--- Steve Bennett <stevage(a)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/