Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Assuming that good content (if any) in sangers project will be added to wikipedia, why would potential editors prefer to edit these articles that are copied back to wikipedia too on sangers project, rather than on wikipedia? There has to be some added value to editing on sangers project, rather than on wikipedia, for his project to flourish. What is it? I genuinely want to know.
If I had to guess, one response would be: the opportunity for a genuine expert to work hand in hand with other genuine experts, without the social difficulty of having to interact with the general public, some of whom are quite noticeably stupid and annoying.
That's what I initially thought, but as Sangers clarified his ideas in his responses to Slashdot comments, it appears that he *does* plan to have most users and article writers be non-experts. He proposes that experts should have an "editorship" type role, to "gently guide" the work of non-experts. It's unclear what exactly this will involve, but it doesn't seem like it will be the place for experts who want to avoid interacting with the general public---the only advantage is that in those interactions they may be given some official levers to use (but still be expected to use them "gently").
-Mark