http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
- d.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
- d.
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
On 12/18/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
Ah, but cynicism is a virtue. Read-access is cake. Write-access, even to fix a minor grammatical error[1], is subject to excessive restriction.
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
"I appreciate the best, but I'm settling for less, 'cause I'm looking for the next best thing."[2]
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the flipside of the argument is that what wikipedia is trying is not waiting for a grand piano to appear out of thin air, but instead giving the parts of one grand piano to a million monkeys, and waiting patiently for the monkeys to assemble them into a playable instrument.
More like we rely on them to create their own list of parts and tools to scavenge for, and patiently wait for them assemble said piano.
Maybe the result will be perfectly tuned but look like shit. Or maybe it will be visually beautiful but sound like shit. Or maybe the instrument will look and sound great, but smell like shit. Or maybe it will look, sound, and smell like shit, but at least it won't cost us a penny. Nothing comes without a trade-off.
—C.W.
[1] (or any other issue, perhaps in the [[Rocket science]] article, which would not benefit much, if at all, from expertise or even vague comprehension of the subject) [2] (C) 1983 Zevon Music (BMI), Tiny Tunes (ASCAP), Valgovind Music (BMI)
You know you're a wikiholic when you add references to e-mails!
On Dec 19, 2007 11:16 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
Ah, but cynicism is a virtue. Read-access is cake. Write-access, even to fix a minor grammatical error[1], is subject to excessive restriction.
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
"I appreciate the best, but I'm settling for less, 'cause I'm looking for the next best thing."[2]
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the flipside of the argument is that what wikipedia is trying is not waiting for a grand piano to appear out of thin air, but instead giving the parts of one grand piano to a million monkeys, and waiting patiently for the monkeys to assemble them into a playable instrument.
More like we rely on them to create their own list of parts and tools to scavenge for, and patiently wait for them assemble said piano.
Maybe the result will be perfectly tuned but look like shit. Or maybe it will be visually beautiful but sound like shit. Or maybe the instrument will look and sound great, but smell like shit. Or maybe it will look, sound, and smell like shit, but at least it won't cost us a penny. Nothing comes without a trade-off.
—C.W.
[1] (or any other issue, perhaps in the [[Rocket science]] article, which would not benefit much, if at all, from expertise or even vague comprehension of the subject) [2] (C) 1983 Zevon Music (BMI), Tiny Tunes (ASCAP), Valgovind Music (BMI)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Insufficient geekitude. References are just academic.
Someone needs to propose to Google that they auto-expand [[Wikilinks]] to Wikipedia URLs ;-)
-george
On Dec 19, 2007 8:46 AM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You know you're a wikiholic when you add references to e-mails!
On Dec 19, 2007 11:16 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
Ah, but cynicism is a virtue. Read-access is cake. Write-access, even to fix a minor grammatical error[1], is subject to excessive restriction.
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
"I appreciate the best, but I'm settling for less, 'cause I'm looking for the next best thing."[2]
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the flipside of the argument is that what wikipedia is trying is not waiting for a grand piano to appear out of thin air, but instead giving the parts of one grand piano to a million monkeys, and waiting patiently for the monkeys to assemble them into a playable instrument.
More like we rely on them to create their own list of parts and tools to scavenge for, and patiently wait for them assemble said piano.
Maybe the result will be perfectly tuned but look like shit. Or maybe it will be visually beautiful but sound like shit. Or maybe the instrument will look and sound great, but smell like shit. Or maybe it will look, sound, and smell like shit, but at least it won't cost us a penny. Nothing comes without a trade-off.
—C.W.
[1] (or any other issue, perhaps in the [[Rocket science]] article, which would not benefit much, if at all, from expertise or even vague comprehension of the subject) [2] (C) 1983 Zevon Music (BMI), Tiny Tunes (ASCAP), Valgovind Music (BMI)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Would the effect of that be to guarantee that Wikipedia is the first result for just about everything, and nothing else could ever get close? ;-P I can't see them doing it, 'tho, because Wikilinks are just internal and don't really contribute to the 'relevance' of a particular result on the wider 'net.
On Dec 19, 2007 2:48 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Insufficient geekitude. References are just academic.
Someone needs to propose to Google that they auto-expand [[Wikilinks]] to Wikipedia URLs ;-)
-george
On Dec 19, 2007 8:46 AM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You know you're a wikiholic when you add references to e-mails!
