This is probably one that will inspire Kelly Martin to respond (since she was really railing against the fire article some time ago), but look at the opening paragraph of the article about paper:



Good gravy! No mention of the historical significance of paper (perhaps one of mankind's most monumental inventions) or its origins in Egyptian papyrus. Plenty of coverage for polypropylene and polyethylene, though. (The word "paper" is mentioned ONCE in the articles about polypropylene and polyethylene.)

In July 2006, the intro read:



In July 2005:



In July 2004:



In July 2003:



In July 2002:



Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how the intro paragraph today is "better" than the intro paragraph from six years ago. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to always be improving?

That's very good. If I was asked the three most important things about paper, I wouldn't put in the polythene stuff. And, as you say, the evidence of improvement is slight.

The lead might be a bit short, but the next paragraph is about the origins in papyrus, followed by a lengthy section on the historical significance of paper – really can't see a problem with this one. (The reason you're only seeing limited stuff about the processes involved is the separate Papermaking article). There are lots of truly shitty articles on Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them.

You're missing the point. Those of us who were taught such stuff were taught that the person reading the article may quickly get bored (as well they might with all that poythene rubbish), so you should start on the assumption that they may leave after the first paragraph, so you should get absolutely everything that is important into the first paragraph. Why is this person or subject interesting or important &c. With any luck this will have the added advantage that the person reading will not get bored about the polythene and want to read about papyrus or even polythene.

The above post is One of the Top Ten Signs You're Currently Flying to Wikimania.

Either that, or One of the Top Ten Signs You've Been Drinking Too Much Jimbo-Juice.

The lead's length or brevity is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm concerned that the lead paragraph sounds like it came out of this resource, not from an encyclopedia that is dedicated to human knowledge.

Paper was used to transcribe the words of the earliest prophets, to record the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. It has been used to print money. It conveyed declarations of war and of peace.

But Wikipediots would have you walk away from Paragraph One knowing more about hydrogen bonds and polypropylene fill than the importance of paper.

We're not talking about the article, Eva -- I was clearly talking about the introductory paragraph, which (as Peter Damian has emphasized) should engage and inform the reader about the salient items associated with the topic. The rest of the article may be nifty, but the lead paragraph is a big, fat FAIL.

When someone feels like fixing it. It's not done by magic, someone has to volunteer the time.

Someone who hasn't been run off the project, you mean.

Oh, and the Paper article is protected, it seems. I guess they want to lock in that chemical goodness?

Temporarily semi-protected due to a spate of this kind of improvement a couple of weeks ago - don't know when it expires but I assume it will be soon.

As Rootology says regarding improvements; it takes someone who knows the subject (and cares) to improve it. In my opinion, anyone who uses Wikipedia as their main source for a "core" topic like this, quite frankly is not worth worrying about; where Wikipedia shines is in the obscure subjects that don't get coverage in Britannica or Encarta.

Well duh. There's no revision/control/release system. Any effort by a skilled writer to create a quality article is vulnerable to every nut-job on the internet coming by to 'improve' it. You need both the human talent and the revision tools for that 'always improving' goal. An infinite number of Kelly Martins armed with AWB banging away forever will not improve that article one iota.

These two things, quality people and revision control are probably the most important to the long term success of the project. Unfortunately, good editors leave in droves after being abused, and the revision control tools are evolving at a glacial pace.

This is pretty classic Wikipedia writing: note the use of the five-dollar words "amalgamation", "hydrogen bonding", "incorporated", "imparting", all of which drive the reading level up into at least the collegiate level if not post-graduate. Common enough for the typical article author, whose main motivation for writing is to show off his or her own erudition, after all. Far too many Wikipedia articles are written in write-only English as a result.

The inclusion of polypropylene and polyethylene indicates either that one of Wikipedia's chemistry freaks has driven through the article, or else an marketing editor for the Plastic Council has paid the article a visit. If I were in the business of selling Tyvek, I'd be certain to make sure my product was featured (directly or indirectly) in as many places on Wikipedia as possible. An exercise for the reader is to check to see if the article has mentioned Tyvek by name at some point in its history, and if so who added it and if its removal led in short order to the mention of plastic-impregnated paper.

I haven't read the rest of the article, so much of the analysis I'd make in reviewing the lead of an article can't be made. As Wikipedia goes, this is typical; not terribly bad, but certainly not good either.

