Infodemic

[orangepi]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

[Elinruby]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

[Giraffe Stapler]

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

Yes, but use of jargon and abbreviations is one of the ways that people signal that they are part of the in group. So "aim for neutrality" would just end up being "AFN" anyway.

[Elinruby]

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

Yes, but use of jargon and abbreviations is one of the ways that people signal that they are part of the in group. So "aim for neutrality" would just end up being "AFN" anyway.

true that actually

[orangepi]

There could be a Javascript tool that automagically expanded terms in edit summaries ...

More interesting to me is the difference in part-of-speech. The enwiki term is just "Reliable Sources", not "Use Reliable Sources".

[Hemiauchenia]

I honestly do not know who the target audience is for fictional Wikipedia drama. It just seems like extremely boring subject matter, even to people who actually participate in Wikipedia.

[The Blue Newt]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

Based on other on-line experiences, I don’t think the learning curve problem outweighs the well-meaning ignoramus problem. Being able to identify the folk who didn’t lurk and didn’t read the FAQ is a net positive.

[Elinruby]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

Based on other on-line experiences, I don’t think the learning curve problem outweighs the well-meaning ignoramus problem. Being able to identify the folk who didn’t lurk and didn’t read the FAQ is a net positive.

Hmmm maybe but I think it matters whether the ignoramus is ignorant of what an ANI or an NPOV is or of what it looks like when everybody"s brother's garage ban has an article or there is ni standard format. I'm probably the wrong person to disambiguate this though, because I definitely went from what's an ANI to.being in the middle of SOPA, paid editors and all. I can't say I recommend that process for either the editor or the project though. Definitely wouldn't scale well. Shout-out to I dream of horses (T-C-L) incidentally.

[AndyTheGrump]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

Based on other on-line experiences, I don’t think the learning curve problem outweighs the well-meaning ignoramus problem. Being able to identify the folk who didn’t lurk and didn’t read the FAQ is a net positive.

Yup. The project absolutely requires means to easily identify and obstruct newcomers and/or those unwilling to learn the endless jargon in order to actually function. The 'learning curve' is a fence. Without it, the rate of article decay would rapidly overwhelm it.

Wikipedia only works at all because it works badly.

[Elinruby]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

Based on other on-line experiences, I don’t think the learning curve problem outweighs the well-meaning ignoramus problem. Being able to identify the folk who didn’t lurk and didn’t read the FAQ is a net positive.

Yup. The project absolutely requires means to easily identify and obstruct newcomers and/or those unwilling to learn the endless jargon in order to actually function. The 'learning curve' is a fence. Without it, the rate of article decay would rapidly overwhelm it.

Wikipedia only works at all because it works badly.

I think that's the path of despair. Would schools work better if there were no lessons but you had to pass the tests? Except they were in another language?

That doesn't mean a given volunteer has to coddle every spoiled teenager who wanders into article space mind you. The light bulb has to want to change

[Elinruby]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

Based on other on-line experiences, I don’t think the learning curve problem outweighs the well-meaning ignoramus problem. Being able to identify the folk who didn’t lurk and didn’t read the FAQ is a net positive.

Yup. The project absolutely requires means to easily identify and obstruct newcomers and/or those unwilling to learn the endless jargon in order to actually function. The 'learning curve' is a fence. Without it, the rate of article decay would rapidly overwhelm it.

Wikipedia only works at all because it works badly.

I think that's the path of despair. Would schools work better if there were no lessons but you had to pass the tests? Except they were in another language?

That doesn't mean a given volunteer has to coddle every spoiled teenager who wanders into article space mind you. The light bulb has to want to change

Oh I see not:s a roman à clef. Note to self, click then talk

[rnu]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

that actually seems like a really good idea. The acronyms are the learning curve

Based on other on-line experiences, I don’t think the learning curve problem outweighs the well-meaning ignoramus problem. Being able to identify the folk who didn’t lurk and didn’t read the FAQ is a net positive.

But if you do lurk and read PAGs before editing you're immediately accused of being a sockpuppet because "this editor knows too much".

[owl be it]

Stephen Harrison has a (fictional) book coming out about Infopendium, which is definitely Wikipedia wearing a trenchcoat: https://www.inkshares.com/books/infodemic

The most interesting bit from the sample chapters is that, instead of things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] in the edit summaries, we get Aim for Neutrality and We Need Better Sources.

A fictional retelling of all the COVID-19 arguments on Wikipedia?

[AndyTheGrump]

...
Wikipedia only works at all because it works badly.

...
I think that's the path of despair. Would schools work better if there were no lessons but you had to pass the tests? Except they were in another language?

Despair has nothing to do with it. A simple observation, based on many years of immersion into how Wikipedia operates. It is structurally flawed in multiple ways, but it continues to function. Just as long as you understand that 'functioning' entails continuing to exist, continuing to maintain the online presence that Google etc give it, and continuing to draw in sufficient new contributors to replace those that cease to participate.

Whether it adequately fulfils its self-proclaimed function as an 'online encyclopaedia' or not is another question, which ultimately comes down to opinion on what exactly constitutes an encyclopaedia. That isn't a question I'm trying to answer though, because it tells me nothing much about Wikipedia as a social phenomenon. Which is what interests me on the sort of abstract level that makes trying to figure out how it 'works' worthwhile. If the (tentative) conclusions I reach appear to suggest that Wikipedia works largely by doing the exact opposite of what it claims to do, and by going out of its way to make this as difficult as possible to acknowledge as it can, that's down to what I've seen. Either that, or I'm just a grumpy bastard, predisposed to see flaws and contradictions where none exist. Take your pick.