On Dec 19, 2007 11:16 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
Ah, but cynicism is a virtue. Read-access is cake. Write-access, even to fix a minor grammatical error[1], is subject to excessive restriction.
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
"I appreciate the best, but I'm settling for less, 'cause I'm looking for the next best thing."[2]
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the flipside of the argument is that what wikipedia is trying is not waiting for a grand piano to appear out of thin air, but instead giving the parts of one grand piano to a million monkeys, and waiting patiently for the monkeys to assemble them into a playable instrument.
More like we rely on them to create their own list of parts and tools to scavenge for, and patiently wait for them assemble said piano.
Maybe the result will be perfectly tuned but look like shit. Or maybe it will be visually beautiful but sound like shit. Or maybe the instrument will look and sound great, but smell like shit. Or maybe it will look, sound, and smell like shit, but at least it won't cost us a penny. Nothing comes without a trade-off.
—C.W.
[1] (or any other issue, perhaps in the [[Rocket science]] article, which would not benefit much, if at all, from expertise or even vague comprehension of the subject) [2] (C) 1983 Zevon Music (BMI), Tiny Tunes (ASCAP), Valgovind Music (BMI)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 19/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Would the effect of that be to guarantee that Wikipedia is the first result for just about everything, and nothing else could ever get close? ;-P I can't see them doing it, 'tho, because Wikilinks are just internal and don't really contribute to the 'relevance' of a particular result on the wider 'net.
On Dec 19, 2007 2:48 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Insufficient geekitude. References are just academic.
Someone needs to propose to Google that they auto-expand [[Wikilinks]] to Wikipedia URLs ;-)
I would join you in taking the suggestion too seriously (it's always fun), but I don't understand it. Auto-expand them *where*? Google is a search engine, not a web browser, it doesn't control how webpages it links to are parsed.
On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I would join you in taking the suggestion too seriously (it's always fun), but I don't understand it. Auto-expand them *where*? Google is a search engine, not a web browser, it doesn't control how webpages it links to are parsed.
I don't think he meant "auto-expand." He probably meant "link-ify": automatically create a link to wikipedia when something in double square-brackets is displayed on a Google search results page.
(Looks like I need to create an [[autolinkification]] page.)
--Noah--
I assume George was talking about getting Google to auto-expand the links in _Gmail_. Would make my life easier. :-)
Cheers, David...
On Dec 20, 2007 7:54 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I would join you in taking the suggestion too seriously (it's always fun), but I don't understand it. Auto-expand them *where*? Google is a search engine, not a web browser, it doesn't control how webpages it links to are parsed.
On 19/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Someone needs to propose to Google that they auto-expand [[Wikilinks]] to Wikipedia URLs ;-)
I would join you in taking the suggestion too seriously (it's always fun), but I don't understand it. Auto-expand them *where*? Google is a search engine, not a web browser, it doesn't control how webpages it links to are parsed.
Oh yeah it does ;-)
If you look at it in a particular way, you could argue that the wikipedia's policy of 'all links in, all no follow links out' policy basically amount to massive SEO of our own articles. Basically, the wikipedia is engineering its way to the top of the google rankings; or it could be argued that this is so.
For example, if you search for 'rocket' in google, the top hit is the wikipedia (or at least it is when I do it).
But there are no external links to it! (Or none I can find anyway, try this: link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket -site:*.wikipedia.*)
So far as I can tell, a lot of articles are like this.
So should it really be the top hit? Well, the wikipedia is fairly trustworthy and so gets lots of link juice as a whole and it sloshes around and raises everything up, including the rocket article.
But if google decided that we really are SEOing ourself by 'no following' all our out links, they could fairly legitimately set an implicit 'no follow' on our internal wikilinks as *well*. At which point the wikipedia would largely (but not completely where *an* article really is well linked to by external references) disappear from the web 8-)
So google could pretty much kill us. But that would be evil; I mean our no follow policy is probably in the best interests of the wikipedia, and probably the web as well. But our lack of out-link juice is evil too in some ways; many legitimate things the wiki references are probably linking a lot lower than they ought to be; and that presumably is costing them potential revenue from adverts and stuff.
So I don't think google would do this at all, or at least I hope not(!)- it's just a thought experiment really; but I found it amusing ;-)
On Dec 20, 2007 11:00 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
But if google decided that we really are SEOing ourself by 'no following' all our out links, they could fairly legitimately set an implicit 'no follow' on our internal wikilinks as *well*.
