[Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)

[Ray Saintonge]

On 09/30/11 3:34 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> One final remark: I couldn't help but laugh a little when I read somewhere
> that we are the experts, and we are making decisions for our readers - and
> that these readers should have to take that whole complete story, because
> what else is the use of having these experts sit together. (probably I
> interpreted this with my own thoughts) And I was always thinking that
> Wikipedia was about masses participating in their own way - why do we trust
> people to 'ruin' an article for others, but not just for themselves?
>
>
It's always dangerous to believe one is an expert, and worse to proclaim 
that view. It's even a bit arrogant. How did we get there? Mass 
participation and crowd sourcing are not about becoming or being 
experts.  The content stands for itself.  This is not to say that these 
processes are without fault, nor that at times they can't go terribly 
wrong. In the larger context the contents are still pretty good, and in 
some areas more comprehensive than what can be found elsewhere.

Wikipedia's sense of inferiority with its passion to be broadly accepted 
by the educational community, to be more legal than God and to be so 
protective of brand and reputation projects the image of a neurotic 
character better than Woody Allen could ever portray.

Ray