[Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

[David Gerard]

Poe, Marshall wrote:

> There is a more general consideration, tho: repeated notices in the
> *trusted* print press to the effect that WP is not trustworthy will
> drive people away.  WP's reputation is on the line. So WP has both good
> legal and practical reasons to institute some sort of (let me just say
> it) formal editorial control over quality.  


This is part of why I say we've peaked too early and will be able to
work much better on the encyclopedia when we're not flavour of the month
and our editors aren't being spooked by our current high rating. I
haven't seen a great many proposals to "remedy" this that won't risk
severely damaging the community that has produced what we have so far.
(It's one of the reasons we're explicitly not doing anything with the
ratings until we know what they look like.)

If the "trusted" print press turn away people who believe anything they
see on the internet, I suspect that would actually be better for us than
claiming we absolutely have to strangle the freedom that produced what
we have so far.


- d.