I thought one of the main reasons nofollow was turned on and left on was because Google asked Wikipedia to do so. If so, I could hardly consider *that* SEO.
And no one uses that format other than Wikipedians anyways. What make more sense is to have the archives for .en automatically link [[blah]] to the article on blah in the English Wikipedia and similarly for all the other lists that focus on a specific project. That would actually be useful for people using the archives to read old posts.
Quoting Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com:
Would the effect of that be to guarantee that Wikipedia is the first result for just about everything, and nothing else could ever get close? ;-P I can't see them doing it, 'tho, because Wikilinks are just internal and don't really contribute to the 'relevance' of a particular result on the wider 'net.
On Dec 19, 2007 2:48 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Insufficient geekitude. References are just academic.
Someone needs to propose to Google that they auto-expand [[Wikilinks]] to Wikipedia URLs ;-)
-george
On Dec 19, 2007 8:46 AM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You know you're a wikiholic when you add references to e-mails!
On Dec 19, 2007 11:16 AM, Charlotte Webb
charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how
much people
prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
Ah, but cynicism is a virtue. Read-access is cake. Write-access, even to fix a minor grammatical error[1], is subject to excessive restriction.
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
"I appreciate the best, but I'm settling for less, 'cause I'm looking for the next best thing."[2]
On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the flipside of the argument is that what wikipedia is trying is not waiting for a grand piano to appear out of thin air, but instead giving the parts of one grand piano to a million monkeys, and waiting patiently for the monkeys to assemble them into a playable instrument.
More like we rely on them to create their own list of parts and tools to scavenge for, and patiently wait for them assemble said piano.
Maybe the result will be perfectly tuned but look like shit. Or maybe it will be visually beautiful but sound like shit. Or maybe the instrument will look and sound great, but smell like shit. Or maybe it will look, sound, and smell like shit, but at least it won't cost us a penny. Nothing comes without a trade-off.
—C.W.
[1] (or any other issue, perhaps in the [[Rocket science]] article, which would not benefit much, if at all, from expertise or even vague comprehension of the subject) [2] (C) 1983 Zevon Music (BMI), Tiny Tunes (ASCAP), Valgovind
Music (BMI)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.
Well-founded cynicism! Unless critical thinking skills have been cultivated from an early age a person has very little on which to determine the quality of a particular piece of writing, and time pressures steal time away from any kind of reflection. Mind meals from mental McDonalds! (pun on "mind" intended)
Ec
On Dec 18, 2007 2:55 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
I'm not sure that I agree with his assessment that Wikipedia's quality will necessarily be poor because of all the cruft, but I wouldn't disregard it.
Wikipedia is operating on the Internet equivalent of the quote often (mis)attributed to Nathan Bedford Forrest, "git thar fustest with the mostest."
It's obviously worked in some senses - we have the mostest, and are farther along than anyone else, at the moment. But the future may hold benefits for other models.
On 12/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
For me the telling line in that blog post is:
"Even if we don't get it right, someone eventually will, because it is possible and because there is such a huge potential demand for it. I look forward to that day!"
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
cc'ed to Foundation-L.
On Dec 18, 2007 3:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
For me the telling line in that blog post is:
"Even if we don't get it right, someone eventually will, because it is possible and because there is such a huge potential demand for it. I look forward to that day!"
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
Without getting absolutist, I think there's clearly a spectrum here.
We've picked one point; it works for us, and our editors and our readership, and we're taken credibly by outside organizations and society as a whole.
It may be that other points in the spectrum are both workable as volunteer projects (critical mass of contributors and content) and higher in the quality spectrum, and seen as more valuable by society as a whole.
This is something that the Foundation may want to keep in mind; "English Wikipedia" as currently structured may not be the only english language encyclopedia project worth supporting. Why let Larry and Google have all the fun exploring the corners and diversity options in the space we're in?
On 12/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
cc'ed to Foundation-L.
On Dec 18, 2007 3:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
For me the telling line in that blog post is:
"Even if we don't get it right, someone eventually will, because it is possible and because there is such a huge potential demand for it. I look forward to that day!"
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
Without getting absolutist, I think there's clearly a spectrum here.
We've picked one point; it works for us, and our editors and our readership, and we're taken credibly by outside organizations and society as a whole.
It may be that other points in the spectrum are both workable as volunteer projects (critical mass of contributors and content) and higher in the quality spectrum, and seen as more valuable by society as a whole.
