On 13/10/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
The argument on finitude applies much better to
individuals than to
the project as a whole. A natural "encyclopedist" would be someone
willing to write stubs, at least, outside their comfort zone of familiar
knowledge. So the point becomes that there are relatively few of
those. Yes, but WP has actually come this far because such people
are many more than Britannica's view would suggest. Professional
reference book writers are not so many, though I did meet one at
Wikimania. The issue is of recruiting and retaining the right people,
who can learn on the job. The scope of Wikipedia is not really the
point.
Again, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying we're going to slow
down our growth rate as we transition from "the dilettantes' work is
done" to "it's the hard-core encyclopedists from here on in", simply
because there's a much smaller pool of them to work with and the work
they're doing is a touch more time-consuming.
A lot of this thread is people worrying over slowing growth, but my
point is that it isn't a problem, it isn't a sign of failure - it's a
sign of moving to the next stage.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk