Wikipedia

User:MainlyTwelve/Wikithoughts

< User:MainlyTwelve

new article types edit

Catalogue raisonné edit

Precedent edit

  • Wikipedia currently has sections on the pages for individual artists that detail the publishing history of the artist's catalogue raisonne
  • Artist articles also have "list of works..." type sections

Francis Bacon as test case edit

  • Francis Bacon has
  • a relatively modest number of works in his CR (584) meaning the list would be fairly manageable as an article on its own (compare to, for instance, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, with a CR featuring 4654 works)
  • a relatively robust existing article that doesn't require immediate attention
  • Current coverage
  • Direct CR coverage
  • List of paintings by Francis Bacon: note that this is not a list of notable works and would be presumably be either a. displaced entirely (turned into a redirect) after the create of a CR article or b. turned into a list of "notable" works worth highlighting

Quarterly financial reporting edit

Based on GNG and the notability guidelines for events, corporate financial performance, broken down by year, has a place on Wikipedia. Although individual earnings reports do not necessarily garner "lasting coverage" as a composite they have lasting effects on shareholders and institutional investors. Moreover, quarterly earnings calls and reports serve as inflection points during narratives that do garner "lasting coverage", for instance, the expansion of a company into a new market.


Precedent edit

GNG context edit

helpful links edit

Facebook Q2 2018 edit

appearance edit

could be broken up by year or by decade as in:

article:

2018 financial performance of Facebook, Inc.

  • Q1
  • Q2
  • Q3
  • Q4

OR

article:

2010-2019 financial performance of Facebook, Inc.

2010
  • Q1
  • Q2
  • Q3
  • Q4
2011
  • Q1
  • Q2
  • Q3
  • Q4

OR

Could simply appear as stubs (Second quarter 2018 Facebook, Inc. earnings)

OR

Could appear as list with basic info (Quarter, year, red/green depending on earnings miss/not)

other thoughts edit

misc. edit

  • bring back Friday Saturday Sunday w/Newspapers dot com
  • editor as arbiter of notability/assembler of sorts
  • editor as observer of things they have seen that others may not have (mostly applies to those working in greenfield article creation I guess)
  • wikipedia as archive
  • don't remember what I meant by that
  • including "conspiracy theories" on event pages...why some, not others? Should any have them? For instance (I don't think) killing of Osama has a section, where most mass shootings/attacks do
  • billionaire ledes shouldn't be vague "XYZ is a businessperson, philanthropist" but rather incredibly specific "XYZ is the former CEO of XYZ Industries and has donated millions of dollars to..."
  • citations needed episode for instance
  • this is because philanthropist is largely a definition that billionaires come up with for themselves
  • Accounts used by multiple people for a specific purpose (replicating bots, but with more involved tasks) such as watching a specific group of pages for vandalism, etc.
  • There are no categories for city-level establishments, the most granular I've come across are state-level distinctions in the U.S.
  • However, there's also no prohibition on more granular categories, specifically, city-level categories
  • Perhaps similar to the "depth" measurement for (individual language) Wiki, there must be a better way to measure the quality of contributors, as opposed to the current way, which is, I guess, the top 10,000 list
  • end of the world deco: ornamentation without intrusion...not fin de siècle but fin du temps (black mirror, that house in brooklyn)...at odds with farmhouse aesthetic, but maybe (would have to look) sometimes blended? They are to Art Deco what that one xmen movies is to the 60s....vaguely evocative, a weird imitation [1]
other weird undercurrent is the American southwest, with those leather chairs [2] [3] (like at The Line...call this Angelino) [4]
  • fin du monde deco: it's mid-century modernism by way of memphis school
  • also, shift of "deco" to interior design rather than exterior architecture: product of value engineering? no one can afford to build something like the chrysler building (notable exceptions being at the high end of the market: RAMSA buildings, JDS buildings (esp. with SHoP)
  • NPP = a perpetual crisis, WK's emergency room
  • Are NPP triage edits legitimatizing? -- Mainly 04:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • A stub is virtually always better than nothing, and sometimes a two-three sentence article that concisely defines the article's subject is better than a seven, eight sentence article of unrelated facts
  • Why all the megaprojects in Chicago?? For a city that is discussed as atrophying, bizarre amount of activity. A subconscious response to coming destruction by Anthropocene excess?? Will these developments house refugees from the coasts?
  • WikiProjects replaced with "working groups" as a better means of organizing by interest
  • proximate paratism of certain nyc young populations, me riding amtrak home to PHL, others to NJ
  • wiki dark mode like twitter
  • bibliography tab (stabilized bibliography, including merely relevant sources rather than directly applicable)
  • missing from bookmarks: in the distance and inferno (eileen myles)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-09-19/Esperanza_group
  • replacing "charity" or "philanthropy" sections of billionaire articles with lumped "personal wealth" that highlights their spending as what it is -- spending
  • Demanding that tech companies contribute more money in exchange for using EN to power various services
  • purpose of long-form biography in age of wikip.: not subjective, but pointed; expansive rather than compressed; narrative rather than focused on assembling discrete facts
  • how long would wikipedia need to exist after I stop contributing before extremely minimal trace of my work remains?
  • even a steep decline in the quality of the encyclopedia (due, say, to diminished WMF resources) is preferable to a fully-functioning encyclopedia gradually devoured ads
  • Acquisitive Wikimedia

