On Tuesday, December 21, 2010, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Yes, I've been thinking that it would be neat to have an online debate or something
over this, as I write in the conclusion of the book:
Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia was debated
from the start, even by its founders, and continues to be thought suspect by critics,
particularly when a new scandal erupts as they seem to do every so often. This then
prompts much discussion. In fact, the community has discussed every conceivable aspect of
its identity and work. As I noted at the beginning of this book, this conversation is
frequently exasperating and often humorous, but we now know it is also rather pragmatic
and governed by good faith norms. Indeed, Wikipedia is an exemplar of the reflective
character of open content communities. And just when arguments that Wikipedia would never
amount to anything ceased, new arguments about its imminent death took their place. Based
on research showing that Wikipedia contribution is slowing, journalist Stephen Foley asks,
"is Wikipedia cracking up?" \acite{Foley2009siw} In 2005, law professor Eric
Goldman predicted Wikipedia would "fail" in 2010 (i.e., close access or become
spam ridden), repeated the prediction in 2006, and in 2009 made the claim at a conference
\acite{Goldman2006wwf,Anderson2009dww}. (If you can still edit Wikipedia when you read
this book, it is safe to conclude that he was wrong.)