[WikiEN-l] Times article (London)

[Marc Riddell]

on 8/17/07 4:52 AM, Andrey at yaroslavl at gmail.com wrote:

> "An early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who
> knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is
> there."
> 
> This happens very often, particularly with good and featured articles. Many
> outstanding pages have been eroded by anonymous know-it-alls
> into utter uselessness once their main contributors left the project. Unless
> we have content arbitration boards made up of professionals in any given
> field, we are likely to see an increase in complaints and a decrease in a
> number of knowledgable contributors.
> 
> --Ghirla

This is an issue that has been touched upon several times, and in several
different ways, in the past. But each time the discussion has spiraled off
into battles about what constitutes a "professional" and the definition of
"expert".

Well over six months ago I personally persuaded several top-notch writers in
their field to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In each and every case they
finally gave up in frustration after their work was reverted or challenged
on grounds that were pure bullshit. These are persons who write for
professional journals all of the time, and frequently engage in arguments
over their writings with others that they know. The reality of the matter is
they, and persons like them, have neither the time nor inclination to argue
their work with persons they have no clue about.

I really don't know what the answer is. But I do know that part of the
problem is the fact that the Project is still very much in need of a firm,
coherent direction, and an equally strong identity.

Marc Riddell



> 
> On 8/16/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/articl
>> e2267665.ece
>> 
>> Stable versions would help with answering some of that criticism. Plenty
>> of
>> what he says is fair enough, IMO, particularly the point about the loudest
>> voices winning purely by virtue of obnoxious trolling.
>> 
>> C More schi