Optim wrote:
I was describing to someone how Wikipedia works: "anyone can edit" etc.
He answered with this argument: "Wikipedia is the triumph of the average person! of the man in the street!)"
(average meaning: not good, not bad, just OK)
I asked "why?"
His explanation: "Great brilliant works are built by individuals. Groups of people can only create average works. If someone writes something good in the wiki, other average persons will intervene with his/her work and turn it into an average work. If someone writes something bad in the wiki, the others will again turn it into something of average value. with your system (meaning: Wikipedia's system) you can be sure that you will never create something too bad but also never something too good. You can create only average articles."
The idea behind his argument was that Wikipedia will be a good resource as long as it attracts good cotnributors. but it will soon become an average site/encyclopaedia because it allows anyone to join the project and edit, and most people are just average persons and not brilliant writers.
Do you think it's true? and how can we answer this argument?
--Optim
Does the argument really need answering? That sort of normalising influence is a fact of life that needn't be turned into a value judgement. I think the effect is much stronger on the poor articles where the average person can see the article's weakness and bring it up to his standards. When that same person looks at a great article I find it hard to see him inclined to touch the article. Dumbing it down would be a lot of hard work that could be beyond his capacities. In any event, the standards of the average Wikipedian are higher than the standards in the general population. :-) We begin by excluding everybody who has not yet learned to turn on a computer.
The controversial articles should not be viewed as a factor in this. As hot as some of these debates may be, we are still only talking about a small fraction of all the Wikipedia articles.
I would venture to guess that Optim's critic may have had some degree of association with a university. In some cases simplification of the writing may be desireable if we are to make things understandable to the general population. That motivation is certainly there in the development of the Simple Wikipedia. By making material that could only be found in university libraries accessible to the general public we are advancing the spread of knowledge. There are also many people out there who for whatever reason may not have had the opportunity or inclination to succeed in a university setting who can be a valuable asset to Wikipedia. Some who can focus very well on a single topic and write credibly may not have the determinationto maintain that focus over the time needed to graduate from university.
Around 1900 many public libraries were established to make books and knowledge available to a wider public. Perhaps Jimbo may even some day be revered as the Andrew Carnegie of the internet age. :-) . Ec