Andrew Gray wrote:
On 21/11/05, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>They found what is pretty much the real state of
Wikipedia right now;
>that we have some excellent articles, a fair number which are OK but
>need improvement, and some real stinkers. We've come a long way, BUT
>there's still a long way to go.
David Gerard has argued that "if we want a good
encyclopedia in ten
years, it's going to have to be a good Wikipedia" - the Rubicon of
free-content has been crossed, and good-but-costly doesn't handle well
against free-but-patchy in the marketplace (at least, not in the
general public sphere).
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/more_on_wikiped.php
We've come a long way, and there's still a long way to go - but the
key third clause is, arguably, that we've already gone too far to
stop...
Yeah. Note that that's Wikipedia *or a fork*. Could be an internal fork,
could be an external one.
I do think we've peaked way too early. What we have now is an
interesting alpha that should have 1995-style heavily aliased
"UNDER CONSTRUCTION" GIFs on most pages, and that really isn't
something you want as a top-40 website. The article rating feature
won't really help this for three to six months, as we will expressly
not be doing anything with the results except have them available
(until we've gathered enough data to see what makes sense to do
with them). Going hogwild with deletions won't hold back the tide
and will piss off the actual contributors. I'm not sure there *is*
a quick answer :-)
- d.