Thanks, everyone, for the replies!
Let me try to clarify several points--I now see that I should have written a number of paragraphs completely differently. I'm sorry about that, really.
(1) Some people seem to have thought they were defending my view (or expanding it) and others, that were attacking my view. But (if you'll read what I said) no part of my view is that we should change *Wikipedia* at all.
In particular, my central suggestion (and sorry if I wasn't clear about this) was *not* that we now try hard to design a Wikipedia-controlled article approval system. The idea is interesting, and it's something we've discussed a lot (especially last fall, I think). Presently, I am pretty much neutral on the idea; in fact, I'm leaning a bit against the notion. Nor was my suggestion that we find a new individual leader for *Wikipedia*. (I said not long ago that I didn't think we needed one.)
In my post, I used the terms "free encyclopedia movement" several times, to cover Wikipedia, Nupedia, and other similar projects extant and yet to come. Wikipedia is not coextensive with the free encyclopedia movement.
(2) In saying that most people weren't highly educated, I really *didn't* mean to insult anyone, and moreover, what I meant (but didn't express well) wasn't anything that anyone should feel insulted by. (Some people love to feel insulted, however. I'm one of 'em, so I understand.) What I meant to say was something strictly factual and uncontroversial. I should have said: "There aren't many bona fide experts, leaders in their fields, involved in Wikipedia right now." For example, I am not a bona fide expert about much of anything or leader in any of my "fields."
(3) My contention is that, for Wikipedia to succeed, we need experts *guiding* the *free encyclopedia movement* (notice the key words). This must happen sooner or later, but I think it's very plausible to think it must happen sometime if we're to succeed. Now, in saying this, I am *not* saying, or meaning to imply, that only experts can write credible articles. So it misses the point to insist strenuously that nonexperts can write and make great progress on encyclopedia articles: obviously, they can, and I'm sure I've said (and done!) so many times.
What I *am* saying is that, in the long run, unless a lot of experts are involved and unless there is a process that holds *some* portion of the free encyclopedia movement (not Wikipedia) up to extremely high standards, the overall project won't succeed in producing a credible encyclopedia. In some cases this might be because no one but an expert would be able to write (or rewrite) an article on a topic properly. In many more cases, it will be because no one but an expert will be able to edit, supervise, and otherwise whip into shape articles on subjects that many nonexperts think, but mistakenly, they can write adequately about. There are many such subjects, at least if we want to compare ourselves to actual reliable encyclopedias.
(4) I should have known better than not to spend at least a couple more paragraphs explaining that I do not have a fetish for formal qualifications. I agree absolutely completely 100% that it is totally possible for people who lack any sort of formal qualifications to write (and edit and code) wonderful creative works of all sorts. I also agree that this is at the heart of the success of the open source movement. But that mere possibility doesn't mean that we don't need a lot of experts *guiding* a quality control process that Wikipedia benefits from. Part of the irony in my title was precisely this point: the open source movement is full of all sorts of people with relatively few formal qualifications, and no one cares. But, IN FACT, the movement in general is guided by people who are a lot more expert in coding than the average Wikipedian is about what he or she writes about (and that couldn't be otherwise, given its success). There's nothing paradoxical about this--and it doesn't make the free software movement into a cathedral rather than a bazaar. It's a bazaar *guided* by expert coders. Kind of (but not entirely) like the stock market, a more or less free market, being guided by Wall Street gurus.
(5) I am not heralding the doom of Wikipedia, Daniel M., nor did I say (or mean to imply) that what Wikipedia does is futile, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. In fact, I think that, eventually, Wikipedia *will* get the loose direction (by example) it needs, by becoming an independent part of an open encyclopedia movement that includes an (also independent) expert-staffed review board. Part of the purpose of my post was to help move the movement in that direction.
(6) It is possible, as a few people seem to think, that by attracting many experts *to Wikipedia* (and continuing to forget that Nupedia ever happened) will result in the sort of excellent quality I hope we'll achieve. If that were to happen, I'd be delighted. (I don't expect it to happen; see (9) below. But it wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was for Wikipedians to get behind a new or newly revitalized project (such as Nupedia), officially independent of Wikipedia, that would be managed by experts.
Roll out the red carpet. Create a structure that will make the elite feel welcome to be involved in a *leadership* role. Get universities involved, and major research institutions, and even businesses--just as is the case with the open source movement.
(This, by the way, doesn't mean that they would set the standards for *Wikipedia*. I would strongly oppose that; Wikipedia should be self-managing as it always has been. But Wikipedia articles are open content. They might manage a different project that uses Wikipedia content, as is their right. Wikipedia would hugely benefit if this happened.)
