[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia

[Geoff Burling]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> --- Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For those of you who were around when it kicked off... when it
> > went live, was it intended to become a reference tool *on the
> > web* like it has now, or was the web process intended to be
> > somewhat less obvious than it became (a top-40 site, eek)?
> > Open, yes, freely editable, yes, but a live "proper"
> > encyclopedia from Year One?
>
> My first edit was on 2 January 2002. Boy was the place a mess (have you seen
> UseMod ; ugly ; en.wikipedia had less than 20,000 articles and Larry Sanger was
> still around). But I loved it since there was so much to do. Almost every
> article I saw was obviously a work in progress. We were still working out basic
> rules and conventions. WikiProjects were just getting underway. Just about
> anybody could have a major influence on policy formation and the direction of
> WikiProjects.
>
> At the time we thought it would take us 5 years to to reach our initial goal of
> 100,000 articles. All the focus I saw was on development, not use in the near
> to mid term. I don't think anybody, except maybe Jimbo, could have dreamed we
> would get so popular so fast, or so useful.
>
> Now when I look around, most articles that cover subjects encyclopedias should
> cover look fairly complete. Articles on technology, popular culture, and
> current events are even better on average.
>
> Wikipedia becoming useful; well, that is something that kinda snuck up on me
> while I was helping make it useful. I'm sure it also surprised many other old
> timers as well. The idea seemed too far in the future to even think about.
>
I haven't been around as long as Mav (I still kinda consider him one of the
"authentic original Wikipedians"), but much of what he says above
could be my words.

But if I could build on what he wrote, one thing worth noting is the speed
of change in this project. I've mentioned in the past the problem that some
important policies are proposed & adopted before some of us who have been
on Wikipedia for a while notice. Usually there is no problem: give me a
little time to understand & adjust, & I will accept any new proposal that
is based on common sense.

Another point is that I feel compelled to defend the quality of Wikipedia
because, in part, it is my baby, but also because I know that the
professional experts are guilty of more acts of botched analyses & bad
writing than they want to admit to. Wikipedia is not only reinventing
the idea of an encyclopedia but also the (excuse me) paradigm of academia:
while our structure makes it easy for cranks, kooks & partisans to push
their own agendas here, it also frees us from the abuse of authorities
who expect us to accept their biasses as profound new discoveries or
insights.

Perhaps most of these changes will have worked their way out in the ten
years that Andrew mentions above. I can only hope that, unlike Moses,
I will be permitted to enter that Promised Land when they have finished,
& see what this experiment has led to.

Geoff