Kim van der Linde wrote
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
It is going to be a lot easier for WP to improve article content, in areas where it actually has some welcome competition, than it is going to be for those rivals to import into their site the necessary redirects and so on, to give the navigational smooth ride.
Why should only Wikipedia be able to do that?
Yes, why should another site not get the grunt work done? I guess because they start with a 'more chiefs than Indians' model of intellectual work? Delegation to the nearest graduate student actually works in academia, sort of. People get doctorates for doing what someone memorably called the more boring parts broken off the professor's research program.
Just who gets excited enough to add all those variants of [[John of Jandun]], for a random example, on a site based on a star system (as if that was a panacea)?
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:
Yes, why should another site not get the grunt work done? I guess because they start with a 'more chiefs than Indians' model of intellectual work? Delegation to the nearest graduate student actually works in academia, sort of. People get doctorates for doing what someone memorably called the more boring parts broken off the professor's research program. Just who gets excited enough to add all those variants of [[John of Jandun]], for a random example, on a site based on a star system (as if that was a panacea)?
Wikipedia gets people willing to do the ridiculously boring jobs because they believe in the project and this is a way they can help it.
An example that I find striking: The [[Puffing Billy Railway, Melbourne]] is a tourist steam railway. They have volunteers out warming up the engine every morning at 3am! Reliably! People volunteer to do jobs that when paid workers did them brought socialist revolution to mind.
Citizendium will, I suspect, need to attract people who belileve in the project and want to help it however they can and do the *really boring bits*.
- d.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Yes, why should another site not get the grunt work done? I guess because they start with a 'more chiefs than Indians' model of intellectual work?
Is it not amazing how often I get to articles that I improve at Wikipedia, just to discover how may redirects are missing, and me, as an expert adding them. Just because I know which to add?
But I think you miss a more important aspect. Suppose I am doing a Ph.D. study, and want to become a expert in a field. What is nicer than to work with some experts in that field to create good quality articles. To many people seem under the impression that Citizendium is written solely by experts, my impression is that the bulk of the work is still done by many authors together, with a major difference that only a 'finalised' version is approved and visible for the larger public. Just imagine that a group of people works together adding a new page that do not have to fight with POV-pushers of fringe or bullshit ideas (expert guidance) and vandals (not approved, no reward for vandalism), while at the same time can benefit from the expertise of those same experts to get towards a much better article as those experts do know the literature much better, know which [[WP:V]] [[WP:RS]] to use (no blanket criteria needed anymore). Furthermore, an added incentive would be that quality contributors are being recognized by those experts, which results in better working relationships, but also more praise and feedback....
Just who gets excited enough to add all those variants of [[John of Jandun]], for a random example, on a site based on a star system (as if that was a panacea)?
Who gets excited at that at Wikipedia? We have our gnomes doing those things, why can Citizendium not have them as well? There is no objection to grant recognized valuable contributors some extra privileges just to do that kind of jobs.... Let alone, that if I as an expert would know some of the regulars and would know the quality of their work, I would unseen approve series of redirects made by those people.
Kim
On 19/09/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
To many people seem under the impression that Citizendium is written solely by experts, my impression is that the bulk of the work is still done by many authors together, with a major difference that only a 'finalised' version is approved and visible for the larger public.
(We should all keep in mind that Citizendium isn't written by anyone at all as yet - it's still only a proposal.)
It's a useful idea, yes. I'm wondering, though, if their model includes non-experts as important contributors (which is what you seem to be saying), whether their initial publicity will prove problematic. It's not so much pro-expert as anti-non-expert. I don't see why a non-expert would bother with volunteering for it, what's in it for them.
Expert review of Wikipedia content is already possible. It doesn't even have to be done on Wikipedia - links to good versions of articles would suffice, as the URL of a given revision is unchanging.
(This ties in with [[WP:100K]].)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
It's a useful idea, yes. I'm wondering, though, if their model includes non-experts as important contributors (which is what you seem to be saying), whether their initial publicity will prove problematic. It's not so much pro-expert as anti-non-expert. I don't see why a non-expert would bother with volunteering for it, what's in it for them.
Ok, suppose I end up being an expert there (which I do not know yet as I am not knowing enough about their model). Say, a non-expert, high school student passes by. He just inserts junk. No issue, such a person will be out of it quickly, as there is nothing to gain for either side. But the next does know where he talks about, adds good content, and with some instruction, produces good content. As an expert, I know that person from then on, and keep working with him. It can result in a productive two-way interaction, beneficial for both. Just expand that to a group...
