--- Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so there are two possible scenarios: Wheat and chaff: 1 in every X contributors is a useful contributor. If we want more useful contributors, we need more contributors overall, and put up with the chaff, and develop strategies so it doesn't get too annoying (with respect to any chaff reading this list :)) Amateurs and professionals: If you host a karaoke night, Pavarotti doesn't show up. Useful contributors and pokemon fans are two fundamentally different beasts (with respect to Pokemon fans). Attracting more amateurs won't bring in more pros, and may even drive them away.
Who wants to offer their opinion on which model is more accurate?
It could be that both models fit to an extent. Maybe it's a trade-off: the many and various trolls/vandals/flame warriors/cruft/POV-pushers undoubtedly keep some better contributors away, but, by the same token, our openness and egalitarianism attract valuable editors amongst the "chaff" that we just wouldn't have otherwise.
Larry Sanger thinks that we and the expert-led Digital Universe encyclopedia project will occupy "socially complementary niches" (http://tinyurl.com/kok5r ).
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/