Re:Wikiversity
by notahacker on Monday October 17, 2022 @11:18AM
(#33234708)
> Nice strawman you got there.
> It's not like the only way to contribute is by solving the problem in its entirety
You responded with "go ahead. There's nothing between you and the edit button" to somebody that compared what was actually there unfavourably with a child's book. This isn't an "it's a bit outdated" or "somebody's vandalised the page" problem; literally the only way of solving the problems with that (not unrepresentative) article by editing it would be to rewrite it in its entirety. On Wikimedia's platform, not their own or one of many better-run course creation platforms...
Lack of people interested in contributing is an explanation for lack of quantity of content. But content that makes GPT3-authored content mills look respectable is a quality problem, and that absolutely guarantees lack of adoption[1]. So yes, you absolutely can suggest that the problem with poorly conceived and poorly seeded projects doesn't lie with the critics not getting involved, it lies with the originators not giving them any reason to consider getting involved. And sticking an edit button on things doesn't entitle anyone to a community, not even if they're funded by the Wikimedia Foundation.
[1]tbf the default is for stuff to not get adopted, so questions about attracting contributors are more interestingly framed as why other Wikimedia projects have succeeded (I'd say novelty, fandom and SEO/publicity, not necessarily in that order)
> It's not like the only way to contribute is by solving the problem in its entirety
You responded with "go ahead. There's nothing between you and the edit button" to somebody that compared what was actually there unfavourably with a child's book. This isn't an "it's a bit outdated" or "somebody's vandalised the page" problem; literally the only way of solving the problems with that (not unrepresentative) article by editing it would be to rewrite it in its entirety. On Wikimedia's platform, not their own or one of many better-run course creation platforms...
Lack of people interested in contributing is an explanation for lack of quantity of content. But content that makes GPT3-authored content mills look respectable is a quality problem, and that absolutely guarantees lack of adoption[1]. So yes, you absolutely can suggest that the problem with poorly conceived and poorly seeded projects doesn't lie with the critics not getting involved, it lies with the originators not giving them any reason to consider getting involved. And sticking an edit button on things doesn't entitle anyone to a community, not even if they're funded by the Wikimedia Foundation.
[1]tbf the default is for stuff to not get adopted, so questions about attracting contributors are more interestingly framed as why other Wikimedia projects have succeeded (I'd say novelty, fandom and SEO/publicity, not necessarily in that order)