[Midsize Jake]

I honestly do not know who the target audience is for fictional Wikipedia drama. It just seems like extremely boring subject matter, even to people who actually participate in Wikipedia.

I'd have to assume Wikipedians themselves are the target audience...?

And to be fair, Inkshares is a step above self-publishing, since you either have to win a (monthly, I think?) contest, or sell 750 pre-orders before they'll publish your book. I guess that means congratulations are in order for Mr. Harrison, but then that begs the question of whether he won a contest or sold 750 pre-orders. If it's the latter, then I'm a little surprised he's still a total lurker here on Wikipediocracy — even if he'd only get maybe one or two dozen pre-orders from members, our members (and/or Wikipedians) aren't the only people who visit. (Believe it or not.)

Whereas, if he won a contest with a plot that basically focuses on ordinary Wikipedia editing activity, user politics, and infighting, who the heck is judging the contest?

[rnu]

I honestly do not know who the target audience is for fictional Wikipedia drama. It just seems like extremely boring subject matter, even to people who actually participate in Wikipedia.

I'd have to assume Wikipedians themselves are the target audience...?

And to be fair, Inkshares is a step above self-publishing, since you either have to win a (monthly, I think?) contest, or sell 750 pre-orders before they'll publish your book. I guess that means congratulations are in order for Mr. Harrison, but then that begs the question of whether he won a contest or sold 750 pre-orders. If it's the latter, then I'm a little surprised he's still a total lurker here on Wikipediocracy — even if he'd only get maybe one or two dozen pre-orders from members, our members (and/or Wikipedians) aren't the only people who visit. (Believe it or not.)

Whereas, if he won a contest with a plot that basically focuses on ordinary Wikipedia editing activity, user politics, and infighting, who the heck is judging the contest?

Update: INFODEMIC was one of the winners in the 2020 All Genre Book Contest and will be published. Pre-order your copy today.

[Midsize Jake]

Update: INFODEMIC was one of the winners in the 2020 All Genre Book Contest and will be published. Pre-order your copy today.

Well c'mon, how do they expect people to read that stuff if they put it right at the top like that? Haven't they read The Purloined Letter?

Oh well. I'm still a little surprised that his post count here remains at zero, but to each his own, I suppose.

[tarantino]

Slate's resident wikipedia shill Stephen Harrison has a novel coming out in August titled The Editors.

AIM FOR NEUTRALITY.
WE NEED BETTER SOURCES.
ANONYMITY IS FUNDAMENTAL.
KEEP DEVELOPING.
These are the core principles of Infopendium. Millions trust the online encyclopedia. But who are the people behind the facts?

Morgan Wentworth is an unemployed journalist skirting the edge of eviction in New York City and considering leaving the profession. While researching a freelance article about Infopendium, she meets Alex, a teenage super user hoping to become one of the encyclopedia's powerful administrators.

Across the world in Beijing, Nevin is a Chinese-American editor-for-hire who offers “consulting services” to change the content of certain articles at the request of wealthy clients—including the Chinese Communist Party. But Nevin’s rule breaking has raised the ire of Ed, an old-timer in Kansas who is determined to protect his beloved website at whatever cost.

When Infopendium is attacked and a pandemic disrupts the world, governments, companies, and isolated individuals will struggle for the soul, and the very existence, of humanity's most valuable and vulnerable information source.

Smallbones (T-C-L) gives early praise.

“The great Wikipedia novel. There’s a new adventure on almost every page, and it’s hard to stop reading as you fall down the rabbit hole.” —Pete Ekman, The Signpost

[AndyTheGrump]

I look forward to not reading it with much anticipation...

[The Blue Newt]

I look forward to not reading it with much anticipation...

A book not to be tossed aside lightly.

[rnu]

See also: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13299

[tarantino]

See also: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13299

I totally ignored that topic for some reason.

[Ron Lybonly]

Whether it adequately fulfils its self-proclaimed function as an 'online encyclopaedia' or not is another question, which ultimately comes down to opinion on what exactly constitutes an encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia is redefining public expectations of an "encyclopaedia" compared to the hardbound volumes of the 20th century:

• More comprehensive articles: compare the Britannica entry for Tristan da Cunha vs. Wikipedia's Tristan da Cunha (T-H-L) article (and the associated sub-articles)

• Wikipedia covers everything, especially the interesting stuff like scandals, popular culture and sports everybody prefers

• Less scholarly than predecessors

• Perceived acceptable reliability most of the time vs. the old professionally written volumes. A parallel is 1990 landline voice call quality over fiber lines vs. over crummier 2024 cell connections ("can you here me now")

• Ubiquitous and easily accessed (another parallel to 1990s residential calls vs 2024 cell calls)

• Choppy writing and unbalanced articles (for example, the trivia section may be an article's largest)

• You can fiddle with the articles (but probably get reverted unless you're a regular)

• Some articles may be whitewashed by the subject or their paid editor

If you're under 35, you've probably never used a hardbound encyclopaedia or you were too young to remember now. So Wikipedia is the only "real encyclopaedia" for you. Those decades-old books are now just quaint, limited artifacts from pre-encyclopaedia days.

[Zoloft]

Merged the two topics.