Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
But again, I think it needs to develop in a
centralized way for
a while before risking that. I may be labelled a
saying this, but part of what make Wikipedia great
is its /lack/
or freedom and universal participation. Everything2
what that devolves into. We have a central goal
focus, and people to keep the masses pointed in the
Yeah, I think that's kind of heretical. But you write
good articles *and* software, so I'll engage in some
religious tolerance. :)
Has anyone ever surfed around H2G2.com? Its entries
seem to be of consistantly better quality than most of
Everything2, and they have a peer-review system in
place. I'm going to poke around there a bit and see if
they have any useful techniques that could be adapted
to Wikipedia. Fishing out a few new Wikipedians
wouldn't hurt either.
I browsed around H2G2 a bit. I agree, the "peer" reviewed
writing quality seemed good given the starting focus of Life,
the Universe, and Everthing from "The Hitchhiker's Guide
to the Galaxy".
The "peer" review scheme appears to be a top down controlled
hiearchy. Essentially they are using site volunteers to reduce
staff writing/editing workload while retaining all authority
at the top (inhouse paid staff). Draft or proposed material
is available in special collaboration or viewing rooms for site
goers who wish to view it. The proposed material works it way
upward as it is noticed and approved by the hiearchy. The focus
is on entertaining material well written in a consistent site style.
In addition to promoting the material, some reviewers can bounce
the material down the pyramid to a level matching their
perception of its state of readiness. There is a garbage collection
room named the "Flea Market" where abandoned draft work is
accumulated either automatically or manually for adoption.
I did not see anything that looked easily adaptable to Wikipedia
or wikis in general but I have not created an account and used
their editing and collaboration tools yet.