Duplicate articles edit

  • could have sworn the student who edited Cephalalgiaphobia for a class created an article that was a duplicate of the original "Cephalalgiaphobia" but the dupe article title was misspelled? Cannot find anything to suggest that's the case, but I remember it happening and it seems to have happened again with Hook-up culture (created by a student) vs. Hookup culture, the original article.
  • Brand72093 is the user

Novel Strategy Group edit

Term referring to unfinished idea: what does it refer to? A discord server? A replacement for WP which seem to be an antique mechanism for organizing people and resources.

  • affinity-based organization rather than topic-based sub-project organization

"affinity" wikis edit

  • Basic thesis: Is there space for more than one Wiki- or -pedia per language? If so, what reasoning(s) and motivation(s) for creating a second, third, etc. exists?
  • affinity being a euphemistic term for fandoms or niche topics
  • wikimedia should really adopt some of these high-quality, high-output projects (UESP, AWOIAF, TV Tropes) as sub-projects, I do think it would create problems but would help tremendously with editor creation and retention

Organization-led wikis edit

Why don't, say, college departments have their own encyclopedias? Professional oversight would absolutely lead to a greater level of dynamism for certain articles -- think, say, about how quickly a physics department could update articles with relevant journal material from that discipline as it's published and becomes widely proven/accepted/what have you. Seems unserious to academics, I guess, or like adjacent to academia rather than academia itself

  • I realize highly specific encyclopedias and reference books exist (Encyclopedia of Caribbean Literature, ISBN 978-0-313-32742-1 for instance, and my undergraduate library was full of different, even multi-volume tomes on subjects a civilian might not expect) but making them electronic would have certain advantages

"*Also aware of "Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles"

Prestige and Measures of Accomplishment on enWiki edit

The mechanisms and metrics that Wikipedia editors use as a proxy for success (FA, for instance, causes people to conceive of articles as siloed; edit counting leads to mass spammy edits rather than real value creation (something I am guilty of)) are deeply flawed and produce bad outcomes

Main Space Impact Calculator edit

Being some thoughts a new framework for replacing edit-count as proxy for editor value

  • Any formula based on bytes added will ignore anyone fighting vandalism
  • "Points" system? For instance, GA equal to a certain number of points, FA same, etc. etc.
  • but again, how to count anti-vandalism work? Or any deletion work?
  • How to incorporate work like editor retention?
  • I guess this work occurs outside mainspace for the most part anyway
  • overemphasizing article creation will overly encourage spammy new article creation, something that is already a bit of a problem
  • how to incorporate actions like NPP work
  • Avoid or lean into true RPG-ification?

Basically trying to figure out the depth measurement for editors that exists for Wikipedias ([Edits/Articles] × [Non-Articles/Articles] × [1 − Stub-ratio])

pieces of available data edit

  • Edit count
  • Byte size of edits
  • Articles and redirects created

Fate of the Encyclopedia edit

to do edit

  • look up other speculative articles about ENfuture
  • [1]

Scenarios edit

Consider this essay a belated 20th-anniversary reflection on the future of the encyclopedia that everyone should edit!

What will happen to Wikipedia in the future? Will it vanish? Evolve? Get replaced by Baidu Baike after the People's Liberation Army rolls into Washington, D.C.? It's a set of questions that have been asked before,[2] publicly, and, if you've found this essay, and gotten this far into it, probably privately by you. The big banner asks readers and contributors to ponder it every year by implying that Wikipedia could simply...disappear.

