You're right it isn't. I was comparing Knol to Wikipedia though. The only reason I brought up Ayn was because Jimmy is a Rand (or was a Rand) enthusiast, and the more I thought about it, the less I perceived WP as the sort of product she'd endorse. I don't recall clearly how at the end of Atlas Shrugged, they decided on the rules for their new society. It's entirely possible that Ayn would encourage the meta-Wiki while at the same time discouraging the article-space.
My take on her view, is that she was very anti-committee, anything created by committee was almost always fatally flawed vis a vis items created by an individual. Instead of the final result being "here is AN item which is the ultimate expression of X", you would have "here are several items, each individually created, which each are AN expression of X, you the consumer decides which is the best"
I'm not quite sure is the Knolian approach to how the consumer decides is really going to work or not. But then every system has flaws. I'm willing to give it a shot and see. I don't even think the Knol architects really know what's going to happen or what they want to happen until a situation appears directly in front of them. The Knolian approach *does* however almost entirely remove the aspect of edit-warring doesn't it? And edit-wars are really at the heart of 85% of WP problems.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 9/22/2008 6:55:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
This does not seem any more Randian than blogging does.
I mean, not that I disagree with your basic conclusion, but there's no real reason to tie the observation that Knol is personality-driven while Wikipedia attempts to meld personalities into a consistent amalgamation to controversial schools of political thought.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:12 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You're right it isn't. I was comparing Knol to Wikipedia though. The only reason I brought up Ayn was because Jimmy is a Rand (or was a Rand) enthusiast, and the more I thought about it, the less I perceived WP as the sort of product she'd endorse. I don't recall clearly how at the end of Atlas Shrugged, they decided on the rules for their new society. It's entirely possible that Ayn would encourage the meta-Wiki while at the same time discouraging the article-space.
My take on her view, is that she was very anti-committee, anything created by committee was almost always fatally flawed vis a vis items created by an individual. Instead of the final result being "here is AN item which is the ultimate expression of X", you would have "here are several items, each individually created, which each are AN expression of X, you the consumer decides which is the best"
I'm not quite sure is the Knolian approach to how the consumer decides is really going to work or not. But then every system has flaws. I'm willing to give it a shot and see. I don't even think the Knol architects really know what's going to happen or what they want to happen until a situation appears directly in front of them. The Knolian approach *does* however almost entirely remove the aspect of edit-warring doesn't it? And edit-wars are really at the heart of 85% of WP problems.
Will Johnson
Wow, I think you give Wikipeda way too much credit when you compare it to a committee, I've always envisioned it more like a mob- with all the good and bad things that implies.
The article space is most certainly not controlled by committee; the real estate of what's visible to the public in the articles is subject to constant struggle and competition amongst the editors to get what they think should be up there. We form and disband coalitions and constantly adapt our tactics to the environment of our competitors. Thankfully this competition is usually undertaken with rational debate (though I think we've all seen the occasional lynching, it's all part of being a mob).
Nothing succeeds like success is what I think Ayn would say of the Wikipedia model. It's not like we've gotten huge government subsidies or something, we've competed in the real world of ideas with giants the like of Britannica and have come out on top. People and organizations are scrambling to emulate us or put their own spin on what we do (knol, for one). We did all this with seed capital from Jimbo and the individual donations of time and money from tens of thousands.
The problems other editors complain about Wikipedia for aren't very big problems to my perception. Wikipedia is by far the most civil, helpful, friendly and down right *nice* community I have ever been a part of- online or off. I find this astounding in light of the fact we have 7,915,477 registered editors (about 95% the population of New York City!) and 10,263 "active" editors (about the size of my small town). I can't imagine my whole town working at once on a project and having as few arguments (per capita) that we have, especially considering how loose the hierarchy is here.
My high school English Composition teacher would cringe at how disorganized my essay above is, but it's late and I'm not sure how to tie it all up right now; so I'll just hit send now.