11–20 of 78 posts
It seems to me that the wikipedia model works because/when corrections are at most as costly as introducing the error.
But then the Dutch started using bots to inflate their article count... which was ok for a year or two but then other wikipedias started doing the same thing. Now I watch edit number of edits.
I don't care that bots are used, but article counts are completely useless in comparing wikipedias and it didn't used to be that way. Sure there were better measurements, but article counts were still pretty good.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wikipedi...
Perhaps even sites like 9gag or similar could start out with some computer generated memes ;)
I'm not very in-tune with Wikipedia's culture (which, I've read, is very nuanced and rigid[1]), but I really don't see why this is a bad thing, given the information in the articles is accurate (and the article gives the impression that glitches are rare). If nobody else was going to create an article about some species of butterfly, I don't see why adding that information would be harmful to Wikipedia. Does it make…
I'm not very in-tune with Wikipedia's culture (which, I've read, is very nuanced and rigid[1]), but I really don't see why this is a bad thing, given the information in the articles is accurate (and the article gives the impression that glitches are rare). If nobody else was going to create an article about some species of butterfly, I don't see why adding that information would be harmful to Wikipedia. Does it make…
Reading the article, I think some of it is more of a "why?" than a "why not?", since the articles are factually correct but are mostly just lists of facts and not really something you couldn't find in any number of other resources. For people who do serious article writing, I imagine this might be considered as a "cheapening" their work. For instance, I imagine some editors also resent the notion that encyclopedia ed…
The same should be able to be said about everything on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not supposed to have original research and should have a source for everything.
The "Why?" would then be "Because it is better to search for [obscure butterfly] and find a short list of fact than to search for that butterfly and find nothing at all."
I would rather have a bot written stub than nothing at all when I search in Wikipedia. Like it is mentioned in the story, some subjects are under represented while others are super saturated.
I used to like watching the article counts on this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias But then the Dutch started using bots to inflate their article count... which was ok for a year or two but then other wikipedias started doing the same thing. Now I watch edit number of edits. I don't care that bots are used, but article counts are completely useless in comparing wikipedias and it didn't used to…
Wiki "size" = [Number of Articles] - [Number of Stub Articles]
Is this metric actually useful for anything, other than as a curiosity? If I were multi-lingual and was trying to decide which wiki to use, I'd go with whichever wiki was in my primary language. If I did not find the information I was after, I would check the other wikis for the same article (nicely listed on the left portion of the screen).
I'm not very in-tune with Wikipedia's culture (which, I've read, is very nuanced and rigid[1]), but I really don't see why this is a bad thing, given the information in the articles is accurate (and the article gives the impression that glitches are rare). If nobody else was going to create an article about some species of butterfly, I don't see why adding that information would be harmful to Wikipedia. Does it make…