On 5/29/06, Berto <albertoserra(a)ukr.net> wrote:
Hi!
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.
Quality is an issue, yet most people will believe Wikipedia anyway, just
because it's free and it's often the only available online information
source on a given subject. Doubts about quality, on the other side, may not
be referred to wikis only. It's a lot of sites on the net publishing pure
trash, and sometimes they even want money for you to read it...
I suppose the only answer is into trying to concentrate wiki growth towards
quality, instead of making it only a quantity matter. Yet, the internal
success mark (at the moment) still is limited to "how many articles you guys
got?". Until this internal perception does not change, there will be no
chance to improve quality.
My doubts come from the fact that Wikipedia, from its very birth, was
never designed to produce a final product. "Nupedia started Wikipedia
as a side project to allow collaboration on articles prior to entering
the peer review process."
I'm just not sure it's possible to ratchet up the quality controls
(explicit/rules-based, technical, social, etc.) without also killing
the very openness which has proven to be so necessary in getting
people to work for free. I suppose it could be attempted on an
article by article basis, but that's going to cause a significant
cultural shift which may or may not work.
Anthony