Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Objections archive

Waste of time?

Adam's comments were copied from the project page.

This is all very well, but there cannot be a "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team" until there is a Wikipedia:Version 1.0 for them to edit: that is, a body of articles which is protected from editing by people other than the Editorial Team. Why should people put time and effort into editing these articles if they are subject to the same kind of ignorant vandalism as are all other Wikipedia articles? Has Wikipedia agreed to create a privileged class of editors and to permanently protect the articles they edit? I think not. Secondly, what are the criteria for admission to this team? Is it open to anonymous or pseudonymous editors? Or is there going to be a process of credentialing, including disclosure of real names? Adam 10:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Who can be on the team:

Right now, anyone. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am open to other ideas. If a consensus develops to restrict the team in some way, so be it.

• Why should anyone do this when the articles are not protected:

We can list article versions here. If the article worsens, the team will still have its version handy.

I am not saying that anything about this, including the result, will be perfect.

I see it roughly as a matter of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Apparently, discussion of a 1.0 version has been around for about a year. This Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team is something tangible that interested people can work on while anything better does, or does not, develop.

For the sake of discussion, let's say imagine that such a scenario as you suggested above develops. That will take time: time to persuade others, time to decide which editors are in the privileged class, etc.

In the meantime, this team can lay the groundwork. For one thing, we expect to work on articles that are most likely to be included in any limited version. Improving and screening those articles would reduce the work needed for any more-refined efforts later. And for the people doing that groundwork, it could be a better use of our time than working on narrow topics less likely to be included in a limited version. Maurreen 13:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that is realistically ever going to happen on wikipedia. Too many people would be against those ideas. Given that, I think there are two options: proceed with trying to get a "1.0 version" (whatever that might mean) done within the current system, or create a fork of wikipedia that implements the system you describe. Waiting for the changes you want is not an option if 1.0 is ever going to become a reality. Shane King 01:41, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Shane, I don't get your point. As far as what's not going to happen on Wikipedia, are you talking about Adam's ideas or mine? Maurreen 01:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was replying to Adam's ideas. The idea of a priviledged class of editors who can protect articles from non priviledged editors has close to zero chance of ever being accepted. If Adam says 1.0 can't happen without it, then basically he's saying 1.0 can't happen. Shane King 05:54, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Goal and process

It's probably more useful to start by defining what we want 1.0 to be, and then discuss what means might be adopted for getting there. My definition of 1.0 is an online (not paper) encyclopaedia which consists of a body of articles which are (a) comprehensive (b) reliably accurate (c) properly edited and proofread and (d) stable (ie, don't change all the time). One way to achieve this is to have a class of articles which are declared to be finished and then protected from general editing. There may be other ways to achieve this objective. Perhaps other users can suggest some. Adam 06:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is precisely the "open cabal" I was joking about: a group of editors, operating openly, watchlisting "1.0" articles, and who will generally defend "1.0" articles against detrimental edits. I think it's a strength of Wikipedia that nothing is ever really finished -- even on an obscure historical subject there can always be new evidence -- but there are (even now) plenty of articles where most edits are detrimental.

This does not mean that every change to a "1.0" article should be reverted, but it certainly means that a "1.0" version can be identified and it presumably means that new material should be held to the same high standard already applied to the old. This last is the hardest. It probably means that new material should be clearly identified as such; if it is inserted without references, such references should be sought; if it it inserted with references, those references should be checked (although there may be such a thing as editors sufficiently trusted that there is no need to check their references: I think most of us recognize some this way on an ad hoc basis). I do a good bit of this already, watchlisting a lot of articles, sometimes actually going out and finding references for other people's additions, other times just flagging in the talk page (for example) that a particular statement was inserted anonymously without references and I consider it suspect, other times reverting. I try not to do too much of the last, at least not without discussion, because it really pisses people off.

If we can be confident that a given article has been thoroughly fact-checked, then it's a lot easier to know that from then on when an anonymous person comes along and (for example) changes a date without making a comment, this is vandalism, not a legitimate correction.

