User talk:Adam Carr/proposal

Welcome to the discussion

---

Comments

Can i comment on this? Delete this if I'm not. Do you not that this proposal is a bit too close to the failed Nupedia project? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

this sounds really interesting. some of the ideas above I would support as well. Maybe we can find a middle ground between those from Nupedia and the current Wikipedia? Where could we start a discussion forum on this? Gryffindor 23:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Nupedia and I don't know why it failed. Perhaps someone who knows can tell me. Adam 02:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I'll just say that your comment regarding "only Users who have good English" would probably be shot down faster than JFK walking through the halls of the CIA in 1963, but some of your proposals certainly throw some interesting ideas into the ring. I don't think I've ever heard anyone dispute the edit history section, and I don't know how easy it would be to regulate the User-to-Editor process (it would become like VfD at the moment - people would only care when their friends were involved). But all in all, some interesting thoughts. Unfortunately, the forum for change isn't as democratic and free-speech-for-all as the rest of Wikipedia, so these proposals might just fester as a user subpage for a while. Harro5 10:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have now read the Nupedia article. What a pity this project was not persevered with. Perhaps the time has now come to revive it, using the vast quantity of material at Wikipedia as raw materials for a body of stable, peer-reviewed articles which can be added to Nupedia as a "higher-level" version of Wikipedia. I might suggest this to the Prince of Wales. Adam 10:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

comment

Dr Adam Carr:

Your proposal to reform Wikipedia is quite impressive, however I have a few issues with your proposed policy which I have outlined below. Firstly, while it does seem like quite a good idea to have only registered users post to Wikipedia, I don’t think your idea about having these users only able to register with an IP-based email is a very good idea, for several reasons: - There are those among us who have no IP-based emails, and it would be incredibly elitist to suggest that those who cannot afford their own internet connection have nothing valuable to contribute to Wikipedia. My wife and I share the same IP-based email, as my whole family uses our IP registration to connect from home; your system would prevent my wife and me from having separate accounts. It is a common situation for whole members of family to share their IP-based emails, and use separate web-based ones for individual emails. This also extends to my children, who use my logon to our IP, but have their own Yahoo accounts. Are they to be prevented from registering with Wikipedia just because I have already used our IP-based email on my account? Other members of the community use the internet from places such as public libraries or universities; many university students cannot afford their own internet connection and therefore their own IP-based email, but could potentially be valuable contributors to Wikipedia. - In addition, there are those who do not wish their IP or real name (often in their address) to be used for registration to web sites and would feel insecure about typing their address in, even if it was kept secret. - Thirdly, how do you propose that IP-based emails be automatically detected from web-based ones? While I admit to being not extremely knowledgeable when it comes to technical matters, I understand that either some sort of filter or manual checking would have to be employed, both of which have great margin for errors and the latter being exceptionally time-consuming. There are obscure IPs and obscure web-based emails, how do you check? If the registration process was fairly time-consuming, and needed one email (even a web-based one), that would probably knock out a fair few vandals anyway, as a whole lot post occasionally just using their IP addresses. Secondly, I feel that the Completed Article status has some flaws. Although there are articles where everything that can be said has been said, and all that is ever added are frivolous or incorrect comments (and/or vandalism, edit wars), there are also articles that need to be updated constantly. Take, for example, some articles I have been recently contributing to, such as articles on child actors including Dakota Fanning. Dakota’s article is fairly good as it stands, and could be counted as a Completed Article. Yet, every time Dakota gets a new film role (every few months) or wins a new award, her article has to be updated to be entirely accurate. It would be easier if this could be changed just quickly, rather than having to go through a panel and week-long process to see if everybody agrees on the few lines that will insert Dakota’s new film. I feel it is a bit unnecessary to stop the “public” (non-registered users) from reading earlier versions of pages and talk pages. Talk pages can often contain informative discussions about the topic in question, including information still relevant but not entirely suitable for the article. Also, it’s quite hard to access earlier versions of articles, with several links having to be clicked on from a main article’s page. I’m sure everybody who looks at previous versions knows what they’re doing and how they got there. In the extremely rare cases when they go to extraordinary lengths to find a ridiculous past version of a page, they will probably be sensible enough to know that they should take information with a pinch of salt and use other sources to back it up (as you even should be doing with current articles on Wikipedia). Those are just a few of my comments, Dr Carr, and I hope you find them interesting and relevant. I look forward to us having a good working relationship together from now on. --203.173.8.12 04:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree and disagree