What useful precedents exist to consider? Out of print but now rendered in pixels, dear predecessor Encyclopædia Britannica carries on, still useful, and I imagine like it, Wikipedia will have a decades-long (after)life no matter what lurks in the future, waiting to challenge, undermine, and change it — us? To fallaciously compare knowledge projects to political entities: think of the United Kingdom's enduring importance, now long after the formal dismantling of its empire, or the 1000+ years of claimants to the legacy of Rome, which have come, sometimes, from corners that surprise filthy history casuals like me.[3] Here "Rome" is content/epithet of most important contemporary encyclopedia. I guess. Though Wikipedians are not, maybe, as susceptible to thinking this way as the general population, one should remember that declines rarely happen all at once, and generally have long tails.

Inspired by re-reading some of my old writing on Everipedia and "Barkeep49's" "Death of Wikipedia" essay. For one, ignores material concerns and for two = overly credulous that AI would allow a third party to replace Wikipedia, where I think it would probably be captured by Wikipedia and used to further dig a moat between us and would-be competitors, at least for a time. See Lsjbot, which I think roughly maps onto what we mean when we discuss "AI" on Wikipedia. Lsjbot is powered by one Wikipedian: imagine the impact of broader, collaborative AI projects in the Wiki mold. See also Qbugbot, run by user Edibobb.

[I hope this essay can serve as the seed for an ongoing and more centralized discussion of existential threats to the encyclopedia]

Financialization & privatization edit

Gobbled up by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, or a consortium of private equity funds. Or, transformation through cancer delivered by advertisers.

Made beholden: doesn't seem like an existing mechanism would allow actual ownership. Related to economic shock.

Competitors edit

Et tu, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

Non-AI competition emerges.

Dragon becomes snakes edit

We have slain a large dragon, but we live now in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes. And in many ways, the dragon was easier to keep track of. — R. James Woolsey Jr. No fan of the CIA, and mixed feelings about dissolution of USSR as would-be utopian project, but good quote.

  • forking, encompasses "Foundation shenanigans"

Wiki's basilisk tortures humanity forever... edit

Let a hundred [deep-learning-model-generated-based-on-work-by-living-people-for-which-they-will-not-be-compensated] flowers bloom

....though perhaps Wikipedia editors get off lightly, what with having produced such a robust and wonderful reservoir of natural language to draw and learn from, and in so many tongues!

The implication that an encyclopedia can be generated (and run?) by AI without intercession from its creator (us, God) seems implausible to me in the near term

Exogenous regulatory shock edit

Lawsuits!

Exogenous economic shock edit

The banners stop working.

Cultural and consumption shifts edit

Kids these days!

Complex degradation edit

Opening sentence from an article on NuWikiP3dia (or perhaps Omnipedia) as accessed 1 December 2049: "The decline of Wikipedia was caused by a variety of factors..."

Most realistic? The actual answer? Things just fall apart...

The end of the world edit

"Let's take a silly one" — Demonic daguerreotype enjoyer whose whimsy still haunts us

everyone print some pages from that werner herzog documentary

notes edit

  • eschatology
  • "Competitor" threat group
  • AI
  • Non-AI
  • Forking
  • like a machine searching for meteorites, but instead astrally, and the meteorites are laws or strange scenarios

