Jump to content

Proposal talk:WhiteWiki, BlackWiki, GreyWiki

From Strategic Planning
Latest comment: 14 years ago by in topic Already implemented in Flagged Revisions?

Hi, I'm the author of Proposal:Create Scientific, Popular and Hobby encyclopedia levels. User:Brya proposes to merge this proposal with mine. At first sight, they do have a lot in common. Now, let's discuss this proposal and then see where a merger would lead us to. Third, there might be some other proposals also included in a merger (See: Proposal:Create Scientific, Popular and Hobby encyclopedia levels#References).

  1. Summary. Obviously, the main idea of both proposals is identical and the differences are relatively minor. Both state that a "bulk" encyclopedia will be unsustainable in the longer run. Both proposals propagate a three-way division that influences readers as well as users.
  2. Proposal (1). The "White Wiki" should be regarded als identical with the "red road", specialist wiki in my proposal. However, the details now will count heavily. I refrained to speak of peer review, as that would re-create the old Sanger-Wales controversy that caused a split in the wiki movement. User: in his proposal does. There's a very fundamental choice here. If I'm asked how ho establish a specialist encyclopedia without peer review, my only answer would be: 'Establish that specialist encyclopedia and let users choose by themselves if they are capable and willing to operate on that level'. The other way to go here is to invite scholars to review selected articles, for which a procedure is needed and which will definitely need a community decision.
  3. Proposal (2). The "Black Wiki" proposed here, differs completely from the "green road" in my proposal. I will have to ask User: what he means by this. As far as my interpretation goes, you would have certain articles of a more or less controversial nature, all handled at specialist-scientific level, where it proves impossible to deliver one article by several professional users. Be it on history, politics, biology, literature or whatever. A "White Wiki" would then present one view on the topic, a "Black Wiki" would present the conflicting view.
    1. I don't agree with such a division at all. Scientists should be able to present several views on a topic unbiased and complete as part of their skills. In an encyclopedia, scholars from conflicting directions should all be able to coolly summarize the existing points-of-view in a lemma.
    2. Consistent with my idea that a repetition of the Singer-Wales controversy on a worldwide scale is not desirable, I'd rather propose a general-knowledge level encyclopedia (the green road) which presents knowledge as it stands in an easy-to-understand way for a broad public. In fact, Wikipedia could proceed here as it did for the past eight years. The fundamental, state-of-the-art discussions are left to the scientific level, the "green wiki" summarizes all that is known and agreed upon.
  4. Proposal (3). User: proposes a Grey Wiki as the current wikipedia. Our proposals diverge here; actually it converges with my proposal 2. Instead, as I don't propose a 2-way scientific encyclopedia, the third way (in my proposal described as the "yellow brick road") would lead to a "hobby" level encyclopedia. Film, sport, Harry Potter, would belong here with the two-sided advantage that expert users in those fields will be able to express their knowledge to the full, while scholarly oriented writers or readers can concentrate on their own.
  5. Now for the question whether both proposals can be merged. Yes of course, from a distance. The merged proposal should however make clear that some fundamental issues are at stake that can't be blurred.
    1. Is this going to be a peer reviewed encyclopedia, yes or no? Which part, and how?
    2. Do we think that we can sustain a 3 mln article encyclopedia where all that is written is reviewed by exactly the same quality criteria?
    3. Can we assemble wiki encyclopedias for very different public groups while maintaining our five pillars? Neutrality, controllability, no original research, no selfpromotion, free content?

In short, I would suggest to link from one proposal to the other and read the discussions, rather that try to merge them forcibly. For Task Forces that think these proposals are useful, it might be clearer to leave them apart, given the differences are ironed out. But I'm quite happy to leave my opinion for a better idea. - Art Unbound 18:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Already implemented in Flagged Revisions?

Flagged Revisions, although not used yet, have a mechanism to not only check for abuse of obvious errors, but also flag (on a 2nd level) a revision that has been checked for factual correctness. The interface to this is implemented through tabs.

Which Wikipedia is the first to have the resources to not only check for obvious errors, but also factual correctness for a significant number of articles? -- 09:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply