Whilst browsing around for yet more hilarious examples of Wikipedian buffoonery, I found an interesting conversation on the user page of User:JDG, who I'm sure would be appalled to learn that he's being quoted here. Nevertheless, he claims that Wikipedia stopped being an encyclopedia "about 9 months into its existence" and is more like a "MegaCompendium." Which, in a way, is a far more accurate term, which has the added benefit of being coined specifically for the purpose of describing Wikipedia.

But another thing he suggests is the idea of a "detail level" setting that can be set by users to remove vanity and fancruft pages from search results. Obviously if it might reduce WP's Google rankings it will never happen, but the idea basically is this (hopefully he won't mind if I quote him - "metal clutter" refers to the enormous amount of material on marginal heavy-metal bands):


Obviously this means qualitatively grading every article on Wikipedia for "encyclopedicality," a massive undertaking that couldn't help but create all sorts of conflict opportunities, not to mention a whole new kind of punishment for people who cross the admins (as if bans and deletions weren't enough). Nevertheless, it shouldn't be all that hard to implement, technically speaking.

Not sure why I'm bringing this up, actually. It just seemed sort of interesting...

What a Utopian you are, Somey. The reason that will never work under current circumstances is the same reason I've concluded WP itself is so very flawed: the ridiculous belief that two humans can look at the same set of facts and ever hope to agree on the "truth" as it relates to those facts (especially when one of them is free to disregard the opinion of the other, and cannot be over-ruled).

Of course, the escape clause there is "not truth but verifiabilty." Yet how many times do all out edit melees result from 180 degree positions, each pointing to what they consider verifiable sources that support their position? Of course it happens all the time. So, to compound upon that the need to find "consensus" (used in the definitional sense, not the SlimVirginal sense) on points as broad as "what is encycolopedic" and as fine as "what is self-promotion" and you have the makings of a WWF-quality steelcage deathmatch.

The answer is the same as I think it is for all Wikipediaesque endeavors: drop any claims to any singularity of truth. Let everybody find their faction and subfaction and write it how they want it and then give them all the Digg treatment, where people promote what feels like truth to them and demote what does not. Before long, you'll have consensus the same way Republicans and Democrats have consensus on 95% of ultimately what is America, with the arguing taking place over the remaining 5%.