In a message dated 3/12/2007 9:30:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, oldakquill@gmail.com writes:
You are wrong on two counts. You are wrong to say that our readers don't hold the purse strings since we rely on our reader's donations. You might respond that traditional encyclopedia's more rely on customer satisfaction since proportionately more readers pay larger quantities of money to read the encyclopedia (although many will do so free of charge in public libraries), but ultimately if readers aren't satisfied enough to donate, we collapse.
Secondly, this kind of feed back quality control that traditional encyclopedias matters less to us since it is our readers who edit our content. Almost all of our readers are able to correct a mistake if one is seen. It seems that our model ensures that content is written to our reader's satisfaction because it is our readers who create our content.
You don't know that readers edit. For all you know, they could all be paid corporate cabals, and from what I've seen, that's more likely. Either that, or they're all on an ego trip to edit articles.
Wikipedia's for those who edit profusely and get authority to gang up on other editors, not those who read it.
Vincent Bartning UN: John Wallace Rich
************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.