[Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

[Domas Mituzas]

Hi!

> But this clearly should be added to the wake up calls -- "SOFIXIT"
> does not cut it anymore. Wikipedia cannot enjoy the bragging rights of
> a "Top 40" web site without changing its quality standards to match.

Top30. Nearly. :) Anyway, from a majority view of non-contributing  
users (or AApatheticW) site is good as is. This is the content trade  
off and it will always be. Accepting possibility of being wrong is  
charm, and it attracts more and more users. Because they find  
information, even when it is wrong. It could be top3 website and  
still have accidental asspuss images on mainpage.  It shows strength  
of a project, not weakness.

Our rating systems would always be public and open source, and if  
anyone wished, they could always abuse them.

People working on content shouldn't be forced to work on ratings or  
validation. It is a waste of time for what was nearly efficiently  
handled before. And there's something worse than non-rated content,  
it's wrongly rated content. Who is going to rate those who do  
ratings? A regular contributor may not have power and resources to  
establish ratings for his version, when a PoV pusher applies some new  
methodology of rating manipulation.

Personally I see it as a complex issue, in community, software and  
hardware. I'd be happy if anyone could change my views. ;)

Domas

P.S. We should better preach gospels: http://www.forbes.com/lists/ 
2005/14/CH0027.html