 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
I do not believe that
Wikipedia is failing. However, nothing is perfect; there are several places where Wikipedia can be improved. I'm creating this page as a centralized place where the problems with Wikipedia can be listed, and a solution found. Since the focus of this page is to find a solution, problems without a solution (like world peace the end of vandalism on Wikipedia) are not useful additions, nor are problems which are already solved (or that are not actually a problem in the first place).
The amount of edits per minute on the Recent changes keeps increasing; more and more vandalism is starting to slip through the cracks. Not only that, but the time until it's fixed is also increasing (sometimes over a week on egregious vandalism; for instance [1] which was only reverted 11 revisions later [2]). The amount of deletion backlogs is also growing.
Possible solutions
- Bring AntiVandalBot back.
- More automation.
- Coordination of efforts - Get 48 (or 96 for redundancy) people to sign up to review all edits for a half hour period each day. When they have done so they update a page to show the check has been completed. If someone is unavailable another person is brought in to cover. Et cetera.
- "Mark as Patrolled" <- a feature already available in mediawiki, allows you to systematically check all pages. User:Henna's vandalfighter can make use of this flag too. This feature needs to be turned on for en.
A lot of the documentation on how things should be done on Wikipedia is hard to find, missing, incomplete, outdated, confusing, or even downright wrong. This is not much of a problem for experienced editors (who can usually, after just one or two tries, guess the correct words which, when prefixed by WP:, Wikipedia:, or Help:, lead to a helpful redirect), but can be a stumbling block for new users. The several variations of welcome templates help, but not every new user gets one of them.
Possible solutions
- Something like Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia, a new page in projectspace as of January 2008, can help.
- Combine policy articles that overlap to reduce redundancy.
Blatant vandalism can be dealt with quickly; however, some problem people can drive other editors away from an article, a subject, or even the whole Wikipedia, without doing something which would lead to being blocked for more than a few hours each time. These problem people usually do not contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia (they often do the opposite), while the editors they drive away usually would make a positive effect.
Possible solutions
- Allow for an administrative Three strikes law giving harsher punishments under certain circumstances.
Some subjects are hotly disputed, with large segments of the population having differing opinions. On Wikipedia these topics are subject to ongoing disruption. Even when a reasonable compromise is worked out there are always new people coming along later who weren't parties to it and won't agree. While the controversy lasts disputes over the content of articles about it are guaranteed.
Possible solutions
- Some form of 'stable versions' - allowing edits to continue, but establishing some version of the page as 'official' and unchanging until a newer version is approved.
- Protect all contentious articles and establish a class of users who are allowed to actively edit protected articles - people who do not edit war, insert POV, et cetera.
Wikipedia has an inherent 'reliability gap' in comparison to paper encyclopedias in that, at any given time, information which hasn't been verified could be included in a Wikipedia article. Even if we were to somehow go through every article and verify that every detail were supported by the cited references the next day there would be a host of new unverified information. We watch this, and people familiar with the subject frequently remove or challenge questionable material, but it can never be as certain as an unchanging printed article that has been gone over in detail by fact checkers.
Possible solutions
- See 'stable versions' under possible solutions to contentious articles above.
There are several bots which do useful tasks, for instance archiving talk pages several times a day. If one of them stops working, the tasks it would do often get delayed or done poorly (the reason bots are used is not just for convenience; the tasks they do tend to be boring and repetitive). Several of the bots are controlled by a single owner, meaning the bot will either stop or be blocked (for being a bot with nobody responsible for it) if the owner gets temporarily or permanently absent (the reasons can vary; for instance, a recent absence was caused by a phone cable being damaged by a storm).
Possible solutions
- Use several bots working together, like is done by the three HBC AIV helperbots.
- Use bots which are controlled by several users (so, if one becomes absent, another one can still control the bot).
- Ensure that bots are all GPLed and the code published online, so other people can take over running the bot in case the original author drops it
- Permit emergency-shut off to all editors in good standing. Listen respectfully (with AGF) to the editor's concern before restarting the bot.
Wikipedia is a major target of typosquatters. Some of these websites are rather harmless, but trick the user into thinking it is the real site. Other sites distribute malware forcibly to the victim. People seeing these sites might think the real wikipedia itself is the site they're visiting, and this could cause wikipedia growth to decline. some of these sites wrongly have a motive for profit. We need to do something
Possible solutions
- Force a lawsuit against these sites
- Buy these nasty, malicious URLs from the owner, which unfortuneately encourages typosquatting
- Permanently ban malicious programs from infiltrating the Internet
Wikipedia has an immense coverage of articles, but unfortunately, not immense enough. There are thousands, if not millions, of topics that someone may want to look up that wikipedia does not have, but that search engines are full of. This may draw attention away from wikipedia, therefore encoraging less editors and further maintaining the huge shortage. We need to somehow encourage more editors to contribute to the encyclopedia to achive its goals, to compile human knowledge. Any notable topic widely found elsewhere on the net should be included in wikipedia.
