On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org wrote:
balance, independently of which system is actually better -- such as, Wikipedia having gotten there first, or having more users.)
Why do you think Wikipedia has more users? I know that's kind of a cheap shot, but it's true: unfettered ability to edit and publish is a major drawcard for people wanting to contribute. And, of course, vandals.
Your idea is interesting, and I agree with your "more bang for your buck" theory: 100 hours of community-provided work followed by 20 minutes of expert work could easily double or triple the value of the work provided by the community. However: - Where would we find experts? - Who would want to verify our really boring articles, lists, etc... - Would an expert really "stake their reputation" on an article? What's in it for them? - Can we really present this in a useful way to the public? "This article is unverified. However, 3 months and 280 revisions ago, an expert from a university you've never heard of verified it as accurate." Um...
Steve