class. That they only consider it High on the Importance scale to the narrow field of Mining, is disturbing. Naturally, these are just for internal consumption, and do not affect their Google ranking (or overall reputation) in any way, it seems.
Wikipedia's sheer crapness on this topic illustrates it has absolutely no role to play in human society, certainly not in the identification and dissemination of science and thus by extension the education of the masses on issues of serious importance.
HTD.
Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =826903615
BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt ... sea_mining
I very much doubt any of the people who think Wikipedia is a good idea, a benefit to mankind, something whose faults are minor and fixable by a process of reform, can explain the huge difference in quality here.
If Wikipedia can be this bad at even coming close to replicating what genuine reliable sources are doing for an issue this serious and with this global scale, then what use is it? It's not like the BBC has a special brief to produce this kind of material and the encyclopedia of crapness does not.
The BBC has to do this as merely one part of a wide ranging brief to "inform, educate and entertain" across all areas of knowledge, with what most seem to agree is an insufficient funding model for the purpose. Perhaps their quality here, is an idea they see it as a priority?
A deep dive (yes, intentional) into the Wikipedia page's history, reveals Wikipedia's truth.
The page was created in April 2007, but it only saw five! edits from then to 2010.
It remained a pretty poor stub until User:Unimanmike had a go at expanding it in 2010. In a series of edits, including through sand-boxing, he added 5,657 characters, supported by no less than 23 references (the article's first sight of a reference, at least independent ones).
This was a step change that was never to be repeated. And even their effort was only brief, lasting two months, and the guy's user page seems to indicate why - it was merely practice, or even maybe an actual assignment, for a 1st year university class.
Since then, the article has racked up a miserable total of only 200 edits, and the seemingly more impressive roll call of 127 editors being responsible for that belies the fact the most edits by a single user is just 8, and the vast majority performed just one or two edits (only 22 editors managing the big two). Obviously sandboxing isn't included, because Unimanmike copy-pasted in his efforts, but there's no sign of any later improvements of that kind. Later edits have barely doubled the article's size since 2010. The talk page shows zero sign of human life.
As such, the crapness is easily explained by the fact Wikipedians are clearly more interested in other topics, there isn't a single editor with an identifiable long term interest in it, much less a concerted collective active effort to raise its quality. What little does get done on the page, isn't examined beyond a cursory check that it's not vandalism.
Wikipedia was only ever going to work if it could attract highly motivated experts willing to put hundreds of hours into a topic, or thousands of basically competent editors willing to buy into the process of gradual improvement through small but value adding edits to a topic for years on end, and ideally, both types of contributor working together to produce a quality piece of work on the topic.
Their model has failed here, clearly. Even this idea that controversy=quality, has failed. But sadly, because they have managed to slop something together through simple editing that looks vaguely alright and free of obvious vandalism, certainly better than a blank page, it still somehow merits top Google ranking, way above the superior reliable source given above.
It doesn't seem to be much of a consolation that the Wikipediots themselves seem to recognise their failure, rating the article currently as mere Start class. That they only consider it High on the Importance scale to the narrow field of Mining, is disturbing. Naturally, these are just for internal consumption, and do not affect their Google ranking (or overall reputation) in any way, it seems.
Wikipedia's sheer crapness on this topic illustrates it has absolutely no role to play in human society, certainly not in the identification and dissemination of science and thus by extension the education of the masses on issues of serious importance.
HTD.