WP:V, always good for a yuck or two...

[SB_Johnny]

I'm with Jimmy on this one. That thread is almost blog post worthy.

[EricBarbour]

"not transcription monkeys", eh? They're monkeys of some kind. Lulz-monkeys, perhaps.

[The Garbage Scow]

"not transcription monkeys", eh? They're monkeys of some kind. Lulz-monkeys, perhaps.

Yeah, the kind that throw their poop.

[The Wife]

I'm with Jimmy on this one. That thread is almost blog post worthy.

The time frame overlaps with the time one of the writers, dmcq, charged JJB, the friendly bystander I encountered, at AN/I. At AN/I Dennis and DGG misrepresented the friendly bystander who was actually trying to clarify how WP policy works by working within the rules.

[Hersch]

It's a problem like the Parmenides paradox, or the question of whether Certs is a candy mint or a breath mint. The solution lies "outside the box," and in this case, remember that the evil genius behind this policy was Slim Virgin. To understand the policy, you must grasp the fact that it was written to allow Slim to do what she wants to do (but not necessarily to allow others to do so.)

[The Wife]

It's a problem like the Parmenides paradox, or the question of whether Certs is a candy mint or a breath mint. The solution lies "outside the box," and in this case, remember that the evil genius behind this policy was Slim Virgin. To understand the policy, you must grasp the fact that it was written to allow Slim to do what she wants to do (but not necessarily to allow others to do so.)

The historical context changes everything in a flash of light. Thanks.

[oscarlechien]

The thing is: according to this very policy, they are transcription monkeys. They really are not supposed to do anything more than mindlessly quote the sources, taking content which is almost certainly in copyright and spitting out "free" content.

There's no getting around that, in spite of what Jimbo thinks...

[The Garbage Scow]

The thing is: according to this very policy, they are transcription monkeys. They really are not supposed to do anything more than mindlessly quote the sources, taking content which is almost certainly in copyright and spitting out "free" content.

There's no getting around that, in spite of what Jimbo thinks...

Correct. According to the policies as they stand, anything else is WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Jimmy may think that "Verifiability not truth" is nonsense and I may even agree with him, but that's not what the policies say. But try revising those policies and see how far you get. A good policy should be written in such a way that it is crystal clear and leaves little to no room for interpretation. Unfortunately, the fact that he thinks people are misinterpreting that policy proves that Wikipedia's policies are poorly written, rife with convenient loopholes and ultimately useless unless you're part of the power base establishment who can manipulate those policies to fit their whims.

[The Wife]

The thing is: according to this very policy, they are transcription monkeys. They really are not supposed to do anything more than mindlessly quote the sources, taking content which is almost certainly in copyright and spitting out "free" content.

There's no getting around that, in spite of what Jimbo thinks...

Correct. According to the policies as they stand, anything else is WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Jimmy may think that "Verifiability not truth" is nonsense and I may even agree with him, but that's not what the policies say. But try revising those policies and see how far you get. A good policy should be written in such a way that it is crystal clear and leaves little to no room for interpretation. Unfortunately, the fact that he thinks people are misinterpreting that policy proves that Wikipedia's policies are poorly written, rife with convenient loopholes and ultimately useless unless you're part of the power base establishment who can manipulate those policies to fit their whims.

Precisely, and this is not the only policy wreaking havoc. Some well-intentioned guys would like to understand how notability applies to television shows, sporting events, poker competitions, lists of minor planets, and lists of centenarians among other things. ArbCom threats are hanging over their heads.

[SB_Johnny]

The thing is: according to this very policy, they are transcription monkeys. They really are not supposed to do anything more than mindlessly quote the sources, taking content which is almost certainly in copyright and spitting out "free" content.

There's no getting around that, in spite of what Jimbo thinks...

Pretty much like DMOZ (see other thread). Not that there's anything wrong with anonymous people doing thankless drudgery because they feel like it's a good hobby (that's what I was intending to do when I was "active"), but that's not how it actually works... it's become all about the drama and wikiluv, rather than the content.

[Volunteer Marek]

The thing is: according to this very policy, they are transcription monkeys. They really are not supposed to do anything more than mindlessly quote the sources, taking content which is almost certainly in copyright and spitting out "free" content.

There's no getting around that, in spite of what Jimbo thinks...

Correct. According to the policies as they stand, anything else is WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Jimmy may think that "Verifiability not truth" is nonsense and I may even agree with him, but that's not what the policies say. But try revising those policies and see how far you get. A good policy should be written in such a way that it is crystal clear and leaves little to no room for interpretation. Unfortunately, the fact that he thinks people are misinterpreting that policy proves that Wikipedia's policies are poorly written, rife with convenient loopholes and ultimately useless unless you're part of the power base establishment who can manipulate those policies to fit their whims.

The real problem is actually different (as they used to say in the home country "Socialism bravely overcomes problems not found under other systems!"). So say you let people do some OR and SYNTH and relax the "not truth" aspect. Then you're gonna get a bunch of immature, ill informed and crazy people deciding what "truth" is and doing the OR and SYNTH. Not sure that'd be an improvement. Instead of transcription monkeys "washing" copyrighted content into "free" content you get all the POV pushers, agenda driven admins etc.

The real problem can best be seen by comparison with how real encyclopedias work. Do the writers of real encyclopedia articles do some SYNTH and OR - sure within reasonable limits. But then again, these are people who are credentialed and usually solicited to do precisely that (and of course they make mistakes too, and sometimes grind some axes). But Wikipedia "anyone can edit". So it's not gonna work.

To relax the "not truth" rule you would first need to get rid of the "anyone can edit" rule. In fact, in an indirect way, the very existence of the "not truth" rule is an admission that "anyone can edit" is probably a dumb way to write an actual encyclopedia (though not necessarily to build a high-traffic website).

[The Wife]

The thing is: according to this very policy, they are transcription monkeys. They really are not supposed to do anything more than mindlessly quote the sources, taking content which is almost certainly in copyright and spitting out "free" content.

There's no getting around that, in spite of what Jimbo thinks...

Pretty much like DMOZ (see other thread). Not that there's anything wrong with anonymous people doing thankless drudgery because they feel like it's a good hobby (that's what I was intending to do when I was "active"), but that's not how it actually works... it's become all about the drama and wikiluv, rather than the content.

Amen!

[The Wife]

The real problem is actually different (as they used to say in the home country "Socialism bravely overcomes problems not found under other systems!"). So say you let people do some OR and SYNTH and relax the "not truth" aspect. Then you're gonna get a bunch of immature, ill informed and crazy people deciding what "truth" is and doing the OR and SYNTH. Not sure that'd be an improvement. Instead of transcription monkeys "washing" copyrighted content into "free" content you get all the POV pushers, agenda driven admins etc.

The real problem can best be seen by comparison with how real encyclopedias work. Do the writers of real encyclopedia articles do some SYNTH and OR - sure within reasonable limits. But then again, these are people who are credentialed and usually solicited to do precisely that (and of course they make mistakes too, and sometimes grind some axes). But Wikipedia "anyone can edit". So it's not gonna work.

To relax the "not truth" rule you would first need to get rid of the "anyone can edit" rule. In fact, in an indirect way, the very existence of the "not truth" rule is an admission that "anyone can edit" is probably a dumb way to write an actual encyclopedia (though not necessarily to build a high-traffic website).

Is commercializing a project like this likely to yield a better result?

I realize it may not be a great question and you may not be interesting in opining. It's a question my mind keeps coming back to.