The lack of revision/control/release system has two main effects; the primary whereby any idiot can trash an article, and the secondary effect, which I think is underestimated, whereby most good editors just won't waste their time.

Yes. Then again, if someone (hypothetically) was run off the project and actually wanted to go back and just plain edit, it's not like it's hard. Reset your IP and modem and don't use your voice. Just sayin'.

Some examples from around the web...

The Encyclopedia of Science:


Britannica:


Columbia:


1911 Edition of Britannica:

They have to either change their viewpoints and manner of expression, or they have to edit subjects that are entirely different from the things they edited in the past, and either way there's no guarantee. Furthermore, if you get caught, all of your edits are subject to blanket reversion, regardless of quality, in which case you've wasted a hell of a lot of time.

Well, yeah. Thats why its not really worth it. I guess if someone really cared more about the project and idea of an encyclopedia than their own "stuff" they could pull it off. It would be absurdly hard, though. The IP stuff is easy, but you'd have to be acting all the time and never touch a single article related to your old self. No one has that kind of self-control or willpower.

Agree. My encyclopedia the same, except also mentions toilet paper (invented 400 AD).

Rephrase "self control or willpower" as "dishonesty."
Many people have that, and are administrators now under their new accounts. Don't believe me? Take ten recently-confirmed admins at random, and look at their earliest contributions. How many were fresh accounts?

Wikipedia inadvertently selects for manipulativeness and dishonesty.

Rephrase "inadvertently" as "deliberately".

When it comes to this article, not all wikis are that bad. At least the intro for the article on the German wiki looks somewhat better. Short, punchy, and to the point. And it mentions toilet paper, too.

Interesting to compare the German and English articles on toilet paper, too.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilettenpapier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper

The English one helpfully adds, in the introduction, that:



Fancy that.

Don't forget the English Wikipedia hatnote: For the South Park episode, see Toilet Paper (South Park episode).

Jimbo's Big Bag o' Trivia. Why are we complaining?

Because of such clear differences between these two wikis like this, I considered working on the German one instead when I quit the English one. While I'm not saying that the German one is perfect, it is somewhat more pleasant and professional and der Jimbokult is nowhere near as strong.

Shit tickets?

That's right, ass wiper.

I wouldn't defend the way it's written. Though to be fair, they're not just talking about Tyvek, but the increasingly composite "paper" materials, such as what US "paper" currency is made of.

The LEAD needs to be a mainly historical/classical introduction of a couple of paragraphs (as you've quoted from other sources), PLUS maybe a short last paragraph ending the LEAD, as to what new types of materials "paper" has evolved into. And you stick the modern synthetic polymers in there.

As for hydrogen bonds and other crap, that's clearly not LEAD material. Terrible writing decision. SOFIXIT.

Obliviously.

Iridescent is coming dangerously close to a WP:PROXY block.

Thanks, Iridescent.

Swatjester is trying his hand at the ol' shit tickets article.

I actually remember that TP song to the tune of Branded. But that's only for us people old enough to have actually watched 1965 Branded (and The Rifleman before that...), and young and impressionable enough to be delighted by bathroom humor. Was reminded of Connors the other day when I saw him do a bit part as a badguy in 1973's Soilent Green. Before there was Chuck Norris, there was Chuck Connors, the Danny Ainge of Cowboy Western TV.

The TP article needs more facts but it's getting there. Like indoor plumbing, TP is one of the bases of civilization, which basically followed a phase in human history called Shit-and-Move-On (see neolithic). People who built cities before plumbing and TP took a terrible risk, and paid for it in disease.

Did you know the Romans usually used a sponge on a stick? The whole family used it.

Did they have some cool Latin name for it, like the ass finitio?

It was called a tersorium or a xylospongium. Or just a lignum spongia.



"Recently in the bestiariorum (gladiator animal-killing) games, one of the Germans stepped away from the morning Spectacle, excusing himself to relieve his body -- there was no other unguarded private place available; took a stick, the one that washes away filth, with attached sponge, and he completely shoved it into his gullet and blocked off the throat and drew out his spirit."

Those rascally Germans-- you have to watch them like hawks! Anyway, any Roman soldier and even a forced-gladiator-captive would have a sponge-stick thing. And you could do many useful things with it: suffocate yourself, use it to give a drink to guys you're crucifying, use it to wipe your ass. No lack of uses for a stick-sponge. It's sort of like Douglas Adams' towel. Don't travel without it.

He's on a roll, it seems.