According to a recent issue of the publication Charity Finance, the Wikimedia UK company has been denied charitable status. The Charity Commission publication The Advancement of Education for the Public Benefit nails it perfectly: A modern example might be a 'wiki' site which might contain information about historical events but, if this information is not verified in any way, it would not be accepted as having educational merit or value without positive evidence. They also state However, just giving people information is not necessarily educating them. The key is whether it is provided in such a way (however structured) that it is capable of educating them, rather than just adding to factual information.

An unexpected place to find two of the key arguments against WP so clearly articulated.

That's not any kind of an argument against WP, it's an argument that merely presenting information in an encyclopedic form, or any other, is not educational. What's so hard to understand about that? Would it be educational to turn up on your first day of school only to be presented with a set of ''Britannica'' and told "all you need to do is to read that. See you in 13 years"?

Wikimedia UK has been denied charitable status because Wikipedia is not educational. It's not educational because it is an indiscriminate collection of unverified information. To coin a phrase, what's so hard to understand about that?

Wikipedia is arguably counter-educational, as it inculcates participants into an ill-conceived and dysfunctional system model, thus perpetuating and spreading among youthful and impressionable participants a variety of anachronistic practices that more enlightened, advanced, and evolved cultures deprecated and abandoned centuries ago.

This is indeed a cutting decision. It would have been simpler to dismiss WMUK as not a charity based on its complete lack of any significant activities. This is seems a much broader decision that says that WMUK is not a charity because it purports to support Wikipedia, which is itself without merit as a charity. Even if WMUK actually began to do something significant in it's stated mission it would fail as a charity.

The information on Wikipedia very often is verified. Some featured articles are the best written on the topic - anywhere.

Yep, having a website full of somewhat useful trivia doesn't make you a charity, at least not in the UK.

What this says about the United States and its definition of charity.... thank fuck I'm not an American is all I can say.

After the article becomes featured, I guess it's locked and protected, then? Since, we all know that "facts" (even the cited ones) can change back and forth, multiple times on Wikipedia. So, unless the "best written" version is locked, you then have no forward-looking guarantee of verification.

Name one. Let's see if we can tear it apart.

In what way is that different from anywhere else? "Facts" can change on a daily basis, which is why it's so important to provide sources for those "facts". Are the "facts" presented in the 1911 version of ''Britannica'', for instance, immune to change?

This is true in a very limited sense only. When it comes to topics of consequence, the article on Wikipedia will never ever be the best resource. When the best and the brightest of the scholarly community devote their attention to something, say World War One, they produce excellent work. Wikipedia doesn't ever do that. On a topic that actually matters, Wikipedia will never produce anything resembling the best written article. Maybe, Wikipedia will produce the best written article on the internet, but even that is dubious.

Of course when it comes to topics that fall in the realm of "Who Cares?" Wikipedia can do a very good job. I've written several featured articles that were the best anywhere, and one that probably qualifies as the only article on its subject anywhere. This is frankly entirely irrelevant. Having a few gem FAs that get 18 page views a day makes no different in a sea of 2 million worthless articles.




Yea, it's really hard for twelve year old kids to update Britannica to say "JIM IS GAY", which really bums me out.

It's hard for twelve year old kids to do anything, so what?

Atoms to Zebras. See if you can find a better article on the atom anywhere (don't forget to check out any subarticle of it). And pick a chemical element, say helium.

Oh, you mean "provide sources" the way they were in this particular case?

Yeah, until I stepped in, that was likely to be a cited falsehood for the next year or two.

Its not hard for them to edit wikipeida unless they go silly and do lots of vandalism. Its not all that hard for them to become admins. Certainly no harder than for 24 year olds to do so.

It does not surprise me that the UK chapter does not warrant a charitable tax status yet, especially if their application was focused on Wikipedia which will hum along just fine whether or not the chapter exists to wave the British flag.

The UK chapter is relatively new, and the fact that the previous incarnation was a company limited by guarantee and later dissolved probably doesnt help.

Their School project looks like the most relevant initiative so far, however if they are going to be serious they should drop Wikinews and Wikiquote, and focus on Wikisource and Wikibooks. ;-)

Argh. http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives/Schools_project



If you have any influence here, can you use it to ensure that "correctly" = "avoid them entirely".