This is something that the Foundation may want to keep in mind; "English Wikipedia" as currently structured may not be the only english language encyclopedia project worth supporting. Why let Larry and Google have all the fun exploring the corners and diversity options in the space we're in?
I think the problem with the approach that citizendium is taking, is the same one that many arm-chair physicists bang their head against.
It is nearly a cliche that people who want to ridicule quantum mechanics bring up the point that the way the equations are constituted, there is no "real" reason why a grand piano couldn't appear out of thin air, with nothing to impel it but pure potential.
While in some sense this is mathematically accurate, it misses the point. The chances of a grand piano appearing out of thin air, are scales of magnitude small enough to consider the age of the universe a batting of an eyelash of a gnat, if a gnat had eyelashes, to put it mildly.
Of course, the flipside of the argument is that what wikipedia is trying is not waiting for a grand piano to appear out of thin air, but instead giving the parts of one grand piano to a million monkeys, and waiting patiently for the monkeys to assemble them into a playable instrument.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Dec 18, 2007 4:18 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
cc'ed to Foundation-L.
On Dec 18, 2007 3:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
For me the telling line in that blog post is:
"Even if we don't get it right, someone eventually will, because it is possible and because there is such a huge potential demand for it. I look forward to that day!"
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
Without getting absolutist, I think there's clearly a spectrum here.
We've picked one point; it works for us, and our editors and our readership, and we're taken credibly by outside organizations and society as a whole.
It may be that other points in the spectrum are both workable as volunteer projects (critical mass of contributors and content) and higher in the quality spectrum, and seen as more valuable by society as a whole.
This is something that the Foundation may want to keep in mind; "English Wikipedia" as currently structured may not be the only english language encyclopedia project worth supporting. Why let Larry and Google have all the fun exploring the corners and diversity options in the space we're in?
I think the problem with the approach that citizendium is taking, is the same one that many arm-chair physicists bang their head against.
It is nearly a cliche that people who want to ridicule quantum mechanics bring up the point that the way the equations are constituted, there is no "real" reason why a grand piano couldn't appear out of thin air, with nothing to impel it but pure potential.
While in some sense this is mathematically accurate, it misses the point. The chances of a grand piano appearing out of thin air, are scales of magnitude small enough to consider the age of the universe a batting of an eyelash of a gnat, if a gnat had eyelashes, to put it mildly.
Of course, the flipside of the argument is that what wikipedia is trying is not waiting for a grand piano to appear out of thin air, but instead giving the parts of one grand piano to a million monkeys, and waiting patiently for the monkeys to assemble them into a playable instrument.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
I think we're clearly accomplishing more than a bunch of monkeys would. Excluding obvious vandalism and single-purpose editors, everyone involved in Wikipedia collaborates reasonably well on the whole.
I agree that we're on a haphazard walk, but it's not a random walk. There's a common direction, the individual actors involved can see that and agree that it's generally somewhere over there, and the progress is overwhelmingly monotinically towards improved versions.
On Dec 18, 2007 6:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
For me the telling line in that blog post is:
"Even if we don't get it right, someone eventually will, because it is possible and because there is such a huge potential demand for it. I look forward to that day!"
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is a huge demand for high quality, but people prefer "existing good enough" to "hypothetical high quality" ...
WilyD
There is a huge demand for high quality, but people prefer "existing good enough" to "hypothetical high quality" ...
I think that's a very important point. Citizendium's biggest problem isn't anything to do with their model, it's just that we have such an enormous head start. The only contributors they're likely to get (and they're not going to get any significant readers for a while yet, I imagine) are people that want to cheer for the underdog and be involved in a project from the start, who will likely leave if Citizendium gets any great success (and, more importantly, not be replaced), and those that are extremely enthusiastic about the key principles that differ from Wikipedia, who are likely very small in number.
In short, they are too similar to Wikipedia to be able to catch us up. There is room in the market for more than one free encyclopaedia, but they need to find their own niche. A vague principle of welcoming experts is not enough. Perhaps Knol will be able to find one - we'll have to wait and see.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 07:37:02PM -0500, Wily D wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 6:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
For me the telling line in that blog post is:
"Even if we don't get it right, someone eventually will, because it is possible and because there is such a huge potential demand for it. I look forward to that day!"
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is a huge demand for high quality, but people prefer "existing good enough" to "hypothetical high quality" ...
Which is why I think we should spport http://en.veropedia.com/ so people can see where the high quality is not hypothetical, and not have to prefer "good enough".
