On Friday 22 October 2004 16:36, John Lee wrote:
That was tried with Nupedia, Wikipedia's
forefather. There's a reason
why Wikipedia exists today and Nupedia doesn't, you know...
IMO the open "anything goes" model of WP is more suited for non-serious sites
that just accept anything. This kind of sites attract mostly the popular
masses that just want to push POVs or do something creative in their weekends
(i.e. they work just for their own satisfaction and not for the common good).
Sites that claim to be serious and wish to compete with Britannica need
motivated committed editors, proof readers, maintainers, sysops and policy
makers, i.e. organisation and structure. Serious sites should not be very
friendly to the uneducated masses (i.e. disallow anon editing) and rely
mostly on a small but very effective group of well-educated volunteers who do
their work for a greater good and not just for themselves. For example,
editing of scientific articles could be limited to university students or
holders of a B.Sc. degree. However, I do recognise that it is extremely
difficult to find this kind of volunteers and maintain a huge site only by
their own work.
As was already pointed out, if we implemented this then Wikipedia would
not exist. And who's to say that it MUST be a degree holder who is the
foremost expert in a field? What about, for instance, history? Should
only a University educated person be allowed to contribute? If so, say
goodbye to most of the articles on the Kings of England - they were
editted by Lord Emsworth who's still in school.
The other thing I ask is: who's going to make sure that one "expert"
remains accountable? How are we going to counter that expert's biases?
How do we make sure we do not become elitist? How do we have many people
contribute to the piece?
I hate to say this: your suggestions here running entirely counter to
Wikipedia's stated goals and the reason for its success.
TBSDY