Top 25: Here are the most-read Wikipedia articles of the year – KXAN.com
Top 25: Here are the most-read Wikipedia articles of the year KXAN.com
See the original post:
Top 25: Here are the most-read Wikipedia articles of the year - KXAN.com
Tags:
Archive for the ‘Wikipedia’ Category
Wikipedia, wrapped. From ChatGPT to Cricket World Cup, here are 2023’s most-viewed articles on the internet’s encyclopedia – WPVI-TV
The page you requested was not found. You may have followed an old link or typed the address incorrectly.
We've also been doing some house cleaning so the page may have been moved or removed.
Please try searching for what you are looking for or you could go to the home page and start from there. Or you may be interested in today's top stories.
Tags:
Why Wikipedia’s highway editors took the exit ramp. – Slate
Welcome to Source Notes, a Future Tense column about the internets information ecosystem.
Wikipedia, road infrastructure, and dramaone of these things doesnt sound like the other. But when Ben, also known as bmacs001, posted a TikTok video promising to spill the tea on how the site treats road and highway articles, the Wikipedia contributor suspected that people would find the topic intriguing: Forty of Wikipedias most prolific editors have seceded and made their own wiki, and Im among them.
Ben was part of the contingent of Wikipedia editors who contributed to the sites pages covering road and highway infrastructureeverything from Interstate 80 and Route 66 to tinier highways on the side of the Jersey Shore. Weve been chugging along doing our own thing on the pedia for the past two decades now, but in the past couple of years, our little corner of the site has come under attack, Ben said. Faced with so much hostility, Wikipedias highway enthusiasts felt they had no choice but to break away and form a separate project: AARoads Wiki.
With over 800,000 views and counting, the nearly four-minute TikTok video is a testament to how even extremely niche topics gain visibility on the platform. As the posts top comment put it, Im so here for interstate Wikipedia drama. But behind this seemingly amusing clash of nerds is a far more pressing issue: how to reconcile 20 years of Wikipedias core principles and values with the practical demands of present circumstances.
Before diving into the nuances of the Wiki-policies, its worth pointing out a distinction among the Wiki-people. There are railfanstrain enthusiasts whose (at times) obsessive interest has been highlighted in TV shows and documentaries. On Wikipedia these railfans tend to improve the sites articles on freight and high-speed rail lines, or public transportation options like the subway. But there is another subspecies: so-called roadgeeks. Ben (who uses they/them pronouns and requested that their surname not be published) pointed out that these two types of users have somewhat different motivations. Roadgeeks are drawn toward the immediacy of the subject mattersince many users drive on roads every daywhile railfans gravitate toward the historical aspect, since locomotives arent nearly as common as they once were. Then again, whats true in the United States does not necessarily hold true for countries where rail travel is more prevalent. Ben suspected that many European and U.K. Wikipedians who are railfans would likely be more drawn to roads if they lived in the U.S., suggesting that the railfan-roadgeek spectrum is in part a function of culture.
One flashpoint that inspired the recent revolt was a strict interpretation of the sites reliable sourcing policy. Take the example of an article about West Virginia Route 891, a short eastwest highway that ends on the Pennsylvania state line. A volunteer editor seeking to contribute content to the page might use information found on the West Virginia Department of Transportations website as a reference source. However, policy sticklers are likely to deny this usage because DOT is a primary source for highways (directly involved in the subject matter). According to the sites policies, Wikipedia should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers.
Angry road editors like Ben are up in arms, claiming that this hard-line interpretation of the guideline does not reflect the realities of the situation. With local newspapers going out of business left and right, there are rarely any other sources to draw from for these kinds of articles. Why not allow Wikipedians to cite from DOT, which is responsible for publishing highway routes?
Then again, its worth remembering that most of the time Wikipedia has good reasons for the prohibition against primary sources, especially with government entities. A states DOT content might generally be reliablebut allowing Wikipedians to cite from other primary sources, such as Chinas Central Propaganda Department, is not a risk worth taking. The question is whether there is some way to recognize an exemption, granting that some types of primary sources may be reliable while still protecting the integrity of the rule.
Wikipedias road editors have also struggled with the sites prohibition against original research. Returning to the example of West Virginia Route 891: An easy way to support the statement that this highway runs eastwest is to reference a map that shows it going that direction; however, citing such a map is considered original research by some of Wikipedias most hardcore policy enforcers.
Again, Wikipedia has good reasons for prohibiting true original researchthe policy has helped stop users from adding pseudoscience about Bigfoot excursions to the site, for example. But road editors are understandably frustrated when no original research is applied to exclude maps. Why should someone have to search out a second source to confirm in words what the map communicates in visual form?
Finally, theres the issue of Wikipedias notability guidelinethe principle that only topics that are truly worthy of notice should be included on the encyclopedia. Lack of notability is the reason why the proposed articles about many aspiring influencers get deleted every day. Roadgeeks tend to argue that highways are generally notable, and hence should not be screened for lack of encyclopedic importance, or at least not to the same extent as minor celebrities.
So far, general notability has not stopped a few Wikipedia editors from trying to delete the articles for lesser-known highways like West Virginia Route 891. In their TikTok video, Ben talked about how one particularly censorious editor tried to destroy our entire side of Wikipedia by tagging countless articles about roads and highways as non-notable topics that should be purged. The people who want to destroy, the only work that they need to do is destroy. Creating involves a lot more work, so were trying to fight back against people who have more time for deleting stuff, Ben told me in an interview.
Its possible that younger Wikipedia editors like Ben, whos in their 20s, have a different understanding of notability than did their predecessors. Where an entry on West Virginia Route 891 would have been too obscure to meet the criteria for print encyclopedias, those limitations do not apply to the digital platformand havent for decades. Understandably, the rising generation feels less nostalgia for the prior model or its gatekeeping. Theres this Encyclopedia Britannica-fication of the site that some people want to make happen, Ben said. Its bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.
When I first heard that Ben and the team of 40 Wikipedia editors split from the site to create the separate AARoads Wiki, I couldnt help but feel a little sad. The new project has accrued more than 15,000 articles about North American highways since it beganalthough most of them are just forks from existing Wikipedia content. Sure, separate wikis have sometimes been entertaining, like Wookiepedia for Star Warsbut rivals to Wikipedia typically fizzle out into obscurity. In the near term, the secession harms not just Wikipedia itself, which needs robust road information, but also generative A.I. tools that rely on Wikipedia as training data. Maybe theres room to interpret existing Wiki policiessourcing, notability, no original researchin a more practical way that can keep other Wikipedia road editors from jumping truck.
While the new AARoads Wiki is making progress, disputes have broken out among the rebel forces. Some users argued that the project should focus solely on highways, while others advocated for a broader scope. A recent decision not to port over Wikipedias existing articles about city streets remains contentious. And some users have taken to participating in both projects simultaneouslyAARoads Wiki and Wikipediaand not maintain a clean divorce.
The pavement isnt always smoother on the other side.
Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.
See original here:
Why Wikipedia's highway editors took the exit ramp. - Slate
Tags:
Wikipedia asks: Have you gotten $2.75 worth of info? Consider donating – The Ledger
theledger.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.
Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on theledger.com
Read the original:
Wikipedia asks: Have you gotten $2.75 worth of info? Consider donating - The Ledger
Tags: