Re:Wikipedia's Notability Requirements And The Slash
by prodigal_erik on Monday February 14, 2011 @03:55AM
(#2215994)
If Wikipedia just accumulated everything it could, we'd end up with a billion articles 90% of which are vandalized, outdated, mistaken crap. The potential to misinform would be huge. They can only successfully scale the corpus at the rate at which they gain volunteer editors (who are far rarer than people who just write one article about their favorite obscure thing, and then leave).
Re:Wikipedia's Notability Requirements And The Slash
by chc on Monday February 14, 2011 @04:50AM
(#2216129)
It is frankly easier to get a fake article by the editors than a real one. The editors generally do not check articles for accuracy or quality (beyond what a high-schooler with a dictionary could do) — they just fastidiously apply a checklist of rules.
Also, I think it would be easier to get editors if being an editor were more about making the site good and less about dealing with the head cases who currently edit the site. (Nothing personal intended against any individual editors who may be reading — it's just a general reflection of how things look to people who have casually attempted to try editing.)
Re:Wikipedia's Notability Requirements And The Slash
by bluesnowmonkey on Monday February 14, 2011 @05:53AM
(#2216270)
This still sounds like a technical limitation. A page that gets ten hits a year should not demand as much editorial oversight as one that gets a million. Who cares if a long tail article gets vandalized if no one sees it?
It sounds like a missing UI. Something like the ability to show recent changes sorted by the pages' popularity. Too simple?
Re:Wikipedia's Notability Requirements And The Slash
by arethuza on Monday February 14, 2011 @04:06AM
(#2216024)
If something is vandalized or mistaken then delete it, if it is outdated then there should be some kind of long term archiving policy but I fail to understand the reasoning behind deleting articles which are factually correct, even if rather obscure. What harm do they do?
These programming languages aren't non-existant, and can be verified as actually existing. It's not that there are no references to it.
On top of that, i'm still unclear why it would even matter? Things with little interest will generate little traffic. The potential to misinform is pretty low. And if it were to be the case that an article that was incorrect (maliciously or not) were to suddenly see an increase in traffic, presumably that can only serve to encourage people to point out inaccuracies and correct them (treating fictionalized accounts of anything as being an inaccuracy). And wikipedia already has a mechanism for resolving synonymy and name-resolution disputes.