• Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is a mentoring program and I’m a part of it. Unfortunately, a lot of the accounts going through it very blatantly aren’t there to actually make a good Wikipedia article on something, but to instead promote themselves or their company.

    • gibmiser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Half-baked idea incoming.

      Wiki Jr. A Wikipedia dedicated to kids culture. Kids contribute and edit, have a mentor, put it on college applications. When they turn 18 can migrate account to real Wikipedia.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Possibly, though Wikipedia and all of its related projects have an 18+ requirement. Likely because of copyright issues, as under 18 year olds legally can’t give up a share-alike license on the content they make.

          • Silverseren@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is if you reveal you’re underaged. But if you keep quiet about it, no one will know. That’s true for the entirety of the internet.

        • chickenf622@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can they just give it to the public domain? I’m sure Wikipedia would other copy left systems, but for kid content I could see it being less important.

          • Silverseren@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s possible. I’m not a copyright expert, so I have no idea how things like that work and what the potential legal pitfalls are.

        • bean@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I know it’s a joke, but the world isn’t super black and white. Kids want to help, by nature. My family owned a business when I was underage. I wanted to help and did little little things, but not allowed to help customers. When I was old enough I got hired for real and paid for it. By then I knew most things and was a good contributor, and learned a lot about balancing ledgers and counting registers, etc.

          I also was manager at a young age after I moved out and went to other things, because I had experience already!

          This isn’t to say I’m for child labor. Just that, for centuries kids have helped out and learned things by being a part of stuff. Blocking that off complete until they are 18 isn’t benefiting them either. Just to be clear though, the thought of kids working in meat plants and such; sickens me. 😷

          I’m only pointing out the world isn’t black and white, and that perhaps there are in-between places which can benefit youths.

      • MBM@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if it still exist, but that used to be a thing. I was pretty active on there during primary school.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think long-term retention is more the problem. There’s plenty of new editors that show up to do something, but they don’t care about being an editor on broader subjects long-term.

        There’s attempts to retain interest more through things like editathons on specific topics, such as with the Women in Red group, that have seen a decent amount of success.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          I used to be an editor, and an admin. Quite a prolific one, in fact. I eventually quit (not really “officially”, I just gradually ran down my frequency of editing until I eventually realized I just wasn’t any more) because editing Wikipedia was no longer fun. And as far as I could tell, that was deliberate and as-designed.

          Rules, rules, rules. No articles on quirky topics for the sake of quirky topics. Strict limits on pop culture. Articles for Deletion became a death sentence, arguing felt like trying to be a lawyer in a court that had already ruled against you and was just making things official. Just a tiring slog to produce something I wasn’t terribly interested in any more.

          Not really sure what the solution is, if there even is one. Wikipedia seems to be what it wants to be, now. I am a bit saddened because what it used to be was fun, but I’ve moved on. I’m glad Wikipedia still exists and has been useful to a great many people over the years.

          • Silverseren@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, is it surprising that a project aimed at becoming a proper encyclopedia would become stricter on content and raise the standards over time?

            Which makes complete sense for pop culture stuff and especially things like Trivia sections that try to be added to a bunch of articles, adding things in like appearances of a historical subject in any and every manga that features them and any TV episode. That’s not really something that’s needed.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nope, not surprising, which is why I figure it’s as-designed.

              That’s not really something that’s needed.

              Well, is it? If the problem is that no new editors are joining then perhaps something that new editors would enjoy working on is needed.

              If Wikipedia is fine with continuing to get greyer and greyer, ossifying into a “proper” and “serious” encyclopedia, then that’s fine I guess. If new blood is needed, on the other hand, maybe look at things that would attract it and consider that as something that’s needed.

              It’s not like Wikipedia can offer a wage increase.

              • Aatube@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Wikipedia is already a proper encyclopedia, as has been the case six years ago. Pop culture sections are still allowed, they’re just restricted to reliably sourced entries to prevent being disproportionally long and having shaky entries that are a stretch

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, those are all things I said in my comment already. I think they are the main reason for the lack of new blood.

                  If you don’t think the lack of new blood is a problem, then that’s all fine. If the lack of new blood is a problem, then maybe those things need to be reevaluated.