On 9/17/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
gwern branwen wrote:
......
'Soundness' can be read as 'static', and the value of staticness can be overrated. Cyclopaedia is static, yet not useful.
Well, that is your interpretation of sound, not mine. Sound content is dynamic. If I want static content, I go for a paper encyclopaedia. And dynamic high quality content on Wikipedia deteriorates all the time unless experts babysit the complex articles. Nice dynamic, sure......
I agree with you that the *prose* in our best articles tends to deteriorate over time - that's been proven time and again here on this list with regard to FAs, anyway - but I don't think the basic information does: I've watched about 2000 articles for the best part of 3 years now, and the articles which have deteriorated generally should never have been there in the first place.
- Content there, if the right editing paradigm is chosen, will continue
to improve, which would either require Wikipedia to repeatedly insert the newest version, of basically fall behind.
If anything, the flow would be the other way. By definition, Sanger's various projects must expect to draw upon a smaller stock of possible editors. Without even considering first mover, network, or winner-take-all effects, we should expect Citizenpedia to be borrowing content from Wikipedia, not the other way around.
Initially, yes. But that will change as soon as there is a sound community of editors at Citizendium. The pool of editors might be smaller, but the vandal fighting also, which results in a lesser need for editors to babysit the many articles. It probably will also contain less pseudo-notable stuff, like all pokemon characters and such for which Wikipedia is and will remain a perfect place. And by the sound of colleagues around me, they might be way more willing to help out with less open-to-all-editing initiatives.
I think you're overestimating how much of a brake vandalism is. Semiprotection, more admins, the vandalism bots have all greatly reduced the time I need to spend reverting stuff on my watchlist. It's purely anecdotal, but in my experience vandalism has remained constant or gone down even as there are ever more articles and Wikipedians. (Am I alone in thinking this? Has anyone else gotten this impression?)
Besides that, the contributors have more time to spend on actual content due to less vandal fighting. Finally, at current, the stream of information is from Britannica to Wikipedia, not the other way round.
What sort of argument is that? Of course it is one way, that's part and parcel of Wikipedia being open and EB being closed; not to mention they wouldn't be caught dead borrowing anything from us because of their pride.
Kim
--Gwern