Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated user suggestions like they were *threats*. I just read a Paul Graham article which contains a line summing up the problem here:
If you want a recipe for a startup that's going to die, here it is: a couple of founders who have some great idea they know everyone is going to love, and that's what they're going to build, no matter what.
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia? Work like a startup. Wikipedia now changes at dinosaur pace and seems utterly unable to solve the problems it knows it has, let alone the ones it doesn't. If room to zip around it exists, something small enough to be nimble can find it.
- d.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:26, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated user suggestions like they were *threats*. I just read a Paul Graham article which contains a line summing up the problem here:
If you want a recipe for a startup that's going to die, here it is: a couple of founders who have some great idea they know everyone is going to love, and that's what they're going to build, no matter what.
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia? Work like a startup.
One of the key skills that Jimbo brought to Wikipedia was knowing when to be hands on, and when not. If you look through the early mailing lists -- not just the very early ones, but the first few years -- that's the thing that shines through again and again. If I had to point to one issue that made Wikipedia successful it was this ability to steer without micromanaging.
Sarah
On 04/07/11 11:37 AM, Sarah wrote:
One of the key skills that Jimbo brought to Wikipedia was knowing when to be hands on, and when not. If you look through the early mailing lists -- not just the very early ones, but the first few years -- that's the thing that shines through again and again. If I had to point to one issue that made Wikipedia successful it was this ability to steer without micromanaging.
This is an important observation. It contrasts with some of his later efforts at wading into controversial issues. These have often seemed as drive-by efforts by someone who was not completely up-to-date with the matter at hand. These would generate more controversy in an already dirfficult issue that just needed time to be worked through.
Ec
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia?
With more Wikipedias.
This is my idea for Wikipedia:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Recognize_that_Wikipedia_is_more...
-- Fajro
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
-MuZemike
On 4/7/2011 1:37 PM, Fajro wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia?
With more Wikipedias.
This is my idea for Wikipedia:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Recognize_that_Wikipedia_is_more...
-- Fajro _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemike muzemike@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example, started to form wikis of any sort, but has rapidly taken over the niche of fansite wikis.
- d.
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemike muzemike@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example, started to form wikis of any sort, but has rapidly taken over the niche of fansite wikis.
- d.
That's what draws a crowd. A lesson there. I still think we should eat their lunch; I was never a deletionist.
Fred
On 04/07/11 4:13 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemikemuzemike@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example, started to form wikis of any sort, but has rapidly taken over the niche of fansite wikis.
That's what draws a crowd. A lesson there. I still think we should eat their lunch; I was never a deletionist.
I confess that when my wife and I are sitting in front of the TV, and a question arises from whatever we are watching, Wikipedia's relevant articles become a first source of information on our laptops while we're watching. When we do that we seldom feel the need to follow the sources.
Ec
Ec
On 04/07/11 2:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemikemuzemike@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example, started to form wikis of any sort, but has rapidly taken over the niche of fansite wikis.
An who can complain about that?
The sister projects began by filling in important niches. The first, Meta, provided a way in which we discuss activities and ideas about ourselves and policy that was not inherently encyclopedic. Wiktionary was a response to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." etc. A fork could easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve differently. They may choose to abandon NPOV. Having several sites that freely and independently do this would in fact put our own NPOV in a broader perspective. Another may choose to be more aggressive in the treatment of copyright. They would assume the risks at a level which makes them comfortable, but in the longer term we too would benefit from their efforts to free data.
They need to be willing limit the growth of their projects to match their funding. A project that tries to duplicate everything on Wikipedia is dooming itself to starvation. Subject specialization is the most evident criterion for this. From the Wikipedia side we need to link to these projects for alternative views. They are not our enemies.
Ec
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A fork could easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve differently. They may choose to abandon NPOV. Having several sites that freely and independently do this would in fact put our own NPOV in a broader perspective.
What do you think about having multiple consistent points of view on tricky subjects, on some things, for example my favorite kosovo topic, it is very very hard to find any neutral point of view and the articles on that subject are widely separated. Some like the main article are vaguely neutral, and most of the smaller articles are really not. There are not even any consistent policing of them or manpower to do it. I would like to see some way to identify and isolate fragments of things that are not neutral, but clearly mark on what point of view they represent. That would allow for a clear separation of the one side, "Kosovo is serbia" and marking and clearly giving them a say on the matter, and also another point of view, "Kosovo is free" with equal rights in speaking, at least that would give a way to manage the discussion. Right now you have a big mess where the two sides are just mixed up and each side is basically fighting on wikipedia.
mike
On 04/08/11 5:55 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote
A fork could easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve differently. They may choose to abandon NPOV. Having several sites that freely and independently do this would in fact put our own NPOV in a broader perspective.