Possible solutions
- Encourage more good editors by making wiki less problematic
- Encourage editors to be bold in creating new articles that wikipedia does not yet have
- Directly inform editors visiting the wiki to be bold in creating, improving, and maintaining articles
|
| This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
I do not believe that
Wikipedia is failing. However, nothing is perfect; there are several places where Wikipedia can be improved. I'm creating this page as a centralized place where the problems with Wikipedia can be listed, and a solution found. Since the focus of this page is to find a solution, problems without a solution (like world peace the end of vandalism on Wikipedia) are not useful additions, nor are problems which are already solved (or that are not actually a problem in the first place).
The amount of edits per minute on the Recent changes keeps increasing; more and more vandalism is starting to slip through the cracks. Not only that, but the time until it's fixed is also increasing (sometimes over a week on egregious vandalism; for instance [1] which was only reverted 11 revisions later [2]). The amount of deletion backlogs is also growing.
Possible solutions
- Bring AntiVandalBot back.
- More automation.
- Coordination of efforts - Get 48 (or 96 for redundancy) people to sign up to review all edits for a half hour period each day. When they have done so they update a page to show the check has been completed. If someone is unavailable another person is brought in to cover. Et cetera.
- "Mark as Patrolled" <- a feature already available in mediawiki, allows you to systematically check all pages. User:Henna's vandalfighter can make use of this flag too. This feature needs to be turned on for en.
A lot of the documentation on how things should be done on Wikipedia is hard to find, missing, incomplete, outdated, confusing, or even downright wrong. This is not much of a problem for experienced editors (who can usually, after just one or two tries, guess the correct words which, when prefixed by WP:, Wikipedia:, or Help:, lead to a helpful redirect), but can be a stumbling block for new users. The several variations of welcome templates help, but not every new user gets one of them.
Possible solutions
- Something like Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia, a new page in projectspace as of January 2008, can help.
- Combine policy articles that overlap to reduce redundancy.
Blatant vandalism can be dealt with quickly; however, some problem people can drive other editors away from an article, a subject, or even the whole Wikipedia, without doing something which would lead to being blocked for more than a few hours each time. These problem people usually do not contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia (they often do the opposite), while the editors they drive away usually would make a positive effect.
Possible solutions
- Allow for an administrative Three strikes law giving harsher punishments under certain circumstances.
Some subjects are hotly disputed, with large segments of the population having differing opinions. On Wikipedia these topics are subject to ongoing disruption. Even when a reasonable compromise is worked out there are always new people coming along later who weren't parties to it and won't agree. While the controversy lasts disputes over the content of articles about it are guaranteed.
Possible solutions
- Some form of 'stable versions' - allowing edits to continue, but establishing some version of the page as 'official' and unchanging until a newer version is approved.
- Protect all contentious articles and establish a class of users who are allowed to actively edit protected articles - people who do not edit war, insert POV, et cetera.
Wikipedia has an inherent 'reliability gap' in comparison to paper encyclopedias in that, at any given time, information which hasn't been verified could be included in a Wikipedia article. Even if we were to somehow go through every article and verify that every detail were supported by the cited references the next day there would be a host of new unverified information. We watch this, and people familiar with the subject frequently remove or challenge questionable material, but it can never be as certain as an unchanging printed article that has been gone over in detail by fact checkers.
Possible solutions
- See 'stable versions' under possible solutions to contentious articles above.
There are several bots which do useful tasks, for instance archiving talk pages several times a day. If one of them stops working, the tasks it would do often get delayed or done poorly (the reason bots are used is not just for convenience; the tasks they do tend to be boring and repetitive). Several of the bots are controlled by a single owner, meaning the bot will either stop or be blocked (for being a bot with nobody responsible for it) if the owner gets temporarily or permanently absent (the reasons can vary; for instance, a recent absence was caused by a phone cable being damaged by a storm).
Possible solutions
- Use several bots working together, like is done by the three HBC AIV helperbots.
- Use bots which are controlled by several users (so, if one becomes absent, another one can still control the bot).
- Ensure that bots are all GPLed and the code published online, so other people can take over running the bot in case the original author drops it
- Permit emergency-shut off to all editors in good standing. Listen respectfully (with AGF) to the editor's concern before restarting the bot.
Wikipedia is a major target of typosquatters. Some of these websites are rather harmless, but trick the user into thinking it is the real site. Other sites distribute malware forcibly to the victim. People seeing these sites might think the real wikipedia itself is the site they're visiting, and this could cause wikipedia growth to decline. some of these sites wrongly have a motive for profit. We need to do something
Possible solutions
- Force a lawsuit against these sites
- Buy these nasty, malicious URLs from the owner, which unfortuneately encourages typosquatting
- Permanently ban malicious programs from infiltrating the Internet
Wikipedia has an immense coverage of articles, but unfortunately, not immense enough. There are thousands, if not millions, of topics that someone may want to look up that wikipedia does not have, but that search engines are full of. This may draw attention away from wikipedia, therefore encoraging less editors and further maintaining the huge shortage. We need to somehow encourage more editors to contribute to the encyclopedia to achive its goals, to compile human knowledge. Any notable topic widely found elsewhere on the net should be included in wikipedia.
Possible solutions
- Encourage more good editors by making wiki less problematic
- Encourage editors to be bold in creating new articles that wikipedia does not yet have
- Directly inform editors visiting the wiki to be bold in creating, improving, and maintaining articles