Miscellaneous desk
< March 12	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 13[edit]

WP changes in accuracy[edit]

Are there any references available quoting the rate of change of average factual accuracy in WP articles. That is, are WP articles getting more accurate, less accurate, or staying the same over time?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Define "accurate". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wiktionary:

In exact or careful conformity to truth; the result of care or pains; free from failure, error, or defect; exact; as, an accurate calculator; an accurate measure; accurate expression, knowledge, etc.
Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits.
(obsolete) Precisely fixed; executed with care; careful.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Reliability of Wikipedia. There's a lot of information there, and it looks like results are mixed, so I'm not sure if it's getting better or not. RudolfRed (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's ceratinly not going to be any consensus on the reliability of such things as Ayn Rand or Karl Marx. What you might do is look for studies at Google Scholar regarding "wikipedia article stability". Those have been in the press for hemidecades, at the least. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So will continuous improvement lead to perfection of articles?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Define "perfection". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wiktionary:

The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting; entire development; consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence; the highest attainable state or degree of excellence; maturity; as, perfection in an art, in a science, or in a system; perfection in form or degree; fruits in perfection.
A quality, endowment, or acquirement completely excellent; an ideal; faultlessness; especially, the divine attribute of complete excellence.
The highest degree of excellence.
to imitate a model to perfection

Actually, if you don't have a working knowledge of the English language, maybe you should be looking these things up yourself. SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to achieve permanent perfection (however that is defined) would be to lock down articles that are deemed to be so. Otherwise, giving everyone the ability to edit an article will lead to vandalism, and even without that, a gradual drifting. If the article is "perfect", then any such drift can only worsen it. The obvious problem with locking down an article is that it can't then be updated with new info. And even for events that have ended long ago, there's still new information that can come to light. Also, over decades we might need to change the language to match current usage.

So, the best we can practically hope for is that they stabilize as "very good", where changes are equally likely to improve or degrade the article. Perhaps articles on popular but uncontroversial topics might end up the best. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious flaw in the "deemed to be perfect" proposition, especially in the Wikipedia context, is that there can be no authority that can possibly do the deeming. In a world of continuous improvement from all comers, which is what WP is all about, who would be so brave as to say of a particular article "This is the best it can ever be, hence all further changes are prohibited"? How could such an authority derive his prerogative and power in the first place? We editors do our darndest on each article we edit, but none of us ever thinks we've achieved perfection. We're reasonably happy if we think it's the best we personally can make it, for now. Perfection is a great goal to aspire to, but 99.999% of the point of the aspiration is the journey it takes you on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you would have one of those infamous !votes to establish consensus that an article is so good that allowing people to edit it further would only be likely to degrade it. Some mechanism would also be needed to open it back up again, if new info came to light, etc. StuRat (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such a "consensus" would be inimical to the central tenets of Wikipedia, and quickly rendered null and void. It's fine to reject a particular proposed edit on valid grounds; but it can never be fine to say "ALL future edits are rejected in advance, sight unseen, because we in our magnificent arrogance deem that nothing can possibly be superior in quality or content to that which we have now". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So will any article at some point be deemed to be finished. No Im not going to define it . Look it up for urself BB.--31.109.183.147 (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with locking down a "perfect" article is that things change over time. New information comes to light - perhaps even "the truth" may change. (eg "The highest score ever attained in a game of scrabble is 830" - may well change. So while our scrabble article might have been correct, maybe it won't be correct again soon. It's notable that "Featured Articles" (which are pretty darned close to "perfection" by our standards) may be de-listed, not because repeated editing made them worse (although that could happen) - but because our standards have changed over time. SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what a dictionary says "perfect" means. I want to know what you think it means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have dictionaries is precisely so that people don't go around making up their own minds what words mean in the middle of answering a question! So, please either start caring about the dictionary - or stop entering into these kinds of debate. SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should not criticize other editors in front of the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to know the meaning of a word, and for some reason don't get a satisfactory definition from Wiktionary - feel free to ask on the language reference desk. No need to derail existing questions when you need to know what a common word means. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know perfectly well what the meaning of the word is. I'm not convinced the OP does. And since you keep answering for him, we're not likely to find out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some: e.g. List of Academy Awards for Walt Disney (although I had to make a minor fix just now). Unless it turns out that Walt was actually fronting for the Illuminati or Dalton Trumbo, it's essentially done. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Walt credited with movies any more ? I'd have to think he was at least the inspiration for Frozen. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

No, no, no. Just because his Oscar-winning days are long over, that doesn't mean our article on his Oscars is finished or will ever be. Articles are a lot more than just the bare facts of their content. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right - it might (purely hypothetically) be discovered that he plagiarized every film he made - that this might be discovered and that the Academy Awards committee might withdraw all of his awards...or perhaps there is a "lost film" from his childhood that is discovered. It appears that our article is "perfect" - but maybe it'll eventually become clear that it isn't. SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, you've been around here long enough to known that's rubbish, Steve. As I said above, it is NOT just the details in the list that matter, when it comes to an article. There's textual material, background, notes, formatting, maybe pictures, categories, yada yada. The core details in the list may never change, but all these other aspects (of ANY article) are subject to ongoing improvement (= change) for ever and ever. By definition, NO Wikipedia article is ever finished or perfect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point - I actually agree with you. I'm saying that even if hypothetically we had a "perfect" article - we couldn't/shouldn't "lock it down" forever and shut off further edits. However, I strongly agree that there is unlikely ever to be a "perfect" article in practice. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did indeed miss your point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious scenario would be to protect a Featured Article. But being featured doesn't make an article "perfect", but only "much better than average". No matter how good an article might be, it can always be made better and/or can be subject to change to include new information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So will at some time an article be deemed complete (not inh need of further edits)?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to be certain that an article would never need another edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a 'no' then. Thanks for your straight answer BB. Much appreciated. But when will you finish commenting here?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your original question has been thoroughly answered. Meanwhile, enjoy your week off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]