At 01:10 PM 3/6/2010, Carcharoth wrote:

I agree that something driven by reader choice would be good, but still with editorial guidance.

With a print encyclopedia, there is a publisher who is in charge. However, the publisher is dependent upon the buyers of encyclopedias, who are generally either readers or involved with readers and serving readers more directly.

The publisher then manages the editors, according to the standards it develops, either to please the readers, or to please the founders and investors (who may have independent motives, for better or for worse.)

The editors review and edit contributions by writers, to make them conform to the criteria set by the publisher. Good editors encourage writers and, at the same time, contain what they do within established boundaries. Sometimes, I believe, writers are called "editors," particularly if it's a writer coordinating any synthesizing content from a number of writers, but I'm sure DGG can contribute more and better detail. Then, if this is the case, what I'm calling editors may be called "managing editors."

Wikipedia mashed it all together, resulting in the predictable: massive confusion of roles, and the classic cats-and-dogs struggle between writers and editors, in the worst form. Classic publishing structure was designed to moderate and mediate this, for efficiency. Good writers are hard to find! So too, really good editors.

The Wikipedia model was innovative, in a way, but did not adequately consider efficiency. That seemed to be fine when new editors were arriving in droves. In the long run, the lack of efficient process will kill the project, if something doesn't change.