[p2p-research] Wikiversity’s potential in global capacity building

[marc fawzi]

Missing followups (sent from mobile phone so list was not CCd)

Marc wrote:

Chris,

Your argument that PageRank promotes sensationalism while wikipedia
process promotes quality is self defeating because for every search on
google on any given topic available in Wikipedia the first link in the
PageRank result point to Wikipedia.

In his case, you are frustrating yourself as you argue against your own logic.

Marc

~~

Chris wrote:

big difference - between results and means.

~~

Marc wrote:

Are you saying that Wikipedia games the Google Pagerank algorithm or
that Google treats wikipedia favorably due to political bias rather
than based on an impartial algorithm?

Both conclusions have negative implications on Wikipedia, but I doubt
that they are true.

What I know is true is that PageRank simply works and that is based on
the fact that Google is favored by more users than any other search
engine.

So for any wikipedia competitor that allows multiple versions per
topic the highest ranking version should have the same chance
eventually as the Wikipedia page for that topic assuming it simply
copies the Wikipedia entry, and if iy manages to have higher quality
content according to PageRank then it should rank higher than the
Wikipedia page for the same topic.

In otherwords, having it done in an impartial way by an algorithm is
better for freedom of knowledge.

Having a few admins dictate what knowledge is has the smell of dictatorship.

Marc

~~

Chris wrote:

    Are you saying that Wikipedia games the Google Pagerank algorithm or
    that Google treats wikipedia favorably due to ppluical bias rather
    than based on an impartial algorithm?


Neither.

Good quality, useful sites are often popular, so it gets a high
PageRank. Wikipedia benefits from this. Also that it's easy for blogs
to link to Wikipedia for explanations of things.

Popular sites are not automatically good quality or useful in the same sense.


    Both conclusions have negative implications on Wikipedia, but I doubt
    that they are true.

    What I know is true is that PageRank simply works and that is based on
    the fact that Google is favored by more users than any other search
    engine.

    So for any wikipedia competitor that allows multiple versions per
    topic the highest ranking version should have the same chance
    eventually as the Wikipedia page for that topic assuming it simply
    copies the Wikipedia entry, and if iy manages to have higher quality
    content according to PageRank then it should rank higher than the
    Wikipedia page for the same topic.

    In otherwords, having it done in an impartial way by an algorithm is
    better for freedom of knowledge.

    Having a few admins dictate what knowledge is has the smell of dictatorship.


But they don't, in the cases I'm aware of. There are rules, and some
people don't like those rules, especially those promoting their own
theories. That's behind much (not all) of the resentment towards
admins.

Chris

~~

Marc wrote:

Your argument is clearly in favor of the established order.

~~

Chris wrote:

doesn't matter much what it's in favor of - it matters whether the
argument is sound.

~~

Marc wrote:

I don't think its sound today. Maybe a 100 years ago. That is my opinion.


~~

This brings the list up to date on the Wikiversity/Wikipedia debate...

Marc