-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell stated for the record:
Quite seriously, though, I believe one of the persistent flaws in Wikipedia that is preventing it from having a wider, more professional acceptance is its policy 'anyone can edit'.
I get a great deal of satisfaction from contributing to Wikipedia. It is what's right that makes us good; but it is what's still wrong that keeps us from being great.
Regards,
Marc
A free encyclopedia that only credentialled experts could edit was tried: [[Nupedia]]. "Before it ceased operating, Nupedia produced 24 articles that completed its review process (three articles also existed in two versions of different lengths), and 74 more articles were in progress."
[[Wikipedia]], in contrast, is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. "Wikipedia has more than six million articles in many languages, including more than 1.5 million articles in the English-language version and more than half a million in the German-language version."
I find the contrast between those results hard to reconcile with the idea that something is keeping us from being great.
I recommend judging the articles you read by the sources the cite. Judging them by who their (often dozens of) editors were seems to me to be a mistake. The policy [[WP:OR]] explains this point in more detail.
- -- Sean Barrett | Portions of this message were sean@epoptic.com | composed using a computer.