At 05:32 PM 3/20/2007 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton <bennett(a)peacefire.org> wrote:
> > balance, independently of which system is actually better -- such as,
> > Wikipedia having gotten there first, or having more users.)
>
>Why do you think Wikipedia has more users? I know that's kind of a
>cheap shot, but it's true: unfettered ability to edit and publish is a
>major drawcard for people wanting to contribute. And, of course,
>vandals.
Well Citizendium also builds up articles by having them go through an
initial growth period, before they are "approved" and signed off on by
editors, and any future changes also have to be approved by editors.
If the difference were only due to the fun of real-time editing, then there
would be just as many Citizendium users participating in the
real-time-editing process during the growth period of an article, as there
are on Wikipedia. I think it's safe to say that Wikipedia's first-mover
advantage and name recognition is the main reason this is not the case :)
>Your idea is interesting, and I agree with your "more bang for your
>buck" theory: 100 hours of community-provided work followed by 20
>minutes of expert work could easily double or triple the value of the
>work provided by the community. However:
>- Where would we find experts?
Well, the same place you find them now. It seems there are enough experts
motivated by fun, altruism, etc. to put together pretty high-quality
articles on things like Biology. It seems likely that some of them would
make the comparably tiny extra effort just to read what's already there and
say "Yep, that's true" if they knew it would make the article many times
more useful.
>- Who would want to verify our really boring articles, lists, etc...
>- Would an expert really "stake their reputation" on an article?
>What's in it for them?
The answer to both questions is the same, I think, except that in the first
case the person approving the article wouldn't have to be an
expert. There's the same fun/altruism motive that motivates people to
contribute in the first place, and then there's also the name-up-in-lights
factor of being the person who approved *the* Physics article in Wikipedia,
for example.
I've actually argued that Citizendium should go even further with the
name-up-in-lights factor by giving the approving editor(s) name recognition
right at the top of the article, with individual contributors listed in the
"end credits" (at the bottom, or on another page if the credits run too
long). This may become an "ego thing" for the editors, but to the extent
that the "ego thing" motivates them to make sure the article content is
good, that would serve the interests of the project. Some people think
that kind of thing detracts from the "spirit" of the project, but I think
such choices have to be judged on how much they serve the project's goals,
and if it results in better content, then it would be a good thing.
If the person's name is not right there on the article (even if it can be
looked up in the history), then the reward associated with signing off on
it, decreases. However, if their name is not on the article, then the
*risk* associated with signing off on the article also decreases. So in
either case there is a reward associated with the risk.
For having your name on an article, does the reward outweigh the risk? It
would seem that many people believe the answer is overwhelmingly yes, given
the amount of stuff people write and almost always sign with their own
name.
>- Can we really present this in a useful way to the public? "This
>article is unverified. However, 3 months and 280 revisions ago, an
>expert from a university you've never heard of verified it as
>accurate." Um...
In the Citizendium model, once an article is approved, that's the version
that people see by default, and the next one in the pipeline only replaces
the current version after the assigned editor has signed off on that too.
-Bennett