Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/WikiProject report

WikiProject Military History: Combat, weapons, monuments and personalities.

← Back to Contents

View Latest Issue

WikiProject Military History

•  PDF download

 E-mail

 Mastodon

 LinkedIn

 Facebook

 X (Twitter)

 Reddit

Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood

• What sets this Wikiproject, which has remained relatively active, apart from most other projects, which have fallen into slow decline?
  • To be honest, I'd argue that MILHIST is also currently in a process of decline and that this mirrors (broadly) the general trend on Wikipedia. I would argue, though, that this is normal for any organisation following a period of rapid expansion, as it finds its equilibrium. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • The Military History Project has not been immune to the general inexorable decline process, and to survive in the long run Wikipedia needs to ditch some of the dogma. We have the advantage that the subject is highly accessible to the general public. We have some advantages over other projects in our subject area. Military history is amenable to eventualism. For the moment at least, historians write books, which are not subject to loss through technological changes. There is a general demand for the books. Most bookstores have a Military History section. It also means that there is a thriving trade in second hand military books, whereas the work I did for the Paralympics required the mobilisation of a workforce and the attendance at events to grab the information while it was available. Although frowned on by academia, military history has a loyal following, and the project is lucky to have a solid core of highly knowledgeable editors. It is pleasing that the Military History Project has carved out a reputation for high quality workmanship. A key part of this has been our A-class review process. It has standards comparable to FAC, but more structured and without its limitations. Like FAC, its standards have risen over time. I tried to simplify its administration by automating it with a Bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • To be brutally honest, we've lost our thrusters and have been suffering a slow decline over the last few years due to an absence of new contributors to Wikipedia in general. That combined with our ever changing standards is making it harder for us to maintain the articles and reviews and such at currently acceptable levels. For the time being this is somewhat offset by our core of hardcore contributors, but there's only so much that they can do to keep us in orbit. If Wikipedia as a whole could rebound somewhat, this problem in general may resolve itself - if we could convince enough people to give the site a chance. TomStar81 (Talk)
  • I tend to agree with Rupert, Hawkeye and Tom that MilHist has also slowed down, although I'd still count it as thriving in comparison to some areas of WP. Just to take an example close to my heart, while we've not always run closely to our planned schedule with the Bugle newsletter, we've never missed an issue. In terms of what sets the project apart, not being an active member of any similar projects it's perhaps difficult to say but I do think there is a good sense of community and -- generally -- a lack of conflict (perhaps ironically in light of our subject interest). As far as processes go, A-Class Review is still a very important and distinguishing aspect. Ian Rose (talk)

• Is the success transferable to other projects, by changing how they work?
  • Each project has its own strengths and weaknesses, and its own challenges and opportunities. As does MILHIST. We do some things well, while other areas could be improved. Such is life. Ultimately, the key to success for any project will be to build a core of editors keen to work together for a common(ish) purpose. Achieving this, and maintaining it, is difficult, but there are certainly many ways to do so. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • As is the case everywhere on Wikipedia, a small group of editors create 90 per cent of the content. Ironically, military history is a peaceful, constructive and collaborative community. But the key is always enthusiasm and a desire to spread knowledge in pursuit of our educational mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • We have a particular contributor base that works with our particular model for our articles and reviews and such, so copying what we have won't automatically work for other projects. That being said, solving the larger Wikipedia related issues would (in theory) help all the projects by bringing in fresh blood, fresh perspective, and fresh ideas to projects that we can all agree we sorely need. TomStar81 (Talk)

• Is there any work that the project has done you would like to highlight as being particularly successful?
  • I think our A-class review process has been quite successful over the years. The project's newsletter, The Bugle, is also an aspect that I think deserves highlighting. This is largely the result of a small group including its dedicated editors, Nick-D and Ian Rose, and some regular contributors such as Hawkeye7 and TomStar81. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • Echoing Rupert, even though A-Class Review doesn't attract quite the same interest it once did, it's still going quite strong, and I think serves as a model for any project seeking to create a "pre-FAC" community assessment process. Rupert was also too modest to mention his own contributions to the Bugle, often helping with project news, contest results and so on -- this sort of effort has meant that Nick and I really do just need to edit much of the time, most of the original writing being done by other project members, as one would hope. Ian Rose (talk)