Brian.
WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I wouldn't rely on the head start, since Wikipedia content is free for re-use. Anything we've got here thats good, they can copy and improve. However, that is based on a view of these enterprises as competitive. Really, they are complementary. The point, in this case, is the goal rather than the path. Wikipedia is useful _now_, but in the future it may be any one of similar projects. We could be Lycos or Infoseek foreshadowing Google. Works for me.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:15 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 07:37:02PM -0500, Wily D wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 6:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-con...
Interesting thoughts on quality.
For me the telling line in that blog post is:
"Even if we don't get it right, someone eventually will, because it is possible and because there is such a huge potential demand for it. I look forward to that day!"
That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is a huge demand for high quality, but people prefer "existing good enough" to "hypothetical high quality" ...
Which is why I think we should spport http://en.veropedia.com/ so people can see where the high quality is not hypothetical, and not have to prefer "good enough".
Brian.
WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 19/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't rely on the head start, since Wikipedia content is free for re-use. Anything we've got here thats good, they can copy and improve. However, that is based on a view of these enterprises as competitive. Really, they are complementary. The point, in this case, is the goal rather than the path. Wikipedia is useful _now_, but in the future it may be any one of similar projects. We could be Lycos or Infoseek foreshadowing Google. Works for me.
Our content is pretty much worthless, because, as you say, anyone can re-use it. Wikipedia's value comes from brand recognition and a dedicated community. Of course, unless Citizendium chooses a compatible license (have they chosen one at all yet? The deadline they set passed months ago, didn't it? The copyright notice on the bottom of their pages says they haven't...), they can't reuse anything without the weird different licenses for different pages thing, which I can't see working.
Quoting Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com:
I wouldn't rely on the head start, since Wikipedia content is free for re-use. Anything we've got here thats good, they can copy and improve. However, that is based on a view of these enterprises as competitive. Really, they are complementary. The point, in this case, is the goal rather than the path. Wikipedia is useful _now_, but in the future it may be any one of similar projects. We could be Lycos or Infoseek foreshadowing Google. Works for me.
Well Citizendium for reasons I don't fully understand decided to delete all of their from-Wikipedia content that hadn't been already highly modified. So they seem to be determined to succeed without the free re-use which seems to me at least to be needlessly shooting oneself in the foot. I want my content to be reused. I'd likely not contribute if it had to be under a more restrictive license. But yes, if the best we do is to make a roadmap for someone to do even better than we have done we should be happy.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com:
I wouldn't rely on the head start, since Wikipedia content is free for re-use. Anything we've got here thats good, they can copy and improve. However, that is based on a view of these enterprises as competitive. Really, they are complementary. The point, in this case, is the goal rather than the path. Wikipedia is useful _now_, but in the future it may be any one of similar projects. We could be Lycos or Infoseek foreshadowing Google. Works for me.
Well Citizendium for reasons I don't fully understand decided to delete all of their from-Wikipedia content that hadn't been already highly modified. So they seem to be determined to succeed without the free re-use which seems to me at least to be needlessly shooting oneself in the foot. I want my content to be reused. I'd likely not contribute if it had to be under a more restrictive license. But yes, if the best we do is to make a roadmap for someone to do even better than we have done we should be happy.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think that's an important point. The idea here is, knowledge should be shared. If answers.com can help share that knowledge, more power to them (whether they make a buck or not). If Citizendium, or Knol, or anyone else can do that, great for them. Our license ensures that they can do that. It also, however, ensures that others can continue to do that-no one can lock up the content later.
If someone finds a better way of developing and sharing a free knowledge base then we so far have, more power to them.
update - Citizendium's license is nearly ready:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.citizendium.general/119...
luke brandt wrote:
update - Citizendium's license is nearly ready:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.citizendium.general/119...
update:-
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Citizendium_Press_Releases/Dec212007
On 21/12/2007, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
luke brandt wrote:
update - Citizendium's license is nearly ready:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.citizendium.general/119...
update:-
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Citizendium_Press_Releases/Dec212007
Hurrah!
