Hoi,
Only a few of our Wikipedias have a reasonable coverage of the subjects that
you expect in an encyclopaedia. As this is at the start of your argument, i
find that I have to disagree. I do however agree that improved usability
will improve quality. When you consider the Commons content, it is easy to
argue that improved language support will make it easier for people who
read/wite other languages to contribute and thereby remove some of the
existing bias.
When you observe the cooperation that happens through the skype channels of
"not the Wikipedia Weekly" to be called "Wikivoices" you will agree
that it
is indeed greater cooperation that will become easier from implementing
social software. There is a need for social software because it can and does
provide tooling that enhances cooperation in creating quality content work.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM, David Moran
<fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip]
What we SHOULD be
talking about is not social media, but more robust tutorials and
walkthroughs for new users as they go through their first edits, and
their
first created articles, &c.
I agree.
And moreover, this is important because *quality* not *quantity* is
what we should be most concerned about. With umpteen million
articles in across many languages Wikipedia has already reached
"mission accomplished" level from a pure quantity measure.
Making it easier to contribute won't just help quantity, it will help
quality by reducing some forms of bias, and bringing in a broader
range of knowledge. If Wikipedia is only easy for techno-geeks then
editors will be mostly techno-geeks, and their edits may not
representative. (The [[Warp drive]] vs [[Ice pick]] effect).
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l