Erik wrote:
...
- In any case, it complicates all marketing operations significantly.
It's difficult enough to explain what a wiki is. The probable result would be that we wouldn't even bother anymore to explain it and just point people to the stable version. That in turn would reduce the influx of contributors.
I've been basing this on the success of the distribution/project distinction in the free software world where the end users benefit by a two mode process (free software coders work on their own projects and the distributors put that all together in a nice, easy to use and polished product, while making sure that any improvements are incorporated into the free software projects).
However I do see the point that our end users are much more likely to become contributors than are end users to free software due to inherent learning curve issues in the coding world. But still, our stats indicate that there are 30 views to each edit and I expect that ratio to increase as we become more popular and more topics are filled-in and filled-out.
There will also always be a great many people who will not trust anything on a wiki. So all this begs the question; are we here to make an encyclopedia for the sake of making an encyclopedia, or are we here to make an encyclopedia whose content will be used by and be most useful to, the greatest number of people?
Having both stable and development versions of our content will make it most useful to the greatest number of people. The best way to market that is to make the distinction between the development and stable versions very clear. IMO the best way to accomplish this feat is to host the stable content on another domain with an interface that is optimized for content viewing. Wikipedia, however, is optimized for content adding and editing - as it should be.
Hosting the stable versions at Nupedia will slow down direct recruitment a bit, but it will also greatly increase the number and quality of readers of our content. A certain percentage of them will be interested in the development end of our content and will enter the ruff and wild world of Wikipedia to lend a hand. But most will just want of have reliable info. So having a buffer between pure readers and editors should increase the average quality of newbie editors.
Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more of a priority. IMO, the best way to market that - both internally and externally - is by using nupedia.org to host the stable content.
Most people just want the reference material they use to fullfill their needs. They can use Nupedia which would be optimized for them and their needs. Other people are concerned about fullfilling the needs of the reference material. They can use Wikipedia since it is optimized for them. *Both will be joined at the hip yet have different specialties. *Both will make it very clear their association with the other. *Both will interoperate and encourage cross pollination. *Both will be one click away from each other. *Both win.
Is adding one single click to edit an article going to be that harmful weighed against the marketing advantages of using Nupedia.org?
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel-
I've been basing this on the success of the distribution/project distinction in the free software world where the end users benefit by a two mode process (free software coders work on their own projects and the distributors put that all together in a nice, easy to use and polished product, while making sure that any improvements are incorporated into the free software projects).
That does not seem like a valid analogy to me. Wikipedia is neither user- hostile nor is it, like a free software application, an isolated piece of code that someone else needs to put together with other pieces of code. Wikipedia *is* a distribution of articles, it *has* a structure, it is easy to use. I've never heard anyone complain that they don't know how to read Wikipedia. It's not the Linux kernel.
And where Wikipedia has usability deficits - it does - we should work to correct them instead of trying to attract people to a more user-friendly read-only version.
There will also always be a great many people who will not trust anything on a wiki.
And we should confirm this irrational fear by pointing them to a separate website? This would be very unfair. We should give people an opportunity to learn. Wikipedia's success is based on overcoming these kinds of fears.
One way to do that is to create a safe vector of entry on the regular Wikipedia, and to promote it prominently as such. What is now just an inconspicuous link on the Main Page -- Brilliant Prose -- could eventually be developed into its own navigational structure within Wikipedia, a structure which allows people to easily absorb the wiki experience while alleviating their initial fears.
Look at what you're saying: "Many people .. will not trust anything on a wiki". A *wiki*? Most people have no clue what a wiki is in the first place, and the few who do have an idea got it in the last couple of years. We can *define* what a wiki is. We can *make* people trust us.
So all this begs the question; are we here to make an encyclopedia for the sake of making an encyclopedia, or are we here to make an encyclopedia whose content will be used by and be most useful to, the greatest number of people?
On the Wikipedia Main Page, there are two big rectangles, a light blue one and a light yellow one. The blue one has the title "encyclopedia", the yellow one has the title "community".
The Wikipedia project is both, and that is a good thing. We are a learning resource, and we should work to find ways to make that learning resource more reliable and trustworthy -- hence this discussion. We are also a knowledge community where people go to share their wisdom and ideas with others, to philosophize, to argue and to ask questions. Pages like [[Wikipedia:Reference desk]] come to mind, which is open for questions from everyone, like a library help desk. But also the countless debates on talk pages, which invite everyone to participate in intellectual discourse.
If we try to grow in one area at the expense of the other, we will lose. We need to nurture the mutually beneficial relationship between encyclopedia and community, not undermine it. With a separate "stable" website, there will be questions like: What are we going to promote -- contributing or reading? What are we going to do about negative perceptions of Wikipedia -- correct them, or ignore them to promote Nupedia? This is a path of self-destruction.
Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more of a priority.
There should be no artificial limits of our growth. That doesn't mean we cannot work to make each aricle better, little by little.. There is nothing wrong with always having a 10%/90% relationship between high quality pages and works in progress.
There is also no fundamental difference between creating and improving content. Growing our community benefits both. And any systematic effort to focus on improvement over growth is not hindered by constantly recruiting new editors.
Most people just want the reference material they use to fullfill their needs.
"We are the info-elite, the ones who create and improve. The unwashed masses can only consume. We must engineer a website that is useful for these troglodytes to avoid confusing them with possibilities that their feeble little brains will never understand!"
;-)
Let's be careful with assumptions about what people want or do not want. Of course we should provide an easy interface for reading our articles, and of course we should do everything we can to improve the quality and reliability of Wikipedia. We should not pander to irrational fears, however, at the expense of growing both our community and our encyclopedia.
Wikipedia works because it's made of people. Separating the people from the content they create is not a good idea.
Regards,
Erik
On 13 Dec 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
There will also always be a great many people who will not trust anything on a wiki.
And we should confirm this irrational fear by pointing them to a separate website? This would be very unfair. We should give people an opportunity to learn. Wikipedia's success is based on overcoming these kinds of fears.
I think you're missing an important point, that if we don't create/distribute a stable version it will only be a matter of time before someone else does. And that someone else might not care about encouraging people to go to wikipedia.
Imran
Imran-
I think you're missing an important point, that if we don't create/distribute a stable version it will only be a matter of time before someone else does. And that someone else might not care about encouraging people to go to wikipedia.
I am in favor of creating a stable branch of Wikipedia. I just don't think it should be a separate website.
Regards,
Erik
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more of a priority. IMO, the best way to market that - both internally and externally
- is by using nupedia.org to host the stable content.
I agree with everything mav said here. I just *HATE* the name Nupedia. It's the "nu" for "new", and also the fact that "new" won't really mean much in, say, 20 years' time.