Article quality criticisms

Quality of Wikipedia writing questioned

Last Monday, an essay critical of Wikipedia prompted Jimmy Wales to raise the issue of how to improve the quality of writing in Wikipedia articles, conceding that there were significant problems in some areas.

The essay in question was posted by business journalist and author Nicholas Carr on his blog 3 October. Its focus was actually on the Web 2.0 concept, and Carr gave it the title, "The amorality of Web 2.0". His reflections were prompted by media coverage leading up to this past week's Web 2.0 Conference, and the idealistic notions of people like conference organizer Tim O'Reilly. Carr argued that although the technology behind the Web is fundamentally amoral, the glowing rhetoric around it is creating a quasi-religious fervor and contributing to the "cult of the amateur".

As an example of this phenomenon, Carr turned to Wikipedia, saying, "If you read anything about Web 2.0, you'll inevitably find praise heaped upon Wikipedia as a glorious manifestation of 'the age of participation.'" His own assessment: "In reality, though, Wikipedia isn't very good at all." To support this, he quoted passages from the articles on Bill Gates and Jane Fonda that he described as "an incoherent hodgepodge of dubious factoids", adding that these were representative of much of Wikipedia's content.

Wales observed that while he generally disagreed with Carr's argument, the Fonda and Gates articles "are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment." He opened a mailing list discussion exploring how this type of situation can develop and what could be done to correct it. This prompted a variety of responses: Stan Shebs commented that some well-meaning contributors make edits that, while not vandalism, aren't improvements either, and this sometimes causes articles to deteriorate over time; Charles Matthews highlighted the point that Wikipedia's policies for fostering more professional writing focus on factual disputes (neutral point of view, no original research, and citing sources) rather than "style crimes".

The discussion broadened to cover the challenges of producing featured articles (see related story). One observation made was that it seems easier to develop a quality article about an esoteric subject than a general one. Wales also clarified that his goal is for Wikipedia to be better than the Encyclopædia Britannica, period, and that being free is not a justification for inferior quality.

On Thursday, Carr followed up his original post by quoting a message from David Gerard, which conceded much of Carr's criticism but arguing, "if we want a good encyclopedia in ten years, it's going to have to be a good Wikipedia." Carr closed by saying, "as I feel we're mainly in agreement, I'll leave it there."

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

There are other major problems also worth addressing. The common one of these is that articles are pitched at too high a level. See, for example, Chromosome. I can't see why we shouldn't have an article a layman can understand on this, perhaps with still having technical details right at the end under a heading "technical details" that a layman can safely ignore. At present, it has no value to me. Nor can I help simplify or refactor it, because I have so little idea of what is going on. We are lucky to have many experts around on Wikipedia, but unfortunate in that too often they write articles that only other experts will understand. jguk 06:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should make it clear that while technical articles are great, and we really want the important verifiable details, that can be done and still have an accessible overview for the layman. Maybe we should even strengthen policy recommendations to say that all articles should be focused on the average educated person with details only an expert could understand in their own subsection or according to Wikipedia:Summary style, in a sub article. As to quality issues, I've said it before, the radically open process is great as a start, but it can only get most articles to a certain level. To get to a significantly higher level of quality, it will require some type of stable branch where only qualified writers and editors can edit. Some system would have to be found to identify those editors, perhaps in a RFA like manner. - Taxman Talk 12:17, 11 October

2005 (UTC)

We don't have to compromise the openness of editing. We can integrate the products of the future Wikipedia DVD with our openly edited articles. The most important articles will go through a careful editing process for the DVD version, which will also be published on the website. The checked articles will be displayed in a top box with a clear "verfied version" label, while a bottom box contains the "live version". This way those seeking to just learn info can read the top box, and others drawn into editing their area can hop to the bottom and improve the article even more. lots of issues | leave me a message 04:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0