Wikipedia talk:Editing Weekend

Suggestion

Excellent idea, I'm all for it. Though I don't live in a giant urban centre, I'm close enough to Toronto to make it to an event there. I would also suggest a venue: the Toronto Reference Library, which has piles of useful resources and would be an excellent place for a Toronto-area Edit Weekend (or Day).

Radagast 19:11, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I would be interested as well, since I am moving to a place near Toronto fairly soon. Andris 08:09, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

---

I shudder at the thought of a small group of self-proclaimed experts getting together for a weekend of "fact checking", i.e. checking Wikipedia content against what can be found in the traditional encyclopaedias we originally set out to beat. Apart from the fundamental questions that have already been raised (Cui bono? -- Who might profit from a "frozen" edition of Wikipedia?), a number of follow-up questions have not even been asked (let alone answered), at least to my knowledge:

(1) Who chooses what articles for fact-checking? On the other hand, what articles are right from the start not considered for inclusion?

(2) What if during the editing weekend someone actually detects discrepancies (mistakes?) between Wikipedia and some printed reference book? Is the printed book by default the higher authority?

(3) How are potential weekend editors planning to replace the debates on the talk page that are a regular feature of the online (and so far, only) version?

As always, these are not rhetorical questions. All the best, <KF> 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Crikey, you seem a little hostile about this — can you really be objecting to fact-checking, or is there something else you're worried about? Regarding your questions, I can't speak for other editors, but for me: 1) Ultimately I choose what I fact-check, although I'm happy to accept suggestions. 2) Depends. If there's a discrepancy between Wikipedia and a reference book, I would flag it for further investigation, preferably consulting primary sources. 3) I don't understand, why would weekend editors want to replace the Talk: page debates? — Matt 23:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm never hostile, and I'm certainly no one's enemy here at Wikipedia. I just don't like the idea of a special, five star edition of Wikipedia, and all I do is take the liberty to say so. But it's only little old me, so you go ahead and plan your editing weekend, and I sincerely wish you all the best.

I presume, by "five star edition", you mean a print edition / Wikipedia 1.0, or some such? If so, I'd point out that even if you don't like the idea, fact-checking will only improve the accuracy of the online edition. — Matt 01:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Concerning my/your questions:

In some way I do object to the kind of fact-checking proposed here because peer review, which is already being performed 24/7, is really all we need. You never know beforehand what will happen if you deliberately introduce a hierarchical structure where there has been none (or let's say hardly any).

I don't see hierarchy here, just intensity. When a Featured Article hits the front page, it's typically edited quite a bit more than normal; I expect an editing weekend will produce the same kind of effect, particularly in the realm of checking facts. — Matt 01:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(1) If each editor decides him/herself what he/she is going to check does this mean it's a question of sheer luck if a particular article gets closer attention (and is eventually included) or not? So many pieces of information are contentious -- Editor A likes AIDS Kills Fags Dead and the article passes the test whereas Editor B would be shocked and omit the text?

So you worry that in these weekends, some articles will get more attention than others, and that may differ according to the whims of the editors involved? How is that different from how Wikipedia is normally edited? — Matt 01:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(2) I hate the idea of our "ordinary" expert, for example a college student, having access, via his/her professor, to state-of-the-art information while Editor C, fact-checking what our student has written, consults a 1994 reference book, deletes up-to-date information and replaces it with older facts.

Again, how is this different to someone doing fact-checking online, by themselves, as part of, say, Wikipedia:Peer Review, or WP:FAC? There's a greater risk that some Editor "D" will replace the state-of-the-art information with some data from a website, which is typically more likely to be inaccurate than a reference book. Regardless of where it takes place, every editor should be careful when "correcting" information; it's often wise to query on the Talk: page first, depending on the context. — Matt 01:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(3) I'm talking about the time factor here: It often takes weeks, if not months, until someone replies to a question on a talk page. Hardly feasible for a weekend or a Saturday I guess.

I'm not sure why any of this is problematic. Weekend editor Bob finds that Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as three other reference works and a primary source, disagrees with Wikipedia on some Fact, so he corrects the article and drops a note on the Talk: page, citing his source. Of course, another editor may take weeks or months to read the note, but does that matter? And again, how is that different from normal Wikipedia editing? — Matt 01:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope your editing weekends will be a success! <KF> 23:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. I don't know what it is that makes people here at Wikipedia tell me they don't understand what I'm saying. And I'm actually tired from/of repeating the same thoughts again and again. While reading your reply two more questions occurred to me: How will you handle the sheer number of tiny pieces of information, each of which will cry out simultaneously, "Please check me first!"? And what precautions will you take so that no one reverts to earlier versions of an article or changes it in any other way -- will you protect them from being edited once they have been checked?

However, I don't expect an answer, and I'm certainly not going to continue this discussion. Have a nice day, and good luck, <KF> 02:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel frustrated that you're not being understood. The best remedy is to carefully explain your line of argument. You still haven't given any indication of what makes "weekend fact-checking" particularly problematic compared to "traditional, distributed fact-checking"; all of your problems seem to apply to both scenarios. Accordingly, my personal conclusion is that you're not really opposed to fact-checking, but that you're against a print edition of Wikipedia (or some such), and you feel that an "Editing Weekend" is part of that process. I can only hope that the thought of a push for improved correctness in Wikipedia doesn't continue to make you "shudder". — Matt 03:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)