Hi,

I agree with your goal of producing a stable Wikipedia, and a system similar to the current Wikipedia:Featured articles could work: once nominated, seconded and voted on, the article is frozen; any proposed change would then have to go through a similar process of being seconded and voted on; everything on the consensus system.

I think requiring a login for edits is fine; requiring a non-hotmail address is not, as it excludes too many people. I don't really like the edit-prohibition for new users: often, new users just want to change a little typo or factual mistake they spot; I think that's how most of us got started here. Furthermore, many frustrated new users will then go ahead and think up new topics, just so that they can create an article to present the point they were trying to make.

I am very much against your proposal of hiding history and talk pages. In fact, I keep telling people: whenever you want to research a topic in Wikipedia, in addition to reading the current version of the article, you need to check both the discussion page and history list, to learn about recent edits, edit wars, content controversies and the agendas of the different contributors. This complete transparency is the finest feature of Wikipedia: no POV pusher can ever hope to hide their tracks. In fact, this is a huge advantage we have over traditional media (where the agendas are always hidden and no record of changes is ever kept), and we should not give it up. (There is also a copyright licensing issue with hiding the history page: the GFDL requires that we acknowledge writers. Personally, I don't care for formalistic legal arguments like this though.)

Cheers, AxelBoldt 20:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Haukur's comment

Some interesting ideas you've got there but I imagine they'd make the place a bit too bureaucratic if implemented. I think that, in the end, we might as well accept that while Wikipedia has some unique advantages over traditional encyclopedias it will also have some faults which they do not have. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that Wikipedia works fine as it is. We have to accept the weaknesses it has, IMO. splintax ^(talk) 10:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit histories

You propose that edit histories should be visible only to registered users. This violates the GFDL as this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. Let me quote following point from section 4.I:

Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page

At times I wonder how people can ignore the license they put their contributions under even if they have submitted impressive 20,000+ edits. --AFBorchert 09:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about such matters. My proposals are designed to facilitate the building of an encyclopaedia. If that entails technical or legal changes I will leave that to technical people and lawyers to sort out. Adam 10:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. I think the completed article idea is good. Most encyclopedia's will take a few years to update each section with the latest and most relevant news. Wikipedia is not a news source (WikiNews is). Thus, this should not really matter. Most changes to a completed article, to reflect changes in the world, can probably occur in a week to a month I would say. No biggie.
2. I use Hotmail and G-mail. I understand why you say that, it creates a better knowledge of who people are, but it also limits out a lot of university students, (such as me)
3. The User/Editor difference you have is interesting. Currently, it is the other way around. IP addresses cannot create articles, only edit. I see advantages in both ways
4. I would like to see a box below the main edit box for references to be added to. No article would be created without something being in that box (and if possible, it being an actual reference).
5. No comment about the rest of it really.

Keep trying to improve Wikipedia, it will get better with smart changes. --Midnighttonight 08:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For point 4, i like it how it is. Everyone can create articles about things they think are important - enen if they do not wish to create an account, and can correct mistakes if they wish. I understand they might do bad things here, but thats just something we have to live with.

Comments

I have to say that I disagree with quite a bit of your proposal. I'll take it in steps:

• I don't think that only registered users should be able to do anything here. The reason that Wikipedia works (and that Nupedia failed) is that most experts (or people who are good at a subject) are like my dad: they don't do anything unless they get something back from it, be it publicity or money. Wikipedia takes a huge number of people who know a small amount of something, and makes it very easy for them to put that something in. The people who actually care about the encyclopedia and its mission are far less, and your proposal would only really let them in.
• I disagree. Many people do not have an email address, or do not have an IP-based one. I'm 14. I don't want a family account that I have to share, so I use GMail. Why block me? I think that the 24-hour wait is good, because it easily screens out vandals without inconveniencing others too much.
• I disagree for similar reasons to those above (1st point). Your motivation is, I assume, to make identifying vandals much easier, because their vandalism is on its very own page. However, the most valuble contribution is sometimes the little one made by someone who doesn't have much to share. They would never get promoted to Editor status, and Wikipedia would miss out.
• I don't think that such a beurocratic promotion process would work, simply because very few people would bother with someone they didn't know, and the system is ripe for cheating. I think that people without necessarily perfect english should be allowed, although it is good to be sure they understand Wikipedia's style.
• No. The whole point of a wiki is that they are constantly changing, and that is the strength of Wikipedia. Wikipedia can stand up to Britanica without having expert editors because its content it constantly changing, without any beurocracy to stop it. Also a process of this sort would not allow anything like the number of articles we have here at the moment, because of the sheer time it would take.
• My objections to this are above (5th point).
• I disagree entirely. If Wikipedia is to be a credible encyclopaedia the public must be able to see what has gone into the article, and what has been thought. Wikipedia's mission is not to be a professional encyclopedia, with the work hidden away behind a glossy verneer. Wikipedia presents its readers with an unguaranteed cake, and they can only trust the cake if they see what has gone into it.

I don't have much else to say. I would be grateful for your comments on my comments. Daniel (☎) 15:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement

I think that your ideas would, indeed, solve the problems that you cite; however, in my opinion, they would strike at the heart of what Wikipedia is. What would be the point of not being able to edit via IP? It is even easier to track a vandal via IP, as it requires a time-consuming process to find IP given a user account name, and it is IP that allows you to track which computer a vandal is editing from and thus block that IP and any user accounts that edit from that IP. Why, also, would we make articles "complete"? We could no longer call ourselves a wiki if there are articles that cannot be edited. Protecting an article is all very well, but I believe that that should not be applied because an article is good. How do you know it could not be made better? A time-consuming consensus process in order to edit an article goes aginst the heart of Wikipedia. Imagine a Wikipedia in which the entirety of the encyclopedia is semiprotected and the best articles are fully protected. That is not the Wikipedia that it was founded to be. These suggestions are not a good idea. Alethiophile 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I shall leave you with a quote which I think summs up why some articles should be "moved to a higher plane" or protected. It is some good food for thought.

A wiki (or any community) is started with a mission (GoalStatement, SuperordinateGoal). People come together, build a community, and work towards the common goal. Then the goal is reached - at least 95% of it - so there isn't much left to do. The community lives and wants to live on, but focus has been lost and SignalToNoise starts hurting.

--DennyCrane Talk 05:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree / comment

I generally disagree with the spirit of the proposal. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." You remove the "anyone can edit" and you're left with something that was Wikipedia, but isn't anymore.

Specifically, I object to the User/Editor distinction process. As a Wikignome I'm not great at writing in encyclopedic style, but I can fix spelling errors and tidy up pages. If you screen too strongly, you lose a large part of the population that works behind the scenes to help keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Not everyone contributes by making huge edits.

And to comment, what the hell is an "IP-based email address?" (Do you know how email works?)

--Chris (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply

The general tenor of recent responses is that the structure of Wikipedia can't be changed because the continuation of Wikipedia as an open-access wiki is more important than whether the stated objective of the project, creating an encyclopaedia, is achieved or achievable under that structure. I disagree. My view is that the product is more important than the process, and that the interests of readers are more important than the interests of editors. I think the wiki model has many strengths, and has allowed the creation of a large body of content in a fairly short time. But it also has its weaknesses, and until these are addressed the objective won't and can't be attained.

The most glaring weakness is the absence of any real quality control, which means that although we have a million articles, the majority of these are below encyclopaedic standard, and many are declining in quality. I don't accept the common view that there is a "law of steady improvement" at Wikipedia. In fact, based on three years observation, I believe there is a "law of gradual deterioration", particularly with large articles of high public interest. (Franklin D. Roosevelt is a classic example.) The second problem is Wikipedia's inability to protect itself against cranks, cultists, vandals and (a recent problem) campaigns of deliberate defamation. Unless these issues are addressed, Wikipedia's quality and credibility will not improve, and in fact will decline. An encyclopaedia with no credibility is not worth writing for. Also, if the present situation continues, Wikimedia will sooner or later cop a massive defamation suit and will not have a legal leg to stand on.

It is frequently objected that tightening up editing requirements, by abolishing anonymity and casual access, will drive away some editors and potential editors. Probably it will, but if so that is an unfortunate but necessary consequence of solving Wikipedia's structural problems. Far too many people see Wikipedia as an adventure playground where anyone can do anything they like. Wikipedia does not exist for the amusement of editors, but for the service of readers, and where these two roles clash, the interests of readers must come first. To be blunt, Wikipedia does not need more editors, and could well do without some current editors. What it needs is fewer but better editors, and more attention to writing quality articles than to indulging endlessly proliferating trivia.

Specifically in reply to Chris above - no, I don't really know how email works. What I meant was that I favour a system whereby all editors must supply their name, address and email address on registering as editors, and that this should not be a transient hotmail address, so that all edits can if necessary be traced to a real person. This is the only way I can think of to make it clear that editors must accept full responsibility for what they write. How this is achieved technically is not a matter I claim any expertise on. Adam 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As a thought, since the article text is open it wouldn't be to hard to set up a fork where these rules could be experimented with. --Chris (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to elaborate on that. Adam 10:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean that the database that Wikipedia uses is trimmed and published. You could import this data into a MySQL database, install MediaWiki, and essentially have a copy of Wikipedia (without article histories, and probably some other things). There you could experiment with these new rules, and attract like-minded users. --Chris (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

about POV pushers

When, in a criticism to POV pushers, the author of the criticism makes personal considerations about the quality and the origin of those pushers, the criticism is non neutral itself. That makes me think about whether or not Adam Carr is biased. If he is, he shouldn't issue statements on POV pushers, if he isn't, he probably shouldn't make such distinction between POV-pushing groups, especially when that distinction is not supported by evidence. Afonso Silva 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Draft / Article status

I like your suggestion regarding 'completed article' status. However, I'd fine tune it to something else - all articles written are designated as 'draft' (not article) until they either gain featured or good article status, at which point they become articles. Wikipedia should then only compare itself to other encylopedias / reference sources based on its amount of articles, not drafts. michael ^talk 12:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion and History

Under NO circumstance should these pages be restricted. It's like a saying the workings of a government shouldn't be transparent and accountable. It should be possible for visitors to pose questions and comment project/article/editors without having to register. Discussion and History are nine tenths of the iceberg. Hide&Reason 05:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

edit histories

It's a good idea, especially the last one about the edit histories. The general public does not need to see the article in-progress, it just gives ideas for more vandalism and unsourced, defamatory statements. They can see the history of the discussion pages, but not the article. Overall, I agree with you. Shimmera

Qualified Agreement

I'm not sure the specific structure you suggest would achieve your goal, but I do agree with the spirit of your proposal. The problem with Wikipedia is that it has become too important, too high up in the google rankings, too often cited, too often believed for it to continue in its sandbox/anyone can edit/articles will get better over time by the magic force of magic phase. Wikipedia, in the eyes of the world, has grown up it's now time for the structures which produce and monitor it to grow up too. Wikipedia is shaping (a certain portion of) humankind's impression of itself, its history and the world around it now, its too important to have controlled anarchism as a guiding principle. Psychobabble 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal and possible changes.

