Stuart Orford wrote:
I used to contribute to the [[Internet Movie Database]]
Very good example -- I can relate to your experiences, and I fully agree.
But there is no on-going controversy about movie databases in the way there is about encyclopedias. It seems to be a deeply-entrenched belief in people that controlled expert review is the only way information can be accurate (this applies to IMDb as well as encyclopedias), but they additionally perceive the accuracy of an encyclopedia as being of paramount importance (the word "encyclopedia" seems to ring this particular bell in many people). Hence everybody's stereotypical reaction when they first hear of Wikipedia, "That'll never work!".
Also, to make this clear: I do not believe that Encarta will attract more contributors than Wikipedia. Quite to the contrary. What I'm talking about is the general public view of the resulting encyclopedia. For a long time, it has been one of Wikipedia's selling points to say, "If you find a mistake you can correct it yourself!" Now, the general reply to that will be, "Yawn. You can do that with Encarta too."
Only about 20 editors process millions of contributions a year, giving no feedback, and sometimes changing edits in seemingly arbitrary ways.
Heh. I know what you mean. But I don't think the editors "change edits in arbitrary ways" -- I think it's more likely that their processing of the information takes *even* longer than you think, and the information you suggested was actually suggested by someone else long before you, and they posted his version. :)
It was frustrating, as you can tell. IMDb may be the most repected movie database, but as a community it's hell, and I don't expect Encarta to be much better. Public contribution and closing editing doesn't scale.
I completely agree. But the "community factor" doesn't help the reputation outside the community.
Timwi