Pablo De Nápoli wrote:
I've contributed with some articles. I'm rather
disapointed, though. For
example, I've rewriten the article on Lebesgue integration in the English
wikipedia, since I find that the article explained the tenichal difficulties
of Riemman integral, but it does not define the notion of Lebesgue integral
(perhaps I had to tell you that I'm a mathematician, I work at the mathematics
department of Buenos Aires University, Argentina).
After that, looking at the history of the page, I find that some rather old
previous versions where much better, but they had been deleted since a
user consider them "too advanced". Needless to say, Lebesgue integration is
indeed an advanced topic in mathematics, so that any article on this subject
is necesarilly advanced (or does not covered the topic).
I see your point there, but consider this: An encyclopedia should
explain what "Lebesgue integration" is and what it does, in a way that
an average reader can understand it. It would be no problem to add
mathematical details *after* such an introduction, but a degree in
mathematics should *not* be required to understand the introduction itself.
If you like to elaborate on mathematical topics in detail,
wikibooks.org
might be a good place. I've written some biochemistry pages there myself.
It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too much
open, so that open
that anyone can annonymously edit any page. That I think is to much.that at
least one should have to register and log in in order to modify a page, one
has to take a responsability for what is saying (specially for deleting some
one else work). In the current model, we don't know who write what
(even though, most civilizated wiikipedians do log in, but I think this should
be mandatory)
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections
Another idea that comes to my mind is that there could
be some teams for
especific topics, that manage the pages in some section (say mathematics,
geogrpahy,
economics or whatever). This does not mean that any user from outside the team
could not submit modifications. But without a team of core developers or
a project leader for each section how can you assure a minimum of
quality of wikipedia?
(this is more or less the model in all free software projects, no project
grants write access to cvs to everyone anonymously, say)
There are WikiProjects for starters, but if you want to recruit a "math
team", go ahead :-)
Also, we have (rather vague) plans for a "wikipedia 1.0", which will
contain only selected, proof-read article versions from wikipedia. This
will have to wait until the current server crisis is solved, though.
Magnus