ericbarbour wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:49 pm
wexter wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:58 pm
with less than 1% of content being of encyclopedic quality
Where's YOUR study?
Wikipedia's own statistics, definitions, and metrics
Currently, out of the 6,648,601 articles on Wikipedia, 37,666 are categorized as good articles (about 1 in 177)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles
"They are well-written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information"
"an article that meets a core set of editorial standards"
It works out to .6% - that are certified to be
accurate to a set of editorial standards that are written well enough to be read (the articles marked good are subject to degradation over time -- Even the "editorial standards" are nebulous and ill defined, perhaps the good nominated articles are swarmed by the army of zealots)
My estimate is that more like 10-15% of it is "best" quality.
--You could very well be correct that 15% might be considered "best quality"
--I am sure a greater number of articles then 15% are "correct" in part
--Perhaps Wikipedia would be OK enough; were the "information contained" evaluated contextually
The correct context is that;
--We are talking about an "entertainment platform," "a "social network," and "a revenue stream for Google via search/advertising"
--The world is calling an entertainment venue a participatory encyclopedia" run by a non-profit and dominating search, the combination of which, provides all sorts of PR cover.
--Wikipedia is OK enough as entertainment
vs a real encyclopedia that nobody is interested in -
in the good old days encyclopedia volumes were entertainment in the bathroom for sure;
100K fact-checked, objective articles at your fingertips -- Trust Britannica Library as a reliable source with objective, fact-check, and unbiased content that is written by experts and vetted through rigorous editorial process.
We have a "mostly correct" encyclopedia versus a "mostly wrong" entertainment venue/social network that everyone "thinks" is an encyclopedia that (Thanks to Google being cheap/lazy monopoly) dominates search and cannot be avoided.
B& Banned as a qualification
The editors/administrators/arbitrators/founder/foundation employees are free to do whatever they want to do, they can have whoever they want on the platform (keep/ban), they can be whoever they happen to be, they can act poorly to each other, and it makes no difference to me. It is not personal....
--by trying to approach editing "with clean hands" found
-----few people are involved in any meaningful way
-----it is difficult to develop content on the platform (creating an article, improving an article, or even a minor grammar correction)
-----capricious and arbitrary governance of the platform
-----no internal controls whatsoever except he said/she said
-----toxic --most people will reach the conclusion that there is no upside
(the ones that don't realize there is only downside are retained)
Why I hate Wikipedia
-I want to have better information, of higher quality (the trend is to have folks repeating bad information from a smaller number of profit minded only sources).
-I want to be able to read things in "English" (that are well written and concise)
-Details may be presented (many of them) that lack organization, weighting, context, thinking
-Don't lie to me and everybody else (it is not an encyclopedia - not even close, narrative framing, conventions reliable sources etc, parroting)
-There is no opt-out from search
-It has a huge moat
-It is illustrative of the whole information landscape (degraded over my lifetime) and our oligarchy
-It was a great idea when it started, it could have been great, when it transitioned to a bad idea it was institutionalized
Why do you hate Wikipedia
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."