Depends on the people.
Wikipedia is full of people who like participating in an online
community, and respect within that community is then a motivation.
However, Wikipedia is notoriously bad at attracting expects, and even
the experts we have tend to run away from their specialist areas.
Imagine a project where someone wrote the article on Quantum Physics,
The Beetles, or the Latin declensions, not primarily because they cared
about kudos in the virtual community but because they were experts in
their field, cared about it, and liked the writing an article and having
their name associated with it. Imagine a project where a doctoral
student who usually writes research papers was attracted to write an
general article in their field and add it to their publications resume,
knowing that other knowledgeable people in the field would offer
feedback and assessment.
Wikipedia does well at attracting and retaining the type of people it
has, doing their things they do - and that produces the product you get.
A different model, based on a different motivational psychology, would
yield different results.
I think the problem for the Wikipedia vs Citizendium debate is that it
too much assumes that the Citizendium model succeeds only if it manages
eventually to duplicate all that is good about Wikipedia, whilst
improving on some of the downsides. Indeed, I think Sanger made this
mistake from the outset - seen in his initial ambition to use the whole
Wikipedia database. You can go for an authoritative, reliable,
encyclopedia, written by experts, or you can go for size and wide scope.
You can't square the circle. Complaining that the ordinary web user
can't easily edit CZ, misses the point that you don't want them too.
Elitist encyclopaedias are written by elites. (Although I think they've
pretty much failed in attracting that elite group.)
If at any time
Otherpedia.org succeeds, you will not be able to compare
it with wikipedia. It will be apples to the WMF oranges. I, for myself,
I don't think it it will be a wiki at all.
David Goodman wrote:
Very few people manage to acheive in their lives
either fame in the
world as a whole, or much money. What motivates people is the extent
to which they can become a respected (or, if you will, famous) member
of whatever their own circles are, at work and outside it. Both
Wikipedia and Citizendium are large enough to offer this. To a
certain extent its easier in a smaller community, but a large one
offers more sub-groups. Large communities typically form as many
subgroups as necessary to provide all the people after a period
awaiting acceptance with an opportunity for this. Primates typically
want to become alpha in their own band, not king of the jungle.
The next step in self-respect is knowing that one's community has a
role of some significance in wider circles--that one's band will come
out ahead in conflicts with other such bands. Typically, the actual
alpha primate in a band doesn't have much direct function here--it
depends on the younger ones. This at present is why people come to
Wikipedia: whatever small role one has with it will be seen much more
widely.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
.
There are two things which motivate people - fame
and money. Wikipedia
offers neither. It is not impossible that a formula could emerge that
allows revenue to the writer or the writer to get the type of kudos that
is bankable on a CV. Knowl and CZ have both realised this - but neither
seems to have got the formula right. (If, indeed, it is possible to.)