From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Reliability" is a pipe-dream - or why WP is and should not be about reliability[edit]

Wikipedia is one of the major success of a community driven development model, to the surprise of everyone, also of unsuspecting founders. Around 2006, WP tried to tackle the suspicion of the traditional media and academia who perceived and called WP uncitiable and unreliable, ending the golden times of embracing and "Wild West" content grow [source]. Successful? maybe, it seems the amount of included sources and citations increased significantly and the verifiablity was significantly improved, we became more transparent and clear what WP is and what not. [source] Suspicion of academia and traditional media, while not fully overcome, is at least not as loud as before. Maybe also only due to missing of alternatives (while first glances already are visible with current improvements of google, FB etc in their algorithms and AIs, striving for making authors or communities bypassable).

So, great is there a problem? Also since 2006 we see a continuously decline in authorship [source] (and following to that the readership). I (and others) believe it is serious problem that WP has lost the embracing capability of the original days, it is practically impossible to start as fresh author anew and contribute to it. Very often an bureaucrat, knowledgeable mostly in the byzantine complexity of the WP policies, will shut good faith contributions down, discouraging any further and future contribution. The policy "don't bit the newbies" seems mostly ineffective. Result is that the authors of WP gets older and seems mostly focus on managing the existing base. Going back to the very origins of WP when a more or less balanced fight between two schools, inclusionists and exclusionists, about the direction of WP raged. Strangely, this fight is not as visible as it was before while having more and more impact on the policies and article work decisions.

  • [the 5 pillars: what is WP about]

- Citation 1: - citation 2: - good criteria and qualities and bad secondary/dervied ones

  • [secondary properties- shifted to primary properties by intermixing: reliability]

- are there reliable media? (no) - what is reliabiltiy? (spectrum) - just a weak metric which should encourage of using better sources when avialable. - now misused as exclusionist mehtod to keeping stuff out: exclusionist love binary metrices which can be checked and keep stuff out

  • [the love for binary / digital metrices of the excluionists]
  • [reliablity is weakly defined, yet it is pushed as major criteria]
  • [Reliability is not verfiability: why mixing both is bad idea]

- circular refferecning of the polcies - secondary quality, presented reliabilty as binary quality (yes/no), overapplied

[Reliability and notability: ]

Wikipedia another exmaple of the "iron law of bureaucracy"

(in progress)

Other stuff[edit]

A Google Custom Search engine is available at

hastemplate:"Infobox software" insource: "Public-domain"

video game preservation[edit]