On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:13:37PM +0000, Abe Sokolov wrote:
Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work having any meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia articles and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time.
A lack of credibility is not a problem that Wikipedia currently has. Indeed, Wikipedia's credibility is if anything on the rise, as more people have heard of it through the media, academic discussions, and so on. Remember that we started from zero, not from Britannica; and thus that everything we have built in terms of credibility is a long step up from the -nothing- that many assumed Wikipedia could accomplish.
What's more, greater credibility will not come by establishing more and more arcane policies and procedures, making a greater bureaucratic hassle of the project. It will, rather, come through the production and presentation of high-quality articles. The Featured Articles project has a great deal more to say about Wikipedia's credibility than the Arbitration Committee. The former is a way of presenting our very best work; the latter is simply a tool to help fend off the worst vandals, liars, harassers, and persistent abusers of power.
It is unfortunate, but true, that bad news gets more coverage than good, and that people can get more attention and name-recognition within the project by mistreating others and breaking things than by producing good material. Thankfully this does not have to the image that Wikipedia presents to the world. The excellent front page material, the featured articles, and other mechanisms that promote excellent work are what give Wikipedia its credibility -- and all the trolls, POV-pushers, and other abusers are not going to degrade that.