David Goodman wrote:
The combination of user generated content, user-based
editorial
control, and free content is our characteristic. That doesn't mean
it's the best way for all purposes, or even that it will always be us
that implements it best.
It is perfectly possible that if there were an equally free
encyclopedia that was equally comprehensive, but did have editorial
control in a more authoritarian conventional manner, that people might
prefer it for many or most purposes. Even so, we will have the
distinction for being not just the first large project of our sort,
but the one that stimulated change elsewhere. It's an acknowledgment
of our importance that we are influencing conventional publication
also.
It's important that we learn from Britannica's history. Its current
crisis is not the first time it's been on its deathbed. Its revival
often depended on the injection of new management with new ideas. We
have yet to figure out how to make our own rule-making processes
dynamic. There's a natural tendency for majorities to be comfortably
protectionist about their vicarious accomplishments. The status quo can
have a warm and fuzzy feeling of the kind that makes babies reluctant to
leave the womb.
Ec