And just to add on the often used comparison of Wikipedia with open source software. It fails, software additions are required to work properly together with the existing code, additions at Wikipedia do not, in fact, a total rewrite is nothing less than deleting the source code and start anew. I have added to open source software and expert control is firmly in place in those projects.
Expert review of Wikipedia content is already possible.
Possible yes, is it done?
It doesn't even have to be done on Wikipedia - links to good versions of articles would suffice, as the URL of a given revision is unchanging.
Sure, the difference, Citizendium provides that good version to its readers, Wikipedia provides the latest vandalized version. Another difference, at Citizendium, this would be an expert approved version, at Wikipedia an admin approved? Or is the idea to get experts to do that job? If so, in what way is that different from what Citizendium wants to do?
Kim
On 19/09/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
Sure, the difference, Citizendium provides that good version to its readers, Wikipedia provides the latest vandalized version. Another difference, at Citizendium, this would be an expert approved version, at Wikipedia an admin approved? Or is the idea to get experts to do that job? If so, in what way is that different from what Citizendium wants to do?
That last one is something de: is presently trying to address. See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/010045.html for current status.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/09/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
Sure, the difference, Citizendium provides that good version to its readers, Wikipedia provides the latest vandalized version. Another difference, at Citizendium, this would be an expert approved version, at Wikipedia an admin approved? Or is the idea to get experts to do that job? If so, in what way is that different from what Citizendium wants to do?
That last one is something de: is presently trying to address. See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/010045.html for current status.
Interesting. Lets see:
1. Unvandalized versions. Default at Citizendium, requires already considerable work at Wikipedia. Special flag, criteria when something is vandalized etc. But it would be a major step forward.
2. Reviewed versions. Ok, several options as by whom:
a) Regular editors: how are they going to check for quality and accuracy? b) In house experts: credential discussion seems to be going in already. If the credential requirements would be roughly equivalent to Citizendium, what is the difference? And I see already the same arguments as against Citizendium: "Argh, experts are going to determine what gets approved... No way..." "This leads to two classes of editors...."
c) Outside reviewers: LOTS of work!!!!
So, what I see here proposed is either doing the same as Citizendium but with more effort, as it is either more work (Citizendium will have the expertise in house by design), or of lower standard (just not vandalized, but with development of specific criteria etc.).
But the main question, in what way would the preferred option (2b) differ from Citizendium, except that the current community structure at Wikipedia is way less inviting for those needed experts to join and the massive community resistance that can be expected against such a change?
Kim
On 19/09/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
For most of your email, I have no idea - it's all a work in progress on de: and may not work anything like that way on en:. But:
But the main question, in what way would the preferred option (2b) differ from Citizendium, except that the current community structure at Wikipedia is way less inviting for those needed experts to join and the massive community resistance that can be expected against such a change?
You know, I really don't see the general expert-hating you speak of. Lots of Wikipedia contributors are in fact credentialed experts in the fields they edit in, I know a pile of such people personally.
As far as I can tell the main difference is that the Ph.D gets you nothing by itself, you also have to be able to edit well and work with others. Which is an entirely different skill: you have to be able to cope with an environment with stupid people in.
What I'm wondering is why we have the quantity of experts editing Wikipedia that we do. If we were as anti-expert as Sanger (and you) claims, why would they be here?
- d.
On 9/19/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
Suppose I am doing a Ph.D. study, and want to become a expert in a field. What is nicer than to work with some experts in that field to create good quality articles. To many people seem under the impression that Citizendium is written solely by experts, my impression is that the bulk of the work is still done by many authors together, with a major difference that only a 'finalised' version is approved and visible for the larger public. Just imagine that a group of people works together adding a new page that do not have to fight with POV-pushers of fringe or bullshit ideas (expert guidance) and vandals (not approved, no reward for vandalism), while at the same time can benefit from the expertise of those same experts to get towards a much better article as those experts do know the literature much better, know which [[WP:V]] [[WP:RS]] to use (no blanket criteria needed anymore). Furthermore, an added incentive would be that quality contributors are being recognized by those experts, which results in better working relationships, but also more praise and feedback....
This is precisely the way I have seen things work well over 99% of the time on wikipedia. If on a given article it does not, I give it my honest best effort if I think conciliation has a reasonable shot, but if not, move on to another part of the pedia, where people are quietly and collegially working, just in the manner as you describe above; bar the fact that on wikipedia the *natural* deference to people who know what they talk about, has not become a deference to *graven emblems*. (Although, I will admit the hierarchicism fetishizers are always at the gate.)