NSK (nsk2@wikinerds.org) [041023 01:57]:
On Friday 22 October 2004 16:36, John Lee wrote:
That was tried with Nupedia, Wikipedia's forefather. There's a reason why Wikipedia exists today and Nupedia doesn't, you know...
IMO the open "anything goes" model of WP is more suited for non-serious sites that just accept anything. This kind of sites attract mostly the popular masses that just want to push POVs or do something creative in their weekends (i.e. they work just for their own satisfaction and not for the common good).
The common good is the source of my satisfaction on Wikpedia. I think that's true of almost any Wikipedia editor.
As far as seriousness versus quality, note de: recently won a single-blind comparison with several competitors. Wikipedia can beat the leaders of the field without trashing the Wiki model; you are arguing from personal incredulity, but this recent evidence suggests there isn't actually an irreparable problem, if there is in fact any problem.
I'd like to see Wikipedia articles being better-referenced. The reference markup language proposals would be damn fine things to see going into production. This would make better referencing *easy*. It would let the wiki do the heavy lifting, which is essential to any radical policy change working.
- d.