Argh again.

Thanks for the link to this, however

http://www.charityfinance.co.uk/home/conte...76&pg=15&cat=30

I shall write to them with this example

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Excluded_Middle

of an article I am trying to develop on my talk page while blocked for complaining about the corrupt activities of the Wikipedia administration. Note the significant number of red links to significantly important subjects that yet have to reach Wikipedia because of the proponderance of teenagers interested in biographies of porn stars.

I've already written about this enough here, but these kinds of initiatives are exactly the type of thing people should be opposing in droves.

Wikipedia should not be encouraged in schools, and this view was put forward back in 2007 by Chris Keates of the NASWUT teachers union. Wikipedia has caused significant problems already in education as most teachers will tell you. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council denounced Wikipedia last year and blamed it for falling grades.

Attempts to encourage Wikipedia in schools should be closely monitored and flagged. I view such encroachments on education by Wikipedia as similar to those of Scientologists or Creationists, and any other external unaccountable lobby who tries to subvert the educational process.

It would be irresponsible for any school to shepherd their students into Wikipedia's anachronistic antisocial dysfunctional tribalistic mobocracy. A school might as well give students instruction in (and credit for) playing Mafia Wars on Facebook. At least the latter game is designed to be fair, since all players play by the same rules and even the topmost gangsters cannot corruptly bend the rules of the game to their personal advantage.

You'll have to do better than that. Britannica has a far superior article on the atom. It follows a much more logical organizational pattern. The Wikipedia article starts with History, how many people are primarily interested in the history of the atom? Instead, Britannica begins with "Basic Properties" including "Atomic number" and "Atomic mass", the two most important characteristics of the atom. (for anyone looking at the version of the article available free online, I must note that I am looking at the full version for subscribers). The Britannica article also reads better end to end, providing a more clear and coherent picture. The Britannica article also deals extensively with a variety of topics under-discussed in the WP equivalent. Of course, in all fairness, the Britannica article is close to 18,000 words while the WP is less than half that length. Nonetheless the Britannica article is a superior product.

I'd say the fact that I have to "check out any subarticle of it" in itself is enough to render it "not the best". What about "sub-sub-articles" like [[nuclear structure]] or "sub-sub-sub-articles" like [[semi-empirical mass formula]] (*)?

But you say it is the best. Why do you believe that? What is the proper audience for an encyclopedia article on a topic as complicated as "atom"? What question, from a person with what level of knowledge, would you answer with "read the Wikipedia article on [[atom]] and all its subarticles, that's the best written on the topic - anywhere"?

(*) I assume you're referring to "Main article: [[whatever]]" as a "subarticle". I don't agree with that terminology (the graph is not a polytree, and probably isn't even acyclic), but for the sake of argument I'll go with it.



Interesting though. Which ones? If an article is "the only article on its subject anywhere", doesn't it qualify for deletion under the general notability guideline?

Nuclear structure is a main article of atomic nucleus which is a main of atom. (As are the better shell-model and liquid-drop model articles-- they are on-par with (the poorly named) nuclear structure, in being mains of the atomic nucleus article). However, "nuclear structure" attempts synthesis of the full nuclear physics view of nuclear structure, and moreover is an unfinished article from the French. It's not very good and it's not complete and probably deserves to be in a subcategory down, as it's more mathematical than the other main articles for atomic nucleus. However, at least there is something (Britannica never gets to this level). Semi-empirical mass formula is actually a pretty good article. It is also a main of a main for atom (sub-sub from there, if you like), and rather a new one, too (Note that this article and the old liquid-drop model article, which had little math, redirect now to the same place). The liquid-drop/semiempirical main-of-a-main article (from atom) is a pretty good description of an inherently mathematical subject (if you want quantitative answers) and yet it allows enough explanation that somebody with some college physics can calculate binding energy of nuclei. No quantum mechanics or calculus need, as the semi-empirical mass formula of 1935 is just algebra. To me, that's quite an amazing insight into nature with such simple tools. Does the Britannica give you anything like it? I have only the on-line version, but I don't see it.

The answers are the subtopics of atom. There is almost no math in the atom article itsefl (one or two very simple algebra equations) so the level is the mythical 'intelligent layman" whose primary language is English and who is assumed to have a high school education. It's suitable also for high school students. Read it and you'll learn the basics: what are atoms, how did we discover them, what are they made of, what are their basic properties, how many kinds there are. And so on.



Oh, this is a piss-ant criticism. It's at least as "logical" to start an article on atoms with the history of thinking about atoms! If you don't like it, skip it! It's easy. Also a matter of taste.


As you may know, Wikipedia has some pretty stern guidlines in keeping articles below 100 kB if they are to get past FA review. Why? Some stupid shit about how articles longer than 50 kB have trouble being downloaded to ancient browsers (one assumes Netscape running on a somebody's IBM AT and a telephone cradle modem, not an iPhone). It's WP's outdated policy. But criticizing it is silly, as it does little harm when these things are accessed online, as these things are hyperlinked, and if you want to read more on the topic, just read the link. If the Britannica has decided arbitarily to allow their articles to be twice as long or whatever, then pick out some sections which are of comparable length.

Really, if you're really down to the point of arguing that Wikipedia has put material into subarticles that it should have kept in its shorter main article, and vice versa (ie, it doesn't exactly follow your taste or interest in subtopic coverage), I think you've lost. Particularly if you admit that a click to see the subarticle (if you can lift your lazy finger to do it) provides better and more thorough coverage for those interested in the atomic nucleus or atomic number or weight or isotopes or whatever.

Part of the reason why this dicussion isn't going anywhere is that there is no such thing as a Wikipedia article: there is only the article as it happens to exist at the moment you read it. You can be the greatest expert and write the spiffiest article that ever was, but by the time I come to read it, it may well have been scribbled over by vandals, subverted by cranks, rewritten by loons, deleted by maniacs, falsified by quacks, ... and I'll never be able to find out.

What's the question?



You're saying if a high school student asked you "What are atoms, how did we discover them, what are they made of, what are their basic properties, how many kinds are there?" you'd answer "read the Wikipedia article on [[atom]] [and all its subarticles?], that's the best written on the topic - anywhere"?



There are many significant harms. First and foremost, it is completely non-obvious that a reader is supposed to read the "sub-articles". Along those same lines, you haven't really answered whether or not you expect the reader to read the "sub-sub-articles" or the "sub-sub-sub-articles", etc. Secondly, but about as importantly, adding the "sub-articles" makes the article way too long, and presents the information in a non-intuitive order. I'm sure there's a much better treatment, of similar length, that can be had by reading a chapter or two from a physics textbook. Even moreso if you allow me to cherry-pick selected portions from a physics textbook, like you seem to suggest doing with Wikipedia articles ("pick out some sections which are of comparable length").

I agree with you that WP's outdated policy contributes greatly to this, but that's fully irrelevant, because we are discussing whether or not a Wikipedia article is "the best written on the topic - anywhere", not the reason why it isn't.

I think the "sub-article" mess is in itself enough to render it "not the best".



I'd say selection is the single greatest contributor to judging an article as "the best written on the topic - anywhere". And I'd say the coverage of the details of the atomic orbitals, for instance, is abysmally poor.

By the way, you misattributed two of the quotes above to me instead of "Limey". Please fix this.

Well, then read atomic orbital! What you're saying really is that you'd liike to read less of the history of atoms in the article on atoms, and more about their electronic structure, which is a subtopic best left to something much larger (even the LEAD of the atomic orbital wiki can be confusing, since it depends on so many other sub-concepts or modern quantum physics; it is nevertheless longer than the topic for which it is a main article, mainly because the atom article has been heavily pruned for space).

In answer to your other question, an article can only be properly considered to be itself, and not its linked main articles (though reading the LEADs of these can be a very convenient extension, like a large footnote). But on the other hand, you have to compare atom to something which is the same < 100 kB size. And no, I don't think you'll find anything as complete and acurate, at the size it's held to.

1) That's not the article you proposed as "the best written on the topic - anywhere".
2) I'm not the target audience for a Wikipedia article on "atom" or "atomic orbital" anyway.



You're still confusing me with "limey".



I do tend to agree that an encyclopedia article is not a good place to get information about what an "atom" is. I think it was a strange choice for "the best written on the topic - anywhere".



As far as that much weaker claim is concerned, you may very well be correct. In fact, there's a good chance I won't even look very hard.

[quote name='Limey' post='186842' date='Fri 31st July 2009, 11:04pm']
I've written several featured articles that were the best anywhere, and one that probably qualifies as the only article on its subject anywhere. This is frankly entirely irrelevant.
[/quote]

Interesting though. Which ones? If an article is "the only article on its subject anywhere", doesn't it qualify for deletion under the general notability guideline?
[/quote]

Perhaps I am guilty of slight hyperbole. Lots of things are notable under the guidelines as currently interpreted without having ever been the subject of an article as such. For example, there are several featured articles on people of whom no biography has ever been written (except for perhaps two hundred words in a newspaper obituary). For such people, it is quite possible to stitch together an extensive biography through mentions in books or cursory news articles. The article George Washington (inventor) is a fair example of this type. There's no serious treatment of the subject anywhere else.

Other articles in the popular culture sphere qualify as the only serious treatment of the subject anywhere, generally having been stitched together more or less entirely from bits and pieces of news. Michael Tritter, I would argue falls into this category.

Then there are the tropical cyclone articles ... a category of their own in their own special world. As a matter of fact, at least one tropical cyclone FA was AfDed, though kept.

I have also asked a few chemists to take a look at the atom article and give a review. I will refrain from further comment until I have heard what they have to say, though I will quote from an expert review of a different FA from a forthcoming publication who wrote: "this account is misleading, full of errors or at least problematic claims, odd judgments and uses some pretty strange sources. It is nowhere near the best available free on-line... I would rate this as a 1 on a scale of one to ten."

No it isn't. It sometimes happens to be right. But even if it is right, it can be un-corrected tomorrow, simply because there is no structure whatsoever within Wikipedia to preserve accuracy as opposed to inaccuracy.

Print encyclopaedias may be imperfect, but the articles they contain are generally not nonsense.

And in fact on the day an article is featured, it's very likely to contain gibberish at any particular time; the custom of not protecting featured articles makes them a wide-open target for vandalism. Admittedly such vandalism is usually quickly reverted, but that's cold comfort to someone who reads a version of a featured article that contains falsehoods that aren't immediately obvious to him or her.

And I've seen some absolute crap end up on the featured article of the day, too.

I go to an encyclopedia to get information that I can trust, not to test my ability to detect bullshit.

That is actually a very interesting point which made me realize something positive about the whole experience ... Going to the Wikipedia has actually improved my ability to detect - and master - bullshit many times over. Another layer off naivety is removed and a calloused skin put back in its place.

Elsewhere someone, Moulton was it, wrote about two molecular opposites cancel each other out with the net result being a zero worth.

Unfortunately, in the case of the Wiki, the net result to society ... in terms of 'damage to relationships with utter strangers', the 'habituation and encouragement of twisted maliciousness', the 'waste of time and efforts' and to one's 'faith in humanity' ... is certainly way into the negatives.

Someone else wrote about how it was actually "anti-education" in its sub-anarchic tribal processes. I believe this is true too. One does not learn 'how to think', one cannot even rely on 'what to think', one is burdened by all sort of stuff one 'does not need to think about' ... and then all the pornography.

If one's involvement is anything more than cursory, all one does is learn to 'copy and paste from Google' and then either 'club to death any dissenting voices' or 'pointless strategies for avoiding clubbing to death'.

Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.

- George Orwell 1984





Ah yes, Kelly Martin is almost fully recovered from her wikiobsession.

That bon mot could be the new signature for Wikipedia Review

Those outbound ripples and reverberating echoes are all part of the dramaturgical process that seeds subsequent rounds of annihilation.

It's actually a theorem in dramaturgy (Clancy's Theorem), but I credit Shakespeare with being the first to characterize it: Much Ado About Nothing.

Of course, Wikipedia is not educational. If you think of the Wikipedia editors as educators, then stop and ask yourself: do you really want these knuckleheads educating your children?

Granted, there are some editors who are highly intelligent (shout out to Malley Baby). But then you have ill-tempered screwballs, neurotic ninnies and POV-pushing anarchists who muck up everything, leaving behind a trail of scholastic chaos.

Articles are full of typos, inadequate or non-existent references, shameless self-promotion from those who are smart enough not to get caught, and (more often than we may realize) blatant misinformation.

I always thought of Wikipedia as a comedy show that takes place in an online publishing environment.