on 8/17/07 4:52 AM, Andrey at yaroslavl@gmail.com wrote:
"An early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there."
This happens very often, particularly with good and featured articles. Many outstanding pages have been eroded by anonymous know-it-alls into utter uselessness once their main contributors left the project. Unless we have content arbitration boards made up of professionals in any given field, we are likely to see an increase in complaints and a decrease in a number of knowledgable contributors.
--Ghirla
This is an issue that has been touched upon several times, and in several different ways, in the past. But each time the discussion has spiraled off into battles about what constitutes a "professional" and the definition of "expert".
Well over six months ago I personally persuaded several top-notch writers in their field to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In each and every case they finally gave up in frustration after their work was reverted or challenged on grounds that were pure bullshit. These are persons who write for professional journals all of the time, and frequently engage in arguments over their writings with others that they know. The reality of the matter is they, and persons like them, have neither the time nor inclination to argue their work with persons they have no clue about.
I really don't know what the answer is. But I do know that part of the problem is the fact that the Project is still very much in need of a firm, coherent direction, and an equally strong identity.
Marc Riddell
On 8/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/artic... e2267665.ece
Stable versions would help with answering some of that criticism. Plenty of what he says is fair enough, IMO, particularly the point about the loudest voices winning purely by virtue of obnoxious trolling.
C More schi