CC-BY-SA-3.0
"The license allows the Citizendium to join the large informal club of free resources associated especially with Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation. Wikipedia uses the FSF's GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which is expected to be made fully compatible with CC-by-sa in coming months. Therefore, Wikipedia and the Citizendium will be able to exchange content easily. A minority of Citizendium articles started life on Wikipedia and so have been available under the GFDL."
http://www.citizendium.org/czlicense.html is the explanatory essay.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:30 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Well Citizendium for reasons I don't fully understand decided to delete all of their from-Wikipedia content that hadn't been already highly modified. So they seem to be determined to succeed without the free re-use which seems to me at least to be needlessly shooting oneself in the foot. I want my content to be reused. I'd likely not contribute if it had to be under a more restrictive license. But yes, if the best we do is to make a roadmap for someone to do even better than we have done we should be happy.
I suspect that goes back to the idea of needing to create a distinct "brand" presence. If Citizendium just has improved versions of Wikipedia articles, it also inherits Wikipedia's reputation for unreliability, and makes it harder for them to develop their own brand identity.
Imagine Conservapedia importing 100,000 Wikipedia articles and making only basic fixes (like changing all BE spelling to AE and inserting the word "theory of" wherever "evolution" and "big bang" occur. No one would go over there for laughs any more, because it would be too hard to find the genuine kool aid.
Guettarda wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 8:30 PM, <joshua.zelinsky> wrote:
Well Citizendium for reasons I don't fully understand decided to delete all of their from-Wikipedia content that hadn't been already highly modified. So they seem to be determined to succeed without the free re-use which seems to me at least to be needlessly shooting oneself in the foot. I want my content to be reused. I'd likely not contribute if it had to be under a more restrictive license. But yes, if the best we do is to make a roadmap for someone to do even better than we have done we should be happy.
I suspect that goes back to the idea of needing to create a distinct "brand" presence. If Citizendium just has improved versions of Wikipedia articles, it also inherits Wikipedia's reputation for unreliability, and makes it harder for them to develop their own brand identity.
Imagine Conservapedia importing 100,000 Wikipedia articles and making only basic fixes (like changing all BE spelling to AE and inserting the word "theory of" wherever "evolution" and "big bang" occur. No one would go over there for laughs any more, because it would be too hard to find the genuine kool aid.
You seem to have the very essence of it :) To fill out the details see:
On Dec 21, 2007 2:32 PM, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 8:30 PM, <joshua.zelinsky> wrote:
Well Citizendium for reasons I don't fully understand decided to delete all of their from-Wikipedia content that hadn't been already highly modified.
So
they seem to be determined to succeed without the free re-use which seems to
me
at least to be needlessly shooting oneself in the foot. I want my content
to
be reused. I'd likely not contribute if it had to be under a more
restrictive
license. But yes, if the best we do is to make a roadmap for someone to do even better than we have done we should be happy.
I suspect that goes back to the idea of needing to create a distinct
"brand"
presence. If Citizendium just has improved versions of Wikipedia
articles,
it also inherits Wikipedia's reputation for unreliability, and makes it harder for them to develop their own brand identity.
Imagine Conservapedia importing 100,000 Wikipedia articles and making
only
basic fixes (like changing all BE spelling to AE and inserting the word "theory of" wherever "evolution" and "big bang" occur. No one would go
over
there for laughs any more, because it would be too hard to find the
genuine
kool aid.
You seem to have the very essence of it :) To fill out the details see:
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,431.0.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day folks,
I note that Larry Sanger was predicting 50,000 or 100,000 instead of the 20,000 produced in the first year. After nearly, a year, they have 4,400. Hardly a stunning success.
Regards
*Keith Old*
User:Capitalistroadster
Keith Old wrote: ....
G'day folks,
I note that Larry Sanger was predicting 50,000 or 100,000 instead of the 20,000 produced in the first year. After nearly, a year, they have 4,400. Hardly a stunning success.
Regards
*Keith Old*
User:Capitalistroadster
See, in spite of what is said by some, trolls[1][2] may be invaluable for building an encyclopedia
[1] One of many unsung internet heroes who are almost entirely misunderstood. Contrary to popular belief, many trolls are actually quite intelligent. Their habitual attacks are usually a result of their awareness of the pretentiousness and excessive self-importance of many enthusiasts. As much as people may hate trolls, they are highly effective.
[2] The meaning of the word troll is unknown. It might have had the original meaning of supernatural or magical with an overlay of malignant and perilous. Another likely suggestion is that it means "someone who behaves violently".
On 21/12/2007, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
I note that Larry Sanger was predicting 50,000 or 100,000 instead of the 20,000 produced in the first year. After nearly, a year, they have 4,400. Hardly a stunning success.
To be fair, their articles are pretty good on average. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/BSD_Daemon is the best writeup of its history I've seen.
- d.