On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/5/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a socially
defined collection of original research.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which subverts the usual definition of an
encyclopedia and expands far beyonds the bounds of typical
encyclopedias because of its social model, one based on collective
authorship. You can't get around the social interaction, it is what
makes the entire thing work. I should think such is fairly obvious.
I think "free", the assumption of accuracy that comes with
"encyclopedia", and the assumption that reasonable people will be reviewing the
changes without requiring days of debate over easily verifiable knowledge is more obvious.
Unless we're discussing trolls, you'll have to provide support for your opinion.
How many people arrive at Wiki as a result of a "social interaction" or
"chat" search on Google? Has that even been suggested in a motto of the day?
That's a reasonable argument for mysapce's success, not an encyclopedia who's
goal is to share the sum of the world's knowledge.
I'll respond on the rest later.~~~~Pro-Lick
I still think you've entirely missed the point of what I mean by
"social interaction." Wikipedia works because people come together,
contribute information, edit information, squabble over it, have
little arguments, e-mail each other, organize list serves, organize
chats, use elaborate guidelines and rule structures to get what they
want, etc. etc. etc. Wikipedia's content is produced through these
interactions between users, who are organized and regulated by the
software which runs Wikipedia, by their shared (and not shared) values
and norms, and by a complex set of regulations, stated ideals, and
bureaucratic procedures which have been formulated over time.
Wikipedia succeeds to the degree that it does because these
regulations of user activity are, ideally, designed to encourage
contribution, discourage the effects of vandalism, and weed out bad
All of this would fall under "social interaction" in the standard
definition. If the "social" is what is confusing you, you might look
at our article on [[social interaction]] which goes into a little more
detail on this, if you are interested in pursuing this further. I
think I've exhausted my ability for explaination it at the moment.