NSK (nsk2(a)wikinerds.org) [041023 01:57]:
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).
The common good is the source of my satisfaction on Wikpedia. I think
that's true of almost any Wikipedia editor.
As far as seriousness versus quality, note de: recently won a single-blind
comparison with several competitors. Wikipedia can beat the leaders of the
field without trashing the Wiki model; you are arguing from personal
incredulity, but this recent evidence suggests there isn't actually an
irreparable problem, if there is in fact any problem.
I'd like to see Wikipedia articles being better-referenced. The reference
markup language proposals would be damn fine things to see going into
production. This would make better referencing *easy*. It would let the
wiki do the heavy lifting, which is essential to any radical policy change
working.
- d.