Over on the "forum" it could be really valuable to build up more of an identified pool of mutually respectful editors who trust each other's intellectual honesty and expertise in certain areas. Probably each of us who has done a lot of editing on Wikipedia has come to have our trusted people we turn to when we need expertise on a given subject-matter area where our own knowledge is substantial but not expert. It would be great if we can build up more of a "web of trust" in this respect. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:34, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel.

I have some agreement with Adam. For example: I believe that defining a goal is useful. I value accuracy and editing. As a practical matter, articles would protected when, for example, any product is at a printer. But overall, I disagree with protecting articles from general editing. Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Language style, etc.

Jguk's questions copied from the project page.

Am I right in saying that Version 1.0 is a hard copy (ie book) of Wikipedia articles? If so, would the book not need to use consistent formatting, words, style, etc. etc.? Does this mean some form of International English is to be imposed on certain articles, or am I mistaken? jguk 22:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Version 1.0 might be a paper book. It might be a disk. The final media is not important to me right now.
• Are you really asking about British or Commonwealth English? I think varieties of English in Wikipedia needs its own discussion page somewhere, but not here.
• I don't see any reason why we wouldn't follow the current Wikipedia style guide. Maurreen 01:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I also don't see any relation between the media used and style for the language. Maurreen 02:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Only that a CD, or a book even more, would probably want a consistent style throughout on matters where the web site is laissez faire. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:36, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm...I agree with Maurreen here; I don't really see that we need to make a print/CD edition any more consistent in style than the edition on the Web. — Matt 09:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I think you're wrong. I think in a static medium it's rather annoying to the consumer to have a lack of consistency. You're not after all going to be presenting it as an ever evolving project that the consumer themselves can be part of. I feel that a consumer who can be a participant might feel "Well, I can live with inconsistencies because I can lay a brick or two myself" but a consumer who is just a consumer is liable to think "That house has not been built with any regard to standards".Dr Zen 13:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't think style inconsistencies are that big a deal. (We do, of course, have a basic style guide which can be adhered to). When researching, we switch between dozens of sources at a time, all of which use totally different styles — it's not something that really bothers us, right? I think consistency of style is an aesthetic property that is secondary to other features such as completeness, accuracy and neutrality. I agree that it's desireable; what I doubt is whether it would be worth the massive effort. — Matt 13:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I disagree strongly with Matt. Who wants a hard copy encyclopaedia that has its articles in a variety of styles of written English. One article in US English, the next in UK, then the next adopting another style, etc? It would look like a confusing mish-mash - which is exactly why publishers have prescriptive style guides that require one acceptable style over another. If Version 1.0 does not ensure consistency of style, it will be a very poor read - I can imagine the reviewers' critiques already! I'm surprised by Maurreen, does she think all her work on the Raleigh News and Observer is unnecessary as any old written style should really suffice? :) jguk 19:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "Dr Zen and jguk: Do you have any practical suggestions on how to accomplish what you want? Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • I respond to this, by asking what I see to be a very pertinent question, below. jguk 10:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Sorry for the late answer. Yes, I do. Don't make a paper or CD version. Dr Zen 00:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This seems just silly. That fact that you don't have any interest in a project is not a reason for others not to do it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Who would want to buy our beautiful roses?

Let me ask a fundamental question. Is a paper or CD-ROM version of Wikipedia anything anyone will actually want to buy/use? There are many good detailed encyclopaedias out there. Why would I want Wikipedia1.0 written in a mish-mash of eclectic styles instead of one of the already established fully researched and generally consistent tomes? For me, the answer would be no.

Wikipedia's advantage is in its breadth and instant adaptability. It is not known for its good writing and consistency of style. This is not a problem for a website: I look at the good bits and I try to improve the bad bits. I do not see how it would be possible to transfer the best bits from Wikipedia to hard copy form whilst not merely exaggerating the worst bits. (By the way, I don't want to be a party pooper, but I do wish to question, before you get carried away, as to whether this project is actually worthwhile.)

