On 20/09/2010 04:21, Robert S. Horning wrote: > On 09/19/2010 06:52 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: >> On 20/09/2010 00:26, Robert S. Horning wrote: >> >>> >>> I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is, so I'm just making a >>> raw conjecture here that is completely unsupported by facts other >>> than perhaps by general observations: >>> >>> Is it possible that the problem with the humanities-related >>> articles on Wikipedia has more to do with the lack of an existing >>> culture of "copyleft" or public domain collaboration? It has >>> taken literally decades of effort that go back even a couple of >>> decades earlier of similar efforts to put together what is today >>> the "open source movement" that has produced things like Linux, >>> the GNU tools, and software like Apache. Wikipedia is a product >>> of this environment too, where many of those who have >>> participated in developing open source software don't hesitate to >>> at least add a couple of paragraphs to Wikipedia. >>> >>> >> Linux, Apache, and the GNU Tools were the work of a handful of >> people. Others have come along and added a bit here or there or >> fixed something or other but I bet that if I were to look at the >> core source code for Emacs to day it wouldn't be that much >> different from when I worked on it 20 years ago. >> >> Software changes either work or they don't and any change ought to >> be testable to demonstrate that it adds some new feature or fixes >> something broken. But there is a problem with software changes in >> that most changes tend to degrade the overall quality of the >> product in some way. Overtime, unless someone steps in and does a >> rewrite the code becomes a mess, and it happened one change at a >> time. >> >> The same is true of wikipedia articles, edit by edit, they tend to >> degrade. There comes a point when they are 'done' and they knob >> polishers need to be told to bugger off and leave them alone. >> > While I appreciate extending the analogy, you are missing my point > here. Geeks have been used to the philosophy of collaboratively > written documents (including software) for quite some time and this > was ingrained into at least a significant sub-set of technologically > minded people for quite some time. It is this culture of sharing > with one another and having no stigma of sharing your work and > letting potentially millions of others poke at your work, tweak it or > even trash it. >
What????? The chances of you or I being able to just chance the core code of Linux is zip, nada, ain't' gonna happen matey. Before anything goes back its going to have to have passed a whole load of tests, and it will be reviewed by experts in the code/subject area. The Open source software that matters is tightly controlled. > It isn't just this software but the tens of thousands of other > applications that have been built and shared with the world. > Wikipedia was formed from this community where sharing this kind of > information was even a second nature. Indeed it has been encouraged > for people of a technical nature to share the information they know > with one another. > > What I'm trying to point out is that a similar sub-culture within > the community that works on arts and literature is such a minority > that you might as well not really pay attention to it. Certainly > academia isn't embracing Wikipedia for multiple reasons. That may be > part of it as those in an academic situation tend to be a minority in > technical fields but tend to dominate those with studies in the > humanities. They are also hesitant to work collaboratively and even > when that happens it tends to be very small groups... not groups of > dozens or hundreds involved. A paper on physics may have hundreds of > co-authors, but a similar academic paper on Greek Mythology may only > have a couple authors or a single author. This is a cultural > difference that can't be understated. > When you have 100s of authors tweaking and adding stuff you tend to end up with at best a turgid mess. Which is why people are saying that the articles are worstening over time. Gerard says that the mathematics were improved by a handful of people getting together and fixing the mess. Back in 2006/7 it was awful and the physics was even worse. If it ain't been locked down the janitors will degrade their work with minor tweaks soon as night follows day. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
