Hello all,
I might sound totally blasphemous so be patient. Wikipedia and wiki concept is really great but the WWW is a global Wikipedia without the end-user editing facility. Aren't we in a cul-de-sac ? WWW is full of brilliant pages and sites entangled in a sea of rubbish. I doubt that we can outdo most sites, commercial or personal. Wouldn't it be better to do a critical review of the whole web with some additions of our own ?
Another point worth discussing is the role of a wikipedian. In my opinion he/she is a 21st century counterpart of an 18th encyclopedist. A knowledgeable, open-minded, rational, impartial person (not a scientist) whose mission is to gather knowledge. Wikipedia should be a global knowledge base rather than a collection of personal essays on subject one can find in a normal encyclopedia.
Editorial board. Are we for a democracy or freedom/anarchy ? At some point when Wikipedia reaches a critical mass there should be some democratic Editorial Board. It could even freeze some pages for some time. If you say no to the Editorial Board some democratic rules should be set in stone.
End point. Can someone please tell me what's the end point/goal of Wikipedia ? Don't tell there no end-point and this is eternal task ;-)
RDF Wikipedia - patchy with some articles for students, some for laymen and some for university professors ? Or branch out into Kid's Wikipedia, Regular Wikipedia, Highbrow Wikipedia.
I am really enthusiastic about Wikipedia - I contribute regularly and am determined to to so in future. These are just my thoughts. Please bear in mind I have _no_ intention to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about Wikipedia's functioning and goals. I hope Wikipedia will flourish.
Best regards, kpj.
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
Are we for a democracy or freedom/anarchy ? At some point when Wikipedia reaches a critical mass there should be some democratic Editorial Board. It could even freeze some pages for some time. If you say no to the Editorial Board some democratic rules should be set in stone.
While I'm a much bigger fan of freedom and anarchy, I'm also in favor of Wikipedia being run for the benefit of the community of authors, which means that we should work in a friendly way to reach a consensus about where we want to go and how we want to control the community in the long run.
Probably _the_ most astounding fact about Wikipedia is that it is so good without any formal rules or restrictions at all. There are social customs and social pressures that do a really good job of keeping things in line.
But someday, we will have to move beyond that. As the site gets more popular, it will attract vandals, and so we'll need to lock down the front page, or somehow *gently* raise the barriers to entry... but we'll want to be very cautious to not upset the "wiki magic".
End point. Can someone please tell me what's the end point/goal of Wikipedia ? Don't tell there no end-point and this is eternal task ;-)
One answer -- and maybe not a very satisfactory one -- is that the goal of Wikipedia is fun for the contributors. If something cool emerges out of our playing with knowledge, all the better. But if it isn't fun for the contributors, it will die.
This (along with the free license) that guarantees that I'll continue to be a "benevolent" monarch to the project. If I decided unilaterally to make some changes that upset the contributors, that'd pretty much kill the growth of the project. My goal is to prevent fragmentation or "forking" by working hard to keep as many people happy as I can.
RDF Wikipedia - patchy with some articles for students, some for laymen and some for university professors ? Or branch out into Kid's Wikipedia, Regular Wikipedia, Highbrow Wikipedia.
I think these are great ideas.
I am really enthusiastic about Wikipedia - I contribute regularly and am determined to to so in future. These are just my thoughts. Please bear in mind I have _no_ intention to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about Wikipedia's functioning and goals. I hope Wikipedia will flourish.
I like your ideas.
On 13-06-2001, Jimmy Wales wrote thusly :
Thank you for your voice in the discussion, Jim. I think we should talk more about Wikipedia structure and functioning. I have a funny feeling that we might be overwhelmed by the project's magnitude some time in the future.
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
Are we for a democracy or freedom/anarchy ? At some point when Wikipedia reaches a critical mass there should be some democratic Editorial Board. It could even freeze some pages for some time. If you say no to the Editorial Board some democratic rules should be set in stone.
While I'm a much bigger fan of freedom and anarchy, I'm also in favor of Wikipedia being run for the benefit of the community of authors, which means that we should work in a friendly way to reach a consensus about where we want to go and how we want to control the community in the long run.
Probably _the_ most astounding fact about Wikipedia is that it is so good without any formal rules or restrictions at all. There are social customs and social pressures that do a really good job of keeping things in line.
This is a second wonderful thing about Wikipedia, next to "wiki magic".
But someday, we will have to move beyond that. As the site gets more popular, it will attract vandals, and so we'll need to lock down the front page, or somehow *gently* raise the barriers to entry... but we'll want to be very cautious to not upset the "wiki magic".
For the time being all pitfalls of large collaborative projects have been bypassed. What do you think about web democracy in the form of online polls ?
End point. Can someone please tell me what's the end point/goal of Wikipedia ? Don't tell there no end-point and this is eternal task ;-)
One answer -- and maybe not a very satisfactory one -- is that the goal of Wikipedia is fun for the contributors. If something cool emerges out of our playing with knowledge, all the better. But if it isn't fun for the contributors, it will die.
Are you saying Wikipedia is a toy thing and Nupedia the real one ???
This (along with the free license) that guarantees that I'll continue to be a "benevolent" monarch to the project. If I decided unilaterally to make some changes that upset the contributors, that'd pretty much kill the growth of the project. My goal is to prevent fragmentation or "forking" by working hard to keep as many people happy as I can.
RDF Wikipedia - patchy with some articles for students, some for laymen and some for university professors ? Or branch out into Kid's Wikipedia, Regular Wikipedia, Highbrow Wikipedia.
I think these are great ideas.
Larry Sanger addressed this in a separate thread and it is beginning to take shape. Target audience - should be redirected : Kid's Wikipedia Wikipedia - normal people ;) Nupedia - Highbrow Wikipedia (BTW what kind of relation is there between Nupedia and Wikiepdia ? Is Nupedia going to take over content of Wikiepdia and put under editorial scrutiny ? )
Regards, kpj.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org