Andrew Gray wrote:
On 17/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth
<wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Citizendium's small but not hurting for participants. They'll be fine.
That's not my point here. There is a certain number of people in this
world who are going to be interested in actually "writing" an
encyclopedia (as opposed to the people who are happy to edit, revise,
or do other things to support the writing community).
Isn't one of the major lessons we've learned from the past six years
of Wikipedia (seven now, I guess) that the number of people in the
world interested in writing an encyclopedia is a lot bigger than we
ever anticipated it being?
Probably, but it's part of a much wider trend There has been similar
growth in other areas from social networking to YouTube to MMORPGs to
blogging. I think there is also a widespread dissatisfaction with and
distrust of established social and political structures. Discussions
about these can now take place in ways that previously were technically
impossible. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
The
one-author, one-page idea (from what I've heard knol is supposed
to be) sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
Yes and no. It's workable, *if* there are other caveats which
haven't
been announced yet - some kind of weighting, structuring, etc. We
shall see.
It beats having to face the question of NPOV. Insisting on a neutral
article on a subject like Israeli-Palestinian relations reflects one of
the most important features of Wikipedia. A reader who is confident
that he can find a reasonably balanced treatment of the subject will
come back when he can't trust other sites.
A one-author, one page policy would allow separate biased articles on
either side of the subject.
Ec