On 4/2/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"The Cunctator" wrote
I soundly disagree with you that's the main conclusion from this discussion.
I'm open to other conclusions.
In fact, looking at your above summary, I might think the proper conclusion to draw is that the bureaucratic overhead of contributing to Wikipedia has grown out of control.
It probably is harder to be a newbie. But you can still turn up and edit 99.9% of the articles without having an account. It is not plausible to me that there is a solution to compiling the largest repository (of its kind) of human knowledge ever, without some sort of trade-off. 'Open for business' is still hanging there on the door.
I think a powerful fallacy in your line of reasoning is the assumption that the encyclopedia in its current state is anywhere near the point of being comprehensive.
We should be expending every effort to prevent Wikipedia from being less welcoming or harder for newbies. Signs that Wikipedia is becoming less welcoming for newbies indicate the primary points of decay in the system.