upvote

points

by aucisson_masque2 days ago |
comments
upvoteby yorwba2 days ago|
next
[-]
"Only one or two" isn't zero. The problem isn't that a small community can only write a small Wikipedia, but that there's a global supply of fools who want to make every small Wikipedia bigger, even if they're completely unqualified to do so.

Wikipedia is built around the basic principle that if you just let everyone contribute, most contributions will be helpful and you can just revert the bad ones after the fact. This works for large communities that easily outnumber the global supply of fools, but below a certain size threshold, the sign flips and the average edit makes that version of Wikipedia worse rather than better.

So smaller communities probably need to flip the operating principle of Wikipedia on its head and limit new users to only creating drafts, on the assumption that most will be useless, and an admin can accept the good ones after the fact.

I'm not sure whether Wikipedia already has the software features necessary to operate it in such a closed-by-default manner.

reply
upvoteby justsomehnguy1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
> a small community can only write a small Wikipedia

For whom?

reply
upvoteby yorwba1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
For people who couldn't write that article themselves, but would like to read it if it existed. Same as big Wikipedias, just on a smaller scale.
reply
upvoteby tdeck2 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
It is worse. Imagine if you were trying to learn English from this phrasebook, written by someone who didn't speak English:

https://www.exclassics.com/espoke/espkpdf.pdf

Wikipedia is prominent. Wikipedia articles in a language without much representation become prime examples of that language to those who read them.

reply
upvoteby Symbiote2 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The end of the article says they have closed it.
reply
upvoteby tomlockwood2 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> they don't deserve to have one

By what unholy pact have you been beknighted as the bestower of wikis, my friend?

reply
upvoteby tjwebbnorfolk2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If the original authors stop maintaining an OSS project, and you are one of only a very few users, you have two options: do the work yourself, or watch it die. If you are unwilling to do the work yourself, then that's a signal it isn't important enough for anyone else to do the work either.

Why should a wiki be any different?

reply
upvoteby tomlockwood1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
The question still stands.
reply
upvoteby mslt2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Not the commenter but in this instance it seems like if you want something you need to either be able make/maintain it or fund someone who will, no?
reply
upvoteby consp2 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
That last part creates a chicken and egg problem. You can argue about it but I will bet it will never get traction if there is no basis to start from.
reply
upvoteby bawolff2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Wikipedia has an "incubator" setup where people can start working on a language in the incubator until it demonstrates enough interest.
reply
upvoteby Mars0082 days ago|
prev|
[-]
> who use AI translator or worst like Google translate

It's the same. Google translate uses trained AI models.

reply