What do you think about having multiple consistent points of view on tricky subjects, on some things, for example my favorite kosovo topic, it is very very hard to find any neutral point of view and the articles on that subject are widely separated. Some like the main article are vaguely neutral, and most of the smaller articles are really not. There are not even any consistent policing of them or manpower to do it. I would like to see some way to identify and isolate fragments of things that are not neutral, but clearly mark on what point of view they represent. That would allow for a clear separation of the one side, "Kosovo is serbia" and marking and clearly giving them a say on the matter, and also another point of view, "Kosovo is free" with equal rights in speaking, at least that would give a way to manage the discussion. Right now you have a big mess where the two sides are just mixed up and each side is basically fighting on wikipedia.
I like the idea, but even there you'll find varying degrees of support for each side with the moderates unable to accept any more extreme views.
Ec
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 04/08/11 5:55 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote
A fork could easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve differently. They may choose to abandon NPOV. Having several sites that freely and independently do this would in fact put our own NPOV in a broader perspective.
What do you think about having multiple consistent points of view on tricky subjects, on some things, for example my favorite kosovo topic, it is very very hard to find any neutral point of view and the articles on that subject are widely separated. Some like the main article are vaguely neutral, and most of the smaller articles are really not. There are not even any consistent policing of them or manpower to do it. I would like to see some way to identify and isolate fragments of things that are not neutral, but clearly mark on what point of view they represent. That would allow for a clear separation of the one side, "Kosovo is serbia" and marking and clearly giving them a say on the matter, and also another point of view, "Kosovo is free" with equal rights in speaking, at least that would give a way to manage the discussion. Right now you have a big mess where the two sides are just mixed up and each side is basically fighting on wikipedia.
I like the idea, but even there you'll find varying degrees of support for each side with the moderates unable to accept any more extreme views.
You're reasonably likely to find content peace treaties among those "on the same side" but more or less extreme in their beliefs, in my experience.
In some topics, the moderates band together against both extremes; those areas work well in Wikipedia now. Mike's idea would better cover the first case.
on 4/7/11 2:26 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated user suggestions like they were *threats*. I just read a Paul Graham article which contains a line summing up the problem here:
If you want a recipe for a startup that's going to die, here it is: a couple of founders who have some great idea they know everyone is going to love, and that's what they're going to build, no matter what.
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia? Work like a startup. Wikipedia now changes at dinosaur pace and seems utterly unable to solve the problems it knows it has, let alone the ones it doesn't. If room to zip around it exists, something small enough to be nimble can find it.
You're right, David. And when the dust finally settles (if it were ever meant to settle :-)) the encyclopedic project that really works consistently, reliably and progressively will be one that truly knows how to work with those who create and maintain the substance of it: People. And I will be very happy to assist this endeavor when it is started. Wikipedia is at a standstill. The primary focus of the powers-that-be seems to be building a donor base. But, from the top down, none has a clue how to work, guide, collaborate, or motivate the persons who are these new donors; much less the incredible persons that make up the existing one. This has been pointed out time after time on this and other Lists. But the message seems to be falling on ears tuned to a different frequency. It's in the people, people!
Marc Riddell
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a 'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of people would probably be dumb enough to use it.
On 07/04/2011, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated user suggestions like they were *threats*. I just read a Paul Graham article which contains a line summing up the problem here:
If you want a recipe for a startup that's going to die, here itis: a couple of founders who have some great idea they know everyone is going to love, and that's what they're going to build, no matter what.
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia? Work like a startup. Wikipedia now changes at dinosaur pace and seems utterly unable to solve the problems it knows it has, let alone the ones it doesn't. If room to zip around it exists, something small enough to be nimble can find it.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why does Conservapedia come to mind :)
-MuZemike
On 4/7/2011 7:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a 'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of people would probably be dumb enough to use it.
On 07/04/2011, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated user suggestions like they were *threats*. I just read a Paul Graham article which contains a line summing up the problem here:
If you want a recipe for a startup that's going to die, here itis: a couple of founders who have some great idea they know everyone is going to love, and that's what they're going to build, no matter what.
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia? Work like a startup. Wikipedia now changes at dinosaur pace and seems utterly unable to solve the problems it knows it has, let alone the ones it doesn't. If room to zip around it exists, something small enough to be nimble can find it.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8 April 2011 01:03, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a 'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of people would probably be dumb enough to use it.
One thing that should probably be considered is that from the competing POV wikipedia does 2 things.
1)It provides information to people on general interest topics (for broad values of general interest) 2)It provides a plece for people to write articles on general interest topics.
We've received both competition and attempts at competition in both cases
In case 1 competition comes from Britannica and the million and one aps for viewing wikipedia on your phone. In case 2 competition attempts include knol, citizendium and more successfully hoodong
On 08/04/2011, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
more successfully hoodong
Yes, although on some articles it's interesting to read, translated back to me via google translate, what is clearly my own text, with the same images I selected, from an encyclopedia that claims they now own the copyright on it. ;-)
-- geni
IMO, the "next best thing" will be whatever can come along and solve our social and community problems technologically, while being easier to edit. Treat assholes like bugs in the software - code around them, figure out how you can make the experience downright painful for them while making it easier for the sort of people that you really want to attract. Build the software to guide people in the direction of correct behavior, and to inherently track sourcing, etc.
Do this right, and wikipedia will be pretty much dead, do it wrong, and we'll be laughing at you here in 6 months. :P
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/04/2011, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
more successfully hoodong
Yes, although on some articles it's interesting to read, translated back to me via google translate, what is clearly my own text, with the same images I selected, from an encyclopedia that claims they now own the copyright on it. ;-)
-- geni
-- -Ian Woollard
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/07/11 9:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
IMO, the "next best thing" will be whatever can come along and solve our social and community problems technologically, while being easier to edit.
Social and community problems cannot be solved technologically.
Treat assholes like bugs in the software - code around them, figure out how you can make the experience downright painful for them while making it easier for the sort of people that you really want to attract. Build the software to guide people in the direction of correct behavior, and to inherently track sourcing, etc.
If you approach an asshole directly you just get shit on your face. We do better by encouraging good behaviour than by spending time dealing with a handful if problem people.
Do this right, and wikipedia will be pretty much dead, do it wrong, and we'll be laughing at you here in 6 months. :P
Sure enough,
Ec
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 04/07/11 9:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
IMO, the "next best thing" will be whatever can come along and solve our social and community problems technologically, while being easier to edit.
Social and community problems cannot be solved technologically.
I beg to differ here. While not every social or community problem has a technological answer, that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek one out where a suitable one exists. We've already been doing it successfully - things like the edit filter are applications of technology to social problems (in this case vandalism) that have been proven to have real world value.
When you have a small community, the community itself tends to propagate and enforce certain standards of behavior, and distance themselves from those that don't follow them. As that community grows, it eventually reaches a point where people are added faster than they can be assimilated into the norms of the community, and the behavior of the community changes to follow the behavior of the masses that are joining it, rather than people changing their behavior to fit community norms.
Making some of those norms part of "how the system works" - that is, inside the black box that is the software, takes the confrontations out of the equation, while keeping the pressure to adhere to community norms in place long after a handful of editors trying to enforce them would have been overran and given up. Obviously you can't code "assume good faith" into the software, but you can change the workflows and information flow, and communication structure, and even site permissions to encourage this, and to give someone a chance to stop unwanted behavior like [[WP:BITE]]ing before it actually has an effect.
Not every technological answer is going to be direct either - when you are looking at fixing a people problem with a technological fix, you have to look at the whole workflow in question, with a mindset of "what can I change to head this off.... what else will it effect... will it work...". It may take several rounds of that before a solution is obvious, and even then, it may not be the right one, or there may not even be one, but if you start thinking outside the box, oftentimes something will come out of it that does work :)
Of course, it also works the other way -- look at how some templates are being used on Wikipedia - the technology is often used to create problems :)
On 04/07/11 5:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a 'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of people would probably be dumb enough to use it.
That would be great! Maybe Fox News itself can pick up the idea. Their accuracy and corruption is not our responsibility. If they're bad enough, that will make us look better.
Ec
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites Jimbo runs?
Bob
On 4/8/2011 3:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 04/07/11 5:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a 'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of people would probably be dumb enough to use it.
That would be great! Maybe Fox News itself can pick up the idea. Their accuracy and corruption is not our responsibility. If they're bad enough, that will make us look better.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites Jimbo runs?
Definitely not.
Good :) I'd be embarrassed for whoever does run that site.
On 4/8/2011 6:08 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites Jimbo runs?
Definitely not.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/08/11 4:08 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites Jimbo runs?
Definitely not.
Conservapedia is not my cup of tea. Nevertheless, since I have a free speech and civil liberties frame of mind, I must support the right of conservatives to have such a site.
Ec
On 07/04/2011 19:26, David Gerard wrote:
<snip>
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia? Work like a startup. Wikipedia now changes at dinosaur pace and seems utterly unable to solve the problems it knows it has, let alone the ones it doesn't. If room to zip around it exists, something small enough to be nimble can find it.
Of course the niches are there. The real question is more like this: you have to avoid the "general" encyclopedia market for the "general reader". So what do you set out to do? One idea is to have a forum as front end, and a team of editors who collate material from the forum as back end. This was pretty much the theory of the first wiki I worked on (except the forum was a newsgroup). The Web is full of transient material, and specialised discussions, and all you really need is some working understanding of what kind of "collation" is worthwhile.
Charles