On 5/29/06, Traroth traroth@yahoo.fr wrote:
Michael Snow a écrit :
And for the other projects, a wiki is sometimes far from ideal, true enough. That's been recognized for some time, which is why there are ongoing efforts to adapt or extend the software to better serve those objectives. In the meantime, the wiki is the tool we've got. Tired cliches aside, I'm sure better ones would be welcomed if somebody cares to offer us more tools.
That's not false. But a question remains : why did Wikipedia become a hit, with millions of articles in hundred of languages, while Nupedia, which actually followed the same principles as Wikipedia, except it was not a wiki, never reached 100 articles ?
I don't think you can completely separate "the wiki part" from the "success" [1] of Wikipedia. The fact that in Wikipedia there were almost no barriers to contribution/collaboration (explicit, technical, social, etc.) was, as far as I can tell, the only significant difference between the two projects.
But I don't see the elimination of barriers to contribution as being exclusive to being a wiki. Is DMOZ a wiki? Would it become one if you eliminated the rules about signing up and getting approved before you can "become an editor"?
Jimmy Wales tried applying "the wiki part" to a web directory (Wikiasari). The project failed miserably.
I dunno, maybe DMOZ *would* be "a wiki" if you eliminated just a couple of the stupid rules. And maybe it would be enormously more successful if you did so. Of course, maybe Nupedia would have overtaken Wikipedia by now if Bomis had just funded it for a few more years. I've read before that Larry Sanger thinks this.
[1] Wikipedia's definitely enormously popular, and it has certainly managed to produce an enormous breadth of information. The average quality, on the other hand, is mediocre, and I personally have serious doubts as to whether or not that's a situation that's correctable.