At the moment, we only have about 450 articles worthy of "featured" status, and about a dozen or so of those are "featured article removal candidates". It would be better if we worked up more. On one point I do agree, it would be good if the main category headings such as "Culture" were properly worked up to featured status. May I suggest the project looks more towards making "featured articles" of these first? jguk 10:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Featured articles

So what's the difference between marking up as suitable for release and marking up as a featured article? jguk 20:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Right now, we don't mark a particular version as featured.
2. I think we are leaning toward a higher standard of citation of sources, but with less concern for things like every article having a picture.
3. The FAC process as it stands right now requires something close to unanimity across anyone who wants to get involved; we might have a smaller consensus group.
4. Some articles might be rock solid but without potential for a long article. There is generally a presumption against featuring a very short article. See, for example, Apopudobalia.

There's probably more, that's off the top of my head. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:51, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism is necessary for improvement - Don't get trapped in groupthink!

• Hey, I think it's OK for people to critique the concept - responding to objections helps refine the concept and improve it. In that spirit, let me raise some thoughts:
  • Wikipedia's strengths are breadth and cross-linking. Take advantage of that. For example, robots have added almost every location in the United States to Wikipedia. Most articles link to every location of interest in them. Consider this option:
    1. Add functionality to links so they can be annotated
    2. Request that all locations be linked and where possible annotated with a date
    3. Add functionality to the edit pages to ask people to annotate location links with dates when they save an article without date annotation
    4. Go back and fix all the old articles that have unannotated location links
    5. Use the back link functionality to publish an atlas of all locations in the United States, no matter how small, complete with a history of every event of note that ever occurred in them based on back links
  • Wikipedia is unlikely to ever be able to compete with publications like Encyclopaedia Brittanica on depth or quality of individual articles... so why try?
  • Physical media - including DVDs - is really obsolete. Instead of going for physical media why not think about ways to have a different view of the online Wiki with just your selected content and organized in the way you think best?
• Mike Friedman 03:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right now, I am more interested in the quality of the articles (such as the accuracy, comprehensivenss, references, and writing). Maurreen 07:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think you can separate these issues the way you seem to want. Until you understand your purpose you can't set reasonable standards. Your standards will obviously be completely different depending on whether you want to develop an open source competitor to Britannica vs. producing a comprehensive historical atlas that lets people look up every important event that ever happened in a particular location (my idea above) vs. something else. This is a bit like someone saying "Right now I'm more interested in the route we're going to take rather than what destination we should pick". Cart is before horse!

Spirit of wiki

Stable articles? A paper encyclopaedia? Privileged editors? Is that what everyone did it for? Dr Zen 13:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only sense in which I want cerrtain editors to be "privileged" is either by a mutual consensus in which they reinforce each others decisions or by a consensus of the general Wikipedia population to privilege their edits. This all falls within the existing consensus model. As for stability: sure, in practice good articles already get pretty stable. Paper? Sure, and all sorts of other media as well.

I edit a Seattle Crisis Resource Directory. We think of our online version as the master, but we still try to put out a paper edition every few years. Some people prefer that as a way of getting information. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:29, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen is, like many people, treating the process as more important than the product. I agree that the open wiki method is an excellent process for generating large quantities of "raw material" for an encyclopaedia. It is less excellent at turning that raw material into articles of encyclopaedic standard - comprehensive, accurate, balanced, copyedited and stable. Stability is an essential component of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia will not be trusted or worthy of being cited unless its articles say the same thing today as they said yesterday. The method of achieving that is what is being discussed here. It is not true that "in practice good articles already get pretty stable," at least not in the fields of politics and history. Adam 02:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but the process is all! I agree totally with Dr. Zen. The beauty of Wiki is its openness - Wiki is a dynamic process, not an archaic static encyclopedia. It should not be reduced to just another encyclopedia - there are plenty of those. No paper - no CD version, that would spoil the beauty of it - and its value. Encyclopaedaic standards don't apply - this is a new universe. If stability requires articles say the same thing today as they said yesterday then the spirit of Wiki is dead. I don't think we want that. Forget the encyclopaedic standard, that paradigm doesn't apply. -Vsmith 03:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A print version doesn't have to be at the expense of an online version. The online version will always be (on the one hand) more current and (on the other) less reliable. They meet different needs. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Nothing is lost by having a print version. All that says is "here are some good versions we like",and provide more coverage for the goal of spreading cheap/free knowledge to everyone we can. The online version does not need to change in response to this. Lyellin 04:43, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dr Zen and Vsmith. The apparent dichotomy between process and product is a false one, because it's the unique nature of the process that leads to the unique product, and it's the uniqueness of the product that makes the process exciting. Wikipedia is a living thing: like everything that's alive, it has infections, tumours, breakdowns, pretty bits and bits we feel ashamed of. But the essence of the project is that it lives, which means it's constantly changing. To produce a static version would be to lose its essence so that it becomes like any other encyclopaedia. Regarding the idea of printing it, who would pay for that? The aim of Wikipedia is to make knowledge free. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales, July 2004. It's a noble aim which shouldn't subverted or diverted. I disagree that a print version wouldn't affect the online version. It would affect it by tying up some good editors.