(7) Fred Bauder was right to point out that a lot of the people who could help *Wikipedia* most just won't put up with arguing with people who they think should be sitting down and taking notes. A college professor who has spent his life studying X would, at least in many cases, find it absurd and ludicrous that he should have to argue with someone about X who has maybe had a college course on the subject and read a few books. There are exceptions, but they are *really* exceptions, and be grateful for them. You might hate this attitude, but it's a fact of life. The free stuff movement (how's that for a name) might be fantastic and wonderful, but that doesn't mean it'll magically change this fact.
The free encyclopedia project--not Wikipedia, necessarily--needs these people. It's frankly a little silly to expect them to help us as long as we continue to be wide open to everyone (except "24" and Helga, perhaps...) and to follow the editing policies and practices that we all know and love. It's much *less* silly to expect a number of them to join a free encyclopedia project advisory board of some sort, made up of leaders in all fields, that would set standards and procedures for the selection of *some free articles* (not to lead Wikipedia). It's also quite possible many of them will want to get on board as active parts of the writing and vetting process--but on their own terms, not on Wikipedia. We've already seen some potential for this with Nupedia. But I think we can do better, by getting behind the notion of a project led by, well, *real* experts. Not me, but Jacques Barzun, or someone of his stature. Someone, or a group of people, that the best minds of the world can look to and say, "This is fantastic. They want to do this? I want to be part of it."
That's how academics and scientists think, hate it or not. But it *is* how they think. Hard-headed problem-solvers will devise ways to work with it, as a constraint.
(8) A few people think I misunderstand the source of open source's success.
Stephen G., did I say that Linux Torvalds set out with exactly the goals the free software movement has come to have? If so, I apologize. I'm sure that most people got involved in the movement because it was fun (challenging, inspirational, etc.). I'm sure that freedom from requirements of academic and other formal qualifications (and employer- and client-defined standards) is an important element of what makes free software attractive for many of its developers. Moreover, I agree with you that there are important analogies here to the present and future success of Wikipedia. But this doesn't contradict what I did say, which I will refrain from reiterating.
Similarly, Karl J., I am sure the final decisions about what to officially release are made as you say they are (by whatever experts are at hand, not by the world's greatest expert about the thing). It so happens, though, that as the movement has growed in stature, those people who make the decisions really *are* software experts. If I'm wrong, please supply me with an example. How could the leaders of kernel releases, GNOME, etc., fail to be experts in what they do? The success of their projects is sufficient evidence. This doesn't contradict anything I said, moreover.
The disanalogy between software and encyclopedia article writing is simply that software has to work. It has to do what it is supposed to do. As software grows in sophistication, this requires huge amounts of expertise. But encyclopedia articles do not work or fail to work; still, very many of them *do* require the attention, at *some* point, of an expert, in order for anyone to be able to trust them reasonably.
(9) Now to address a point that at least three people made. If Wikipedia develops by itself, without any association with any sort of expert- controlled approval mechanism, to the point where it is used regularly by librarians and referred to as a good research source by college professors, I would take that as prima facie proof that a *lot* of experts are involved in Wikipedia. But this is precisely what I predict will not happen. Wikipedians, in too many cases unduly confident (it seems to me) of their project's modest successes, *need* a Nupedia.
Compare: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121
I know exactly what you guys are saying. I used to think Wikipedia *might* succeed on its own (but the involvement of Nupedia has always seemed important to me); I now fear otherwise. "Dreamworld" is hyperbole --I have *never before* been given to hyperbole, though. :-)
Axel and Lee both opined that Wikipedia might be able attract experts to lead it (hopefully not in an official capacity but due to proper respect to their expertise in their areas of expertise) all on its own, due to the (eventual) strength of its material. Bootstrapping, as many people have observed.
I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong; I don't have a crystal ball. But, looking at Wikipedia's contents now and comparing it to what I recall from times past, I do have to say that I'm worried. I don't think that in terms of quality, overall, it's getting that much better. But I also admit the project is still very young and no trends can be reliably predicted. That doesn't stop me from being worried, and I think you should be too. There's nothing utterly magical about the Wikipedia formula that *necessitates* that articles *on the whole* will not reach a level of mediocrity they never excel *on the whole*.
Moreover, there's a reason to think far too many experts won't ever give Wikipedia the attention it needs: it's just not a "form of life" that they're interested in and used to. It's important that we properly come to grips with this fact.
My experience with Nupedia makes me strongly suspect that the ablest possible contributors to the open encyclopedia project need their own project with their own rules, and that it's unwise to expect most academics and professionals anyway (I dealt with many dozens on Nupedia) to be interested in joining a wiki and contributing in that fashion.
If Wikipedia gets behind the notion, it'll happen!
Larry