--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip to the end...>
Is there *anything* we can do, consistent with
our
policies of openness, to make the project more attractive to the best-qualified people, in the face of the above problem?
--Larry
I agree with KQ's suggestion. I think it's a
matter of
trying to work together. As an expert, your
natural
inclination is to replace an article that you
don't
think very much of with your own writing. Fred's natural reaction to this is to feel dismissed. The problem escalates from there.
Here's the problem, though. Again, I think KQ has the right approach, but it doesn't solve every problem along these lines. With all due respect, in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's talking about on this topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to go through an article from someone who does not understand the subject (but thinks he does).
Perhaps Fred doesn't understand the subject; I really can't say. After reading both versions of the article, I can say that I found neither particularly helpful to a philosophical layman, but of course you had just started the new version, so it's hardly a completed article.
Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred has reacted, I think. Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say. Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said, "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article, I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
In general, I think generalists (like me) should defer to people who have actively studied and specialized in a certain field. However, it's much easier to see mistakes in an article on [[digital camera]]s as opposed to somethig like [[reality]].
This isn't the same situation as, say, "working"
on an
article with Helga Jonat. Fred (Hi Fred! Are you
tuned
in to this thread?) is a good contributor to the project, and isn't out to push a specific agenda
all
through Wikipedia.
I'm not talking about the whole project. In this article, he certainly has been trying to push a specific agenda, though it's possible he doesn't quite realize that.
If that's what you think, it might be best to assume the latter.
Remember that you both have the same goal: to
produce
a good article on "reality". It seems that there's
a
clash of approaches here. "Reality" is an enormous topic, and a truly good article is not going to
take
shape in only a few weeks.
I appreciate the attention you're giving this, Stephen, but this doesn't help. The problem decidedly *isn't* that we haven't spent enough time on it (the original, awful article was up there for many months).
We have lots of awful articles that have been up for more than a year. "Time" may have been a poor word to use; I'm thinking more about effort. Wikipedia's broad, general subjects are of a much lower quality than more specific ones, and I think this is because of the time and effort it takes to write a good, general article. I know I've been working offline on a Communication article for months, and I just can't drum up enough enthusiasm for it. It's a major project.
You may be right that this doesn't touch on the specific problem you bring up, but I do think it is a factor in the larger problem of general articles. I'll move on...
Wikipedia should not *have to be* about *everyone* who wants to collaborate on an article gets an equal seat at the table on every article, with all of their views expressed.
Of course not.
Sometimes, people can be wrong; and they don't know that they're wrong, because they just don't know enough about the topic. That's my point.
Well, it comes dow to this: You have studied philosophy extensively, and you say that the article on reality is full of errors. Fred, who is interested in the topic, doesn't see the article as being full of errors. If neither of you can find common ground to work on the article, the only solution is to recruit more people who have studied the topic work on it.
Fred, if you are reading this, I encourage you to work with Larry, not against him. He's not just pulling things out of thin air, and taking the time to go through an article line by line, point out problems, takes an enormous amount of effort. Don't let that effort go to waste.
We're starting to see the growth of Wikipedia straining the sense of community. Take a look at
the
Wiki Life Cycle
(http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle).
It's a remarkably accurate guide to the rise and
fall
of wiki communities. We are entering stage 17: "Decline Of Civility -- there are more strangers
than
friends, and assum[ing] good faith fails as
reputation
is fleeting." As more and more Wikipedians
contribute,
we have to be careful; it's getting easier to get
into
heated arguments, and these fights will
de-stabilize a
project that bases itself on openness.
Again, while I agree that it's important to be civil and I agree with the above sentiments, but I am skeptical that it's a new or growing problem. I mean, we've *always* had trouble of this sort. You'd think I'd know how to deal with it by now...
I disagree. From my observations, it is a growing problem in that we have more contributors who don't really know each other. The Wiki Life Cycle describes Wikipedia's evolution quite accurately; I'd rather that changed before we hit the downswing.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/