On mar, 2002-05-28 at 18:10, Guardian Tor wrote:
Hi Anthere,
While trying to bring new people to internat. Wikipedia, I have been asked what was the validation process in terms of reliability for the article...
I don't exactly know where to find an approach to this question (there's much to be said) and I don't know either where to ask the question :-)
Here's the short answer. Wikipedia works on a similar principle to open source software development. Anyone can pop in and write or change an article and it is immediately posted. Thus, there are no technological mechanisms to prevent people from posting nonsense.
Well, just for the record there's one really big difference:
In open source software development, yes anyone can make any modification they want to a piece of software and if they like distribute it _separately_, but that doesn't make those changes automatically appear at the _main_ or official source for the software. Generally, the official version is maintained by a small number of people who will review and may or may not accept changes that are sent to them.
In other words, the people who maintain the official version must explicitly intervene to _accept_ additions to the official version.
Here in wikiland, however, the people who maintain the official version (read: everyone else who uses the wiki) must explicitly intervene to _reject_ additions, which in the absence of intervention automatically become a part of the work.
The upside is extremely fast (instantaneous!) turn-around time for improvements and greater participation -- you don't have to wait for some reviewer (if there even is one familiar with your specialty) to look over your article before it goes online. The downside is the potential for abuse (vandalism etc) -- which is counterbalanced pretty well by the extemely fast turn-around time for removing abuse.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)