The system of stable versions is long overdue, if we are willing to face the mounting wave of criticism of Wikipedia as a free-for-all project aiming at prolific mediocrity rather than excellence.
--Ghirla
On 8/18/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/17/07 4:52 AM, Andrey at yaroslavl@gmail.com wrote:
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