Larry Sanger wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Fred Bauder wrote:
Experts will come, retired folks, occassional passersby, students. Frankly, I don't want to see any expert (in some field) playing any important role unless they are also expert in the give and take of wikipedia article writing and editing.
But since I'm not proposing that experts play any important role (other than one that they can already play right now) in *Wikipedia*.
What precisely was the new proposal?
Nupedia already has panels and the FDL allows easy use of the Wikipedia articles. They can be frozen or modified at whim as long as the attribution requirements of the license are met.
If you quit now or greatly modify the system you'll never know how what we do now would have developed.
"Quit now"? Who is proposing that anyone quit anything? Besides, the systems running the free encyclopedia project been constantly modified from its very beginning.
The procedures and the community have been incremented only slowly due to the consensus driven process. The substrate is necessary but not sufficient. It is much easier to change a technical feature back after a mistake than regrow a community or repair a community member's reputation or attitude.
Even today; as we argue about whether we are: successful, on the verge of success, on track for huge success, or something else suitably vague; the policies and guidelines are voluntary and not uniformly applied by members.
The ensemble currently works. Is it improving or degrading? Can you prove it? Can you measure the change when a contributor endorses, comments or takes exception to one of the policy guidelines? Is any persuasive yet inconclusive evidence available for presentation to the next contributor judgement?
Why stop doing that?
Nobody has proposed to freeze the community or project. What you proposed sounded like some potentially large changes and you were very vague about the proposal.
It appeared you were seeking approval and support before articulating the proposal. A blank check.
Do you really think that Wikipedia has found the magic formula?
Yes! Until it can be articulated; quantified; modified by design (instead of prayer); incremental damage detected and incorrect changes backed out swiftly and reliably; AND explained to the satisfaction of the newest readers or contributors via self reference such that they embrace its working culture, customs, or "community"; it is "magic" ... not science or engineering design. The mana could fade tomorrow and be difficult to reproduce.
I don't think so, and (if you'll
forgive me) I played a larger part than anyone in developing the formula.
An interesting perspective. If you will forgive me, you were compensated for your efforts.
I only arrived in Feb 02 but from review of the list archives, policies, participation in the community, etc. I have reached the tentative conclusion that the chaotic collaboration of the volunteer community was the critical element in the emergent success that would be required to fork or establish a derivative project.
The inability to dictate terms to stubborn volunteers seemed to play a very large part in the evolution of mostly working customs and procedures that currently define a robust community which jots or essays much material and iteratively keeps the best and modifies (sometimes deletes) the rest.
The volunteers donate spare time or contribute portions of their professional work which is compatible with the project goals at no impact to their employers. A crude estimate I ran last Feb resulted in the relative stakes of Bomis vs volunteer effort being roughly the same at 500K value each using conservative guesses. With increasing volunteer participation the balance can only shift towards the volunteer community.
The paid professionals were necessary investment to get the systems infrastructure established, the software working well enough to attract adequate free developer participation, and the community collaboration started but insufficient to guarantee success. The near instant large participation from the existing Nupedia community or dedicated enthusiasts and professional was probably also critical in launching an experimental project with experimental technology in a short reasonable period of time. Now that the prototyping has been completed successfully to demonstrate the large potential in the approach, subsequent projects should have less trouble convincing random internet volunteers that a project is feasible. The question becomes is it desirable to adequate volunteers?
A derivative project could be launched on the cheap with a server and a high speed domestic internet link or a detailed plan could be assembled and grant funding sought or a combined approach could team wiki a project. Any approach is more viable now that a successful community (philanthropist, paid professionals, and volunteer philanthropists) has d3eveloped and published several critical components and concepts under the GDL and FDL.
To summarize: If you cannot articulate the details and valid reasons in some valid form that I and our peers can recognize, then I am unlikely to be swayed by appeals to past glory.
Sorry, but my life is valuable and I only have so many hours to invest in humanity's future glory. I too require food, shelter, consumers goods, and respect from my peers must be bought or earned the old fashioned way: Recent cash or accomplishment.
Hmmm! Not bad. Modified, that might do for some proposed non-policy on the oft alleged impending green space derivative open engineering site ... I could be a founder any day now.
With warm slightly trollish yet highly respectful regard for past service to humanity,
Sincerely, Mike Irwin