Having an article only gives the impression to readers that we tolerate junk.
Which is good. If we give the impression to readers that we tolerate only full-grown complete articles, we will detract contributors who are perhaps not quite as good a writer as they would like to be.
Exactly. This is why Nupedia failed.
That may be one of the reasons why the early attempt at Nupedia failed, but the idea behind Nupedia still lives. Haven't many of us discussed some form of stable Wikipedia 1.0, which has some form of peer-review above the usual? And perhaps Nupedia was a bit premature, as we were asking volunteers to start from zero.
Wikipedia has grown immensely in the last few years. The number of people with serious academic credentials who have some favorable opinion of it has probably grown by an order of magnitude as well. Now that a huge amount of open-source material is already available here, it should be easier to re-kindle the Nupedia project today. The idea would be much more attractive this time around, as (on many subjects) people wouldn't have to start from scratch. Contributors could take a series of Wikipedia articles (if they wished) and use this text as a launching pad for their own work.
Like Larry Sanger, I am still concerned about the long-term prestige of Wikipedia. As long as many contributors don't reference their claims, and don't rely on published authorities (at least to some extent), then many people in academic won't take our articles seriously. But using Wikipedia as an open-source feeder for growing Nupedia articles leverages everyone's efforts; the whole could be much greater than the sum of its parts.
Nupedia might not have worked then. But one or two years from now it might be the perfect idea.
Robert (RK)
===== I�m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it�s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail