82
Wikipedia’s Pyrrhic Victory (www.newyorker.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One “very senior Wikimedian,” we are told, “came to think of the project as a ‘city built by Asperger’s.’ ”

If you get the paywall, it's readable at http://archive.today/R2rnW

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 2 weeks ago (30 children)

Sounds like the only real problem is all those jackass "deletionists"...

If an article is so niche no one ever looks at it, then it eats up zero bandwidth. Just the data storage for a small text file.

Nothing should ever be deleted, there's no fucking benefit to that

If they weren't acting up, then activity dying down wouldn't matter

It's the biggest repository of human knowledge ever, it existing and being freely accessible to the planet is massive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    If non-notable articles were never deleted, millions of people and companies would create articles about themselves for promotion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    Self promotion is a different rule that exists. Also, their threshold for what constitutes 'notability' is ridiculously arbitrary and bureaucratic, or at least it was in the past. I doubt it's changed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    It's notable if there are reliable sources about it. If there are no reliable sources about it, you wouldn't be able to write much about the topic anyway. Unless you conduct your original research.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    So? If the information they provide is accurate, what's the big deal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago

    Because an encyclopedia with millions of promotional articles would lose not only its objectivity, but also crater the standard of quality of the average Wikipedia article.

    The Cebuano Wikipedia is the poster child of a project expanding beyond its scope: millions of articles generated by a bot with no one there to edit them after they're created.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago

    Just the data storage for a small text file.

    That's not true. It's an entry in a database. That means it has to be indexed for search, and counted for "all pages where..." types of queries. It has to be replicated between database shards. You scale up your number of records, and you start hitting database, application, and operating system limits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    But if they stop keep deleting “niche” content from Wikipedia, then people won’t have to use Fandom instead.

    You know, the commercial, ad infested wiki that was also founded by a Wikipedia co-founder.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 weeks ago*

    I don't like Fandom as a commercial platform any more than you do, but in-universe topics for niche fandoms simply don't belong on Wikipedia; they would make it harder for editors to focus copyediting time on articles that matter far more to most people.

    There are nonprofit wiki farm alternatives to Fandom that are a better solution to that problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -2 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

    It’s the biggest repository of human knowledge ever

    Internet Archive and Libgen are incomparably bigger.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    I mean, a municipal dump contains arguably many more printed words than Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it contains more information, nor is it easily cataloged for access.

    I'm noticing a pattern of you reducing arguments down to meaningless and out-of-context metrics in this entire comment section.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Have you actually ever used Libgen and Internet Archive (its book collection specifically)?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Yes. Libgen.whatever is a russian-operated "free" library.

    I can find José Saramago books there, but no info on the author himself.

    Are you trying to compare libgen with Wikipedia? They don't really serve the same purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    “free” library

    Pirate library. I don't think this aspect has to be downplayed.

    I can find José Saramago books there, but no info on the author himself.

    You can find his biographies, criticism, analyses, the very sources that Wikipedia is using.

    They don't serve the same purpose, correct. But as far "repositories of knowledge" go (the phrase that kicked off this sub-discussion), they count as such, and they are massive, I have no doubt they're bigger than WP. English Wikipedia has 7 million articles while Anna's Archive (which mirrors Libgen and a big part of Internet Archive - but far from all of it!) says it has 70 million books and 200 million articles. Cut the number in half, or even in third due to duplicates if you want, to get a more realistic number, it's still bigger.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Pirate library

    Sure, yes. Acknowledged.

    It is true that the referenced information is present in libgen, but it is not succinctly summarized for consumption, and that is the function Wikipedia fulfills for most users.

    I can understand the pitfalls of allowing updates from the public, but I think it's widely accepted that Wikipedia does more good than bad.

    It's really difficult to understand your point of view on this, especially when you indulge in semantics arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    but it is not succinctly summarized for consumption, and that is the function Wikipedia fulfills for most users

    You may have noticed that this is precisely what I've disagreed on with two other users in this thread, who claimed that Wikipedia should contain as much information as possible. I agree with you, it is good to have an encyclopedia that summarises the most important, and directs towards further materials for further deeper study.

    Again, the point I disagreed on with the other poster is simply on what's the "biggest repository of human knowledge ever". You seem to agree that the shadow libraries are bigger, and that settles it, we don't have to disagree further. Being the biggest repository does not, of course, mean that it should be the only repository, that others are bad, or whatever else. Different repositories can fulfill different roles in the sharing of knowledge.

    I can understand the pitfalls of allowing updates from the public, but I think it’s widely accepted that Wikipedia does more good than bad.

    I don't think I disagreed with the latter point, except when I mentioned the smaller borderline fascist wikis somewhere ITT. When it comes to English and some other large WPs I definitely don't disagree.

    Maybe you're just supposing that we disagree on something when we really don't, so you can't lead the discussion to the point where we'd finally clearly disagree. I provided some criticism of Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I think it's bad wholesale. Wikipedia is complicated. I've spent quite a while editing it, as well as using traditional encyclopedias. I just negatively reacted to some comments in this thread, the harsh dismissal of traditional encyclopedias, and the somewhat overrated view of Wikipedia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    The reason I down voted you is you're ignoring duplicative information...

    And mainly because instead of asking questions to learn, you just went off with a halfbaked thought and presented it like it was fact.

    Do better

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    I certainly ignored "duplicative information", because I don't even know what those words are supposed to mean.

    You haven't asked any questions either, you made up a claim and are now seemingly very insulted when an obvious correction is pointed out. Those two sites contain hundreds upon hundreds of thosands of entire books, entire encyclopedias, and god knows how many scientific articles, inevitably way more stuff than Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia editor should have them open in a tab while editing ready to verify the existing sources and look for new ones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (7 children)

    because I don’t even know what those words are supposed to mean.

    How many websites about Pokemon do you think are archived?

    How much of that info is duplicative (meaning it exists multiple times)?

    If 2 gigs of data all says charmander evolves into charazard, why is that worth more than a single text string saying it once?

    You haven’t asked any questions either

    I already understand it...

    You don't even know what "duplicative" means, and were too lazy to even look it up, you just wanted to argue about how your opinion matters more than facts.

    marked by duplication

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplicative

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    With no context I didn't know what you might have meant by "duplicative information". Now it makes sense, apparently you think Internet Archive is just Wayback Machine, with its archived duplicate Pokemon websites. Which is comically false, try to dial down your arrogance. Perhaps you could have asked questions about whether I really think Internet Archive's collection of Pokemon sites contains more knowledge than Wikipedia, or maybe something else:

    As of July 2013, the Internet Archive was operating 33 scanning centers in five countries, digitizing about 1,000 books a day for a total of more than 2 million books, in a total collection of 4.4 million books – including material digitized by others and fed into the Internet Archive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    What did they do with the books after they scanned them?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Made them free to access and download, if the book is in the public domain or under a Creative Commons license. Allowed limited access if copyrighted (through some weirdly legal solution where they technically "loan" the book to you while you view it in your browser), although that option has been partly limited in the recent years due to lawsuits by book publishers.

    https://archive.org/details/texts

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    Congrats bud.

    You kept going long enough I'll never try to clarify anything for you again, every single reply you make to one of my comments from here on out will not receive any further clarification and you'll always believe it's 100% correct.

    It won't be, but I won't see it to tell you that anymore.

    So you win, enjoy it.

    Edit:

    2-0 bud!

    Apparently I blocked your original account already, the streak continues

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •