Charles Matthews wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
I think what's interesting here is asking: how does Wikipedia harness the energy of the public (for want of a better word) in a way that can be more productive, useful (or at least less brain-sporkingly nonsensical) than a newspaper open comment section does?
Of course just about any model is superior to encouraging low-level ranting. The "open comments" are generally less interesting than a letters page because there may be no filter. Or, as in the case of the Sunday Times it seems, there is moderation but only to save embarrassment to the paper. WP's basic idea of "merciless editing" is one way, and it gets to one major issue at the root: touchtyping skills don't make you a great writer, while basic copyediting skills can transform rubbish prose.
The difference between merciless editing and open comments is as much the difference between mainspace and talk pages. There needs to be a place of "low-level ranting", which often verges on the incoherent. Hopefully there are enough pigs to smell out the truffles in the pile of vegemite. I feel very concerned when some individuals determine that certain material should be removed from a talk page because it does not serve to improve the corresponding article.
But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's book, the reviewer singled out the collaboratively-written afterword as better written than Andrew's book, which he found "full of interest but rather indulgent, containing too much incidental detail about people Lih wants to please." I can't imagine Andrew is fully happy about that (!) - but it's an interesting take.
Time for one of my current pet theories: the "triangle of takes" on upgrading WP. Andrew Lih represents one vertex, as you can see in his recent NYT interview, where he cites popular culture and politics as the drivers in WP. Basically this is about being very current in our coverage. Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they don't care about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to the point where there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third vertex is comprehensiveness. Lih's book - well, I haven't read it yet (sorry, Andrew), but you can see it fitting roughly in with where I locate him on the triangle. The "incidental detail" is often how popular culture or political journalism is (deliberately) written, rather than trying for in-depth or serious.
Anyway, I commend the triangle: currency, comprehensiveness, quality. Most people around the wiki can probably plot themselves somewhere in the interior, and this gives a kind of map of prorities.
I wouldn't see it as a triangle, but as a bi-polarity with currency being a variation of comprehensiveness in the time dimension. Looking at the recent Iranian election, where but on Wikipedia could one get a breakdown of the official vote-count by province. (Whether or not that count is fraudulent is quite a different matter, because such a break-down could be sought just as much in non-controversial circumstances.) Traditional electronic journalism would only bore people by droning on with such statistics; patterns of information are not obvious in such a linear presentation. Print journalism could present the information more comprehensively, but if it appears in to-day's newspaper you may not want the information until next week ... by which time you will have already used that newspaper to wrap the kitchen garbage. Wikipedia is in a position to negate both of these limitations. Iran specialists may be able to find that information on familiar sites, but for generalists it would take considerable effort to find those sites.
FA people are like teachers who teach for the sake of passing exams; it is easy for them to perceive quality as exemplified in a manuscript that is immutably ready for the printer. To do this they must ignore the dynamic quality of NPOV.
Ec