• Are there any methods you use to prevent biases and conspiracy theories from existing?
  • I think site wide policies such as WP:V and WP:FRINGE say it best. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • We do keep an eye on the articles for this, and in fairness we've had trouble in the past with some black project related material for which sourcing is generally fringe at best. A conscious effort to keep the pages clear of conspiracy material helps, but I personally feel that the larger problem is with the never ending amount of popular culture related appearances which people document in trivial ways in the articles. While there can be no denying that military equipment is a popular culture area, most of what we see is material that is not sourced, poorly, sourced, and generally not really needed in the articles in question. Wrangling all this into corals so it can be handled correctly can be challenging at times, especially when dealing with new or unregistered users who feel that the material should be present at any cost. TomStar81 (Talk)
  • There are constant conflicts with Randy in Boise. This mostly affects the infoboxes and the lead, as Randy doesn't have the wherewithal to read the articles. As early as 1964, Richard Hofstadter warned that anti-intellectualism was a consequences of the democratisation of knowledge. There is a trend of disparaging experts, who have a record of debunking cherished beliefs. Many people think that Wikipedia means that we don't need experts anymore; they seem unaware that those experts are the very people who made the information available on Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE sounds like a reference to the tinfoil hat brigade, but as the term is defined on Wikipedia, it also covers many popular and widely-held ideas and beliefs. Biases that affect Military History often arise from the very heart of English-speaking culture. Our best defence is each other; the collective will of the project that can marshal numbers needed to fight off challenges from individuals or even small groups. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• Anything else you'd like to add?
  • The project's ongoing success will be tested in the coming years. To remain successful, we need to ensure that we welcome new editors while managing to keep our olds and bolds. New isn't always better, but the old ways also aren't always the best way either. Encouraging people to get involved in the broader processes of the project will also be a challenge. We need to ensure that our processes are simple, but also effective in producing quality content, while providing an editing environment that encourages people to participate and enables them to feel part of a community. Whether we can achieve this remains to be seen, but it will be a defining part of our Wikipedia journey as a project. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • For some years now we've escaped the downward spiral of Wikipedia's dry rot but it's finally starting to catch up with us, and that should concern everyone here. If a large project as successful as ours has been is starting to feel the grasp of lady death's cold fingers then it means we've reached a point where Wikipedia is going to have to evolve if it is going to survive. New members are urgently needed, but our overall sense of community has declined in the last five or so years such that these days it seems that the site survives less on contributors and more on luck. We need to reignite that spark from the old days when this was still an exciting and cool place to be, otherwise the constant burnout is going to be the death of all of us. TomStar81 (Talk)

In this issue

26 April 2018 (all comments)

From the editors

Signpost

• Over at WP:Video Games, we're having a discussion about this interview, especially the repeated assertion that the MILHIST project and wikipedia overall is in decline. I pulled up assessment data (as I had it handy) for the last 12 years for WP:VG, and while 2017 wasn't our best year ever the trend overall doesn't match "in decline for the last few years". One of the conclusions we're tentatively reaching is that this feeling of malaise may be a result of all the low-hanging fruit being written, with what's left being on average more difficult to write/research; this problem would be more prominent at MILHIST than VG as VG gets new, exciting and easily-sourcable subject released every year, while MILHIST doesn't. WP:OMT, for example, seems to have stalled out a few years ago (at the start of the "decline") pretty much exactly when it would be expected to- when the battleship articles that people were most interested in writing got pushed to GA+, and all that was left was the ones that felt more like work. This doesn't mean that the "decline" isn't a problem- lack of low-hanging fruit makes it difficult to replace old editors with inexperienced editors that need something to work on as they build skill- but it does frame it as more of a natural life-cycle shift than a death knell for the project. --PresN 17:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no shortage of MILHIST writing assignments. The project is still struggling to get 15 per cent of the articles up to B class or better. Only 1,609 are FA and A class; another 16,994 are GA and B. A staggering 98,686 are C and start class. The manpower to tackle this problem no longer exists, so they will probably wind up being deleted. But what is "low hanging fruit"? An article for which sources exist to lift it to A class? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed - in most content areas the "low-hanging fruit" is no longer subjects with no article, but subjects with rather poor articles but high views. These can be tackled by inexperienced editors with the right attitude & access to good sources, and indeed are the best thing for them to them to work on. Unfortunately the idea has persisted for far too long that content addition is mainly about adding new articles. But C and start class won't and shouldn't be deleted, & many are not bad at all. But we already know that even those that are pretty terrible will just sit there neglected ad infinitum, as many have now done for over 10 years. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been decrying "number of articles" as the unit of analysis for some time. Editor passion certainly runs along the lines where a desire to establish a narrative connects to needed content. At some point, the low-hanging fruit of commonly desired narratives have been fulfilled and what remains are the undesirable clean-up tasks requiring hard work. I have to believe that it was easier to host more editors when it was the wild west here and there were fewer rules and less stringent sourcing requirements for those editors with unspent passion sans discipline and education. I prefer to see Wikipedia's "decline" as a lack of the right sort of editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We have side by side a tribune saying "this outlook borders on historical revisionism and whitewashing: accomplishments are celebrated while crimes and ideological alignment with the regime are minimised, in contrast to the contemporary historiography of the war" and a WikiProject report that says something like "business as usual". More cross-comments would be welcome ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hawkeye7: A little late, but I agree with Working on a series of articles in a particular topic area allows you to re-use the sources that you have assembled. wholeheartedly. This is why I focus on good topics; I can reuse the same sources across multiple articles. For the 2016 Guamanian Olympians, I slowly wrote the others articles while I worked on a specific one, giving it a good base for expansion when I got to it. Even now, working on articles like Michael Collins, I could cite or add content to Edwards Air Force Base, his father's article, Gemini 4, Buzz Aldrin, and I am sure many more as I work my way through the book, making it easier to promote all of those articles later. Kees08 (Talk) 07:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Languages