everipedia and shock edit

this content formerly under the "misc thoughts" section as a section there

  • Seems fair to say that Everipedia has failed (if one thinks in Valley-logic, that by now it should have begun providing unambiguous competition to EN:WIKI and fat returns for investors/its own c-suite; I suppose long term "success" is still possible and that these returns do exist, tabulated privately) but if anything this "failure" seems to set up dear parent org Wikimedia for bigger threats: privatization or convoluted acquisition by private interests, likely those who already rely on EN, acting independently or in coalition (looking at you, google & amazon & apple) in the face of some future hypothetical financial or regulatory difficulty...by my estimation it is the largest trove of value on the internet not yet financialized (which makes it all the cheaper to acquire and financialize, as its "value" is publicly-produced and therefore underestimated as currently low or non-existent as it is not positioned as a profit-creating entity, which the market ostensibly values "correctly") protected from threat until now only by its status as a non-profit
    • I suppose it's also possible a less-expected but equally rapacious faction of the corporate world could somehow maneuver to absorb WMF...Apollo? Carlyle? Blackstone? Some VC?? or even fork it and employ a small set of permanent, (under)paid editors and put in place a better (sleeker, more contemporary, dynamic) UI maintained by a permanent set of relatively (over)paid engineers so that this hypothetical product has a veneer of aesthetic improvement and better "reliability" that at least Everipedia as it stands now (jan 2021) lacks (having just looked at Everipedia I am a bit more concerned about its long-term prospects being good, but who knows...maybe it having so few standards will in fact bolster EN's reputation for reliability???)
      • shock doctrine and all that, never let a good crisis go to waste...can't properly predict the contours of the crisis but I am guessing it will be something like section 230 repeal or some equally intrusive/disruptive batch of European or British legislation
        • convinced this crisis is section 230
  • could just be people stop giving
  • lower end outcome of such a crisis would be WMF instituting a paywall, next tier up would be ads, next tier would be those two plus agency functions -- true play to play endorsed by WMF -- then probably outright acq. after that.
  • why does no private version exist? Not sure, does seem like the regulation is there to allow it to happen, especially with a paywall AND ads AND some sort of "adopt a highway" model for companies
  • Note, later, 11.30.22 : If not "adopt a highway" in the sense that they adopt a specific article (presumably about themselves), thus introducing unambiguous COI, taking the less direct route of, say, Microsoft, Goldman Sachs, whichever firm "adopting" a sphere of knowledge. Say, AI articles for MSFT and personal finance for Goldman, articles are then tagged with "The Microsoft AI Portal" which links to this adopted universe of articles
  • still tough to shake the feeling that the project and editors will get burned at some point
  • 1,643 IQ

speedboat (adler) v. breaking and entering (williams) edit

Both try to answer questions about indifference, suffering, and the extraction of meaning; Adler's answer to the issues is to seek credentials and, to cultivate a sense of bourgeois distance from hardship; her conservatism and disregard for anyone seeking change, is apparent...Williams' book ends with L. in state of aporia, the reader there with her...Adler seeks compromise, her fundamentally unserious concept of the "radical middle"...Williams, in 1981, already seems crushed by the sort of existential dread of environmental collapse that later writers (Millet, Offill) write about much less obliquely...

under-edited areas edit

  • contemporary literature (coverage of prizes, books, and authors)
  • poetry generally
  • contemporary architecture and development
  • business/finance related news, trends, events
  • restaurants, food-related news
  • art, articles about individual pieces

Tracking access edit

sudowoodoo edit

is probably the same as DilletantiAnonymous

and Noahby is probably the same as both?

Also "MaybeItsBecauseImALondoner" what is up with this trend of editors producing very similar stubs about individual paintings with badly-formatted references?

from other notes edit

Wikiwork

0. Socialism in Oklahoma 0. Add calls to dismantle WF to lede or more reg (both) 0. American poetry collections 0. Poetry collections by year 0. Valley of the Mills cleanup 0. * South Bend police tapes controversy 0. * Criticism of McKinsey & Co. 0. * Criticism of HBS 0. * OurBeesWax

Criticism of McKinsey

0. mimetic isomorphism (internationally, and in different fields) (FT article, “curse of consultants”) 0. Executive pay (under “siding with management”) 0. Steals all the good kids?? From undergrad?? 0. Puerto Rico (no coverage at the moment??) 0. McKinsey’s Work for Saudi Arabia Highlights its History of Unsavory Entanglement Sheelah Kolhatkar (TNY) https://www.wsj.com/articles/mckinsey-is-big-in-bankruptcyand-highly-secretive-1524847720 (Paywalled)

Storagework:

0. Building floor plans by rental/sale org by city 0. Podcasts from Patreon (also iTunes)?

Status Labs clients edit

  • thryv

Username edit

  • Palaemon
  • Oxentiel

mars fix edit

Unhelpful to frame this as "/* Relative similarity to Earth */" as Mars is not "relatively similar" to Earth. Changed to "/* Relative similarity to Earth */"

  • /* Relative similarity to Earth */
  • /* */
  • /* Qualities comparable to Earth's */

there's no fix here; the segregation of those two sections -- "relative similarity" and "differences" is a hangover from the like 2006 iteration of this article and should be addressed by more than just switching the header

  1. ^ refcodestorageforuse
  2. ^ Except perhaps that last one?
  3. ^ let's debate the quality of my history in the comments!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MainlyTwelve/Wikithoughts&oldid=1125102045"