Wikipedia would benefit from an advisory group of academics who can make fast decisions about the quality of an article where there's a dispute involving academic vandals (I'm thinking here of the LaRouchies and the Stalinists) with the power to ban them instantly, rather than force editors through a time-consuming mediation process. I would see this advisory group as Wikipedia surgeons cutting out tumours before they spread too far. But I wouldn't want to see the open nature of the project changed, or a closed encyclopaedia spin-off with good editors giving up time to work on that instead. This is as revolutionary as Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie was in its time, except this is an infinitely greater watershed because the world is actually writing it, making it an unprecedented experiment in the democratization of knowledge. I hope the best editors will stick with it. Slim 05:24, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely with Slim's last comments, which is why I continue to devote time to Wikipedia despite frequent frustrations. It has the potential to the 21st century of Diderot's encyclopaedia - the sum total of human knowledge all in one place. That's why I am opposed to trying to produce a paper encyclopaedia. But to achieve that potential, there do have to be some changes, and achieving some degree of stability and quality control is the most important of those. Adam 09:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. This specific project is not intended to spawn a privileged class of editors.
2. I do agree that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process could stand to be improved.
3. I see no way in which this specific project would detract from Wikipedia as it now exists. I don't see how it would tie up editors. We're essentially just editing and tracking the topics we deem most "encyclopedic."
4. Regardless of the media, form and process, I think Adam and I, or maybe all of us, have at least some similar goals. I probably differ with Adam on the specifics of quality control.

Maurreen 10:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to further the support of Dr Zen. A small number of people choosing which articles are the 'best', however they define the criteria, is contrary to the whole objective of Wikipedia. The best possible way of choosing articles is the wiki, ie one of peer review by thousands of individuals. The current existing method is the most democratic you can possibly create, with our current technology. If you see the desire to publish the encyclopedia in any way other than its current electronic format, go ahead, but do it wholesale. Publish the whole thing! The quality of the vast quantity of articles would FAR outweigh the occasional discovery by the casual user of a dodgy article, and would in fact encourage their participation in the development of the most up to date (online) version. The great beauty of wikipedia is that its errors and failings spur each and every one of us onto greater efforts to improve it. Don't destroy that simply to produce a copy of Encyclopedia Brittannica. Mark Lewis 18:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly as opposition to the "Version 1.0" idea, and a preference for making no formal distinction between poorly written, under-researched, and even sometimes wildly biased articles and those which meet criteria such as those under development on this project page? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is I would go so far as to prefer a minute number of poorly written, under-researched, and even sometimes wildly biased articles as opposed to stringent criteria open to systemic abuse by a select few. I think that the whole point is that Wikipedia will never be complete to a standard to which all members agree, and selecting a smaller number of 'agreeable' articles contradicts what so many people joined up for. Articles will never remain poorly written, under-researched and wildly biased if they are allowed to be freely edited in a widely-accessible format. I feel terrible for having given the impression that I would like to remove the whole idea as I appreciate the effort and dedication that has already been made, but I do have some basic principles which do not agree with a small number of non-specialists deciding which articles fill criteria upon which primarily they have decided. If the publication of 'acceptable' Wikipedia articles were to be made, a far wider process must be adopted. Also, on a practical note, internet access to what is almost completely up-to-date information is infinitely more valuable than a quickly dated article on a subject that, at the time of selection, may have passed the criteria with flying colours. Thanks, Mark Lewis 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I think you misunderstand what we're doing. We have no intention of "stringent criteria open to systemic abuse by a select few" or not allowing articles to be "freely edited in a widely-accessible format". Concerning wider processes, we're as open and wide as Wikipedia is. Maurreen 06:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest an analogy - the wikipedia is the code base for an open source project, and any trusted version would be a "distribution". That is, a selection of that code base that has been more rigorously tested. In information use, there are many users of information that are risk adverse - they would rather not know everything that is right, so long as they can be sure that what they have is right. This is equivalent to testing the drivers that come with a Gnu-Linux distribution before release. What we should be looking for then is a way to create "distributions" from the source code.