(Disclaimer: I am a hardcore deletionist. Inclusionists need not even read this section.)

I think your proposal, in the main, is a good one, but needs some modification.

Only registered Users should be able to post to Wikipedia, except at some sort of readers comment section.

This has good and bad points, but mostly good. Registered users should be able to post to Wikipedia article spaces. There could be two talkspaces -- one for registered users, and one for the general public. The caveat: the general public. Things posted to the general public userspace could always be entered into the article if they were researched. Each article could even have a submissions thread, which would be cleaned by bots and archived for review by editors.

Pro as your proposal stands: somewhat reduced ability for vandals to interact with the article, and stopping perhaps 40% to 50% of all vandalism. Stops most crufting articles, articles about your baby sister, your football team, and your local garage band. Thank all gods.

Con: Irriatates lots of people. Those who refuse to register will no longer contribute,which MAY damage Wikipedia's growth rate. But maybe not, no one has any good figures to offer. Definiately kills much wikispin such as 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', but that's absurd anyway, since it's hardly encyclopedic that way.

Registration as a User should be made more difficult to deter the frivolous and the mischevious. Registration would be by IP-based email (not a Hotmail account) and there would be a 24-hour waiting period.

I like it , but there are problems : people who have no way to get to IP based email. How many accounts could come from one IP? A 24-hour waiting period also strikes me as .. somewhat inadvisable. However, a compromise: A new user's edits are collected in a 'batch' until he is 'promoted' to editor. If he starts vandalizing , ALL his edits can be swept out of the batch and disposed of. (Technical problem for the wikistaff to handle, programming that. Heh.) Bots can supervise.

There should be two levels of registration, Users and Editors. Users may contribute articles but may not edit existing articles. Editors may contribute and edit.

I both like and dislike this. You basically want trusted users, really. The problem is if you have trusted users, then any other user must be untrusted. You can call it 'user' and 'editor', but it's the same thing.

I would instead call it 'editor' and 'senior editor'. The primary difference would be that senior editors can use some of the javascript tools, rollback scripts and things like Lupin's tool, VandalProof, AWS, etc, while regular editors can't. Also, only senior editors can edit 'finished' articles.

Promotion from User to Editor status would be by nomination by two other Editors, and given only to Users who have good English and have shown they can write in an encyclopaedic style, including a demonstrated commitment to NPOV writing.

Change the names and duties as I recommended above, and this would be good. A threshold might be, what? 500 edits? 1000?

Articles would be eligible for nomination for Completed Article status. Nominations must be seconded by another User, and there must be a week's time for objections. Once an article is registered as Completed, it could only be edited with the approval of a review panel of some sort.

I like all of that except the very last part. No review panels. Instead, have Senior editors have free access to all Completed Articles. They're trusted, proven, and NPOV. This removes bureaucracy.In case you haven't noticed, you're more likely to find consensus in a firefight between Mossan and Hamas than you are at AfD or RfA.

A higher level of WP would be created, with another name since it would not strictly speaking be a Wiki, at which only Completed Articles would be visible. All articles in this level would be certified to be well-written and proof-read, accurate and NPOV. They would change only as the topic of the article itself changed, or when genuine improvements were suggested and agreed on.

I think this is unworkable, for the simple reason that if Jimbo wanted this he could have kept going with Nupedia. Look -- the snobs who demand 'professionalism' will still use Encyclopeida Craptanica even if it's years out of date simply BECAUSE. We don't need that user. However, part of this is good -- a search of only Completed Articles.

Edit histories and the contents of Talk pages should be visible only to registered Users. If Wikipedia is to be a credible encyclopaedia the public should not be able to read earlier version of articles (which are frequently rubbish) or our internal disputations.

For the edit histories, unworkable due to GFDL. And pointless. Talk pages for articles should be open , I think. Now, USER pages shouldn't be. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)