Kim van der Linde wrote
What is nicer than to work with some experts in that field to create good quality articles.
Before I even came to WP, in 2003, I had spent a year intensively (as it seemed at the time) editing another wiki (Sensei's Library, the go wiki). That has some special features, in particular that the centre of real expertise in the world is not at all anglophone. Still, although I edit there now, the experience left me with a distruct of quasi-wiki structures. (I even wrote a Meatball Wiki page about the set-up.)
Basically in go you have a grade, and the editor with the lower grade should defer. But it turns out that this is too static a system to really be satisfactory: not enough hard editing goes on. That wiki is dominated, to this day, by thread-mode discussion, and has never made it to 'encyclopedic' as understood at WP. There is plenty of good stuff, but the whole place is _insufficiently_ ruthless in hacking it about.
I do prefer WP, vexing though it may be. I bring this all up because if good manners were all there was to it, Sensei's Library would be a shining example.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 19/09/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Basically in go you have a grade, and the editor with the lower grade should defer. But it turns out that this is too static a system to really be satisfactory: not enough hard editing goes on. That wiki is dominated, to this day, by thread-mode discussion, and has never made it to 'encyclopedic' as understood at WP. There is plenty of good stuff, but the whole place is _insufficiently_ ruthless in hacking it about. I do prefer WP, vexing though it may be. I bring this all up because if good manners were all there was to it, Sensei's Library would be a shining example.
This is also of interest in answering the perennial suggestion of fixing edit wars by having article forks. It might stop the editors from fighting (or it might not), but it's no way to produce something good for the reader. IMO.
- d.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I do prefer WP, vexing though it may be. I bring this all up because if good manners were all there was to it, Sensei's Library would be a shining example.
What you describe is a pretty static example. Citizendium could turn out that way (its a risk with Larry's top-down preference that I think to see in his other projects), but in that case, I am out of there. For the rest, the basic structure is not even set up, Larry has some rough ideas, that's all. But I have been actively thinking about how to set up a wiki that would do the right job, and I am definitely going to participate there as I see more options there to get something better going than at Wikipedia with its inherent anti-expert attitude. If wikipedia would be willing to make some fundamental changes towards a more quality oriented goal than to the current process based goals, I would stay.
In that context, we not even have a content ArbCom filled with open minded academics and related experts who actually know how to deal with content disputes, it is conduct based one; maybe we should start a separate thread about that, because I have some ideas about that.
Kim
On 19/09/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
going than at Wikipedia with its inherent anti-expert attitude. If
Anti-expert or expert-neutral?
I'm wondering what your examples are. What was the interaction that convinced you to leave, for example?
In that context, we not even have a content ArbCom filled with open minded academics and related experts who actually know how to deal with content disputes, it is conduct based one; maybe we should start a separate thread about that, because I have some ideas about that.
I'm sorry, I can't actually understand this paragraph.
- d.