"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common." - John Locke

Wikipedia is a major shift in the way information is collected and dispersed. It's ranked ninth on Alexa; there's no way to ignore its impact. Most of the people who write about Wikipedia for the mainstream media have a limited and flawed understanding of the site. Someone I respect who does understand it has described Wikipedia as an organization committed to reinventing the wheel. That's the site's greatest asset and, sometimes, its greatest liability.

On several levels the site represents a significant paradigm shift. It's exciting to people who are attracted to that sort of thing, but we're a self-selecting group. Very few of us publish much outside Wikipedia and that results in problems that confront any insular group. To most people in the broader public Wikipedia doesn't behave in intuitive ways. There's a very understandable impulse - when something is frustrating - to raise one's voice and call it stupid.

I look for the metamessage when that happens. Because even if I can parse the literal message on its own terms and refute every part of it, I doubt I'll win the other person's trust if I address it on that level. Metamessages are tricky things; I'm still chewing on this one. I think there's something in there that deserves our attention.

-Durova