Looked at this way, one prong is to find ways of rating articles for their trustworthiness, and the other creating a system for rating editors for their trustworthiness. Editors rate particular articles, and the more trusted an editor is, the more weight their vote carries. This would provide a way for emergent standard of wikicredibility to emerge, and give others a way of creating their own editing or checkings strategies. Yes there would have to be a class of editors who work on making sure that wiki is "distributable". Yes it is more cumbersome conceptually than appointing people.

Articles can be rated for content, level of technical expertise and controversy - as already are being so ranked informally by the various means - and this could form the basis for an activity which would make "articles" into "distributable" articles. Essentially a clean up stage, and the cleaned up article goes into the distribution area. As is the case in most of wiki - the policy should be to widely extend the privilege, and then revoke it for those that abuse it. My suggestion is to set some lower bound on number/bandwidth of edits - because such editors have established some degree of credibility.

Make it a tab on the page tool bar, and have a list of steps that are required to reach distribution status, and then, when these are done, have a way of voting, just as we do for featured article status.

This will mean that the distribution process will be piggy backed on the current editing process, and, over time, people will make edits with the view towards making the article distributable more easily.

Stirling Newberry 01:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, that has potential. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Approval mechanism. Several methods have been suggested and it appears none have gained much steam. Maurreen 06:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I can see, what we need is a second-order approval system, as we already have the first - the editability of wikipedia. The vital thing is, I feel, that it should be just as democratic. Because of that, I support Stirling's suggestion. Perhaps another tab on the top of every article allows an individual to rate the article on certain aspects, for example neutrality, completeness, accuracy, quality of writing, necessity of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Those with ranking above a certain cut-off point (eg 9/10?) are automatically noted as included articles.

There are several problems that I see. This does raise the question of broken links (CD-ROM version), and controversial subjects which may be arguably essential for a complete encyclopaedia being absent. Also, I do not necessarily agree with the 'vote-weighting' as everybody should have an equal right to vote.

NB - I would dearly love to see a time when the entire wikipedia could be published as CD-ROM or other form, but readers could note the quality of any article they have selected as voted by Wikipedia editors/users. This avoids the need of a cut-off point or any final selection procedure, as readers can select it themselves, whilst being well aware of the risks. Thanks, Mark Lewis 23:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blanket response to disagreement with essence of project

The goal of this specific project is to collaborate essentially to find, screen, develop or maintain (or all of those) articles appropriate for a paper or "release" version of Wikipedia.

So far, our plan is to:

1. Start at articles corresponding to top-level categories.
2. Work through them alphabetically.
3. Branch out from there.
4. List the articles we work on here, with their status.

For the people who are against a paper or "release" version: It's not even a given that such a thing will happen. But my intention is to work toward having a subset of articles that is worthy of such a thing. I cannot fathom how that can in any way be a bad thing to do.

For anyone with disagreement about the essence of this specific project: Wikipedians all work on Wikipedia in their own way. The people who choose this way don't need justification. The people who choose another way don't need justification. I cannot understand any conflict between the two. Maurreen 11:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)