[WikiEN-l] Citizendium on quality

[Charlotte Webb]

On 12/18/07, joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:
> Larry raises very good points. I think he overestimates how much people
> prefer quality to easy access but I might be cynical.

Ah, but cynicism is a virtue. Read-access is cake. Write-access, even
to fix a minor grammatical error[1], is subject to excessive
restriction.

On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a
> "huge potential demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough".
> I don't see that this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot
> with "just good enough", so will have to forego perfection.

"I appreciate the best, but I'm settling for less, 'cause I'm looking
for the next best thing."[2]

On 12/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, the flipside of the argument is that what wikipedia
> is trying is not waiting for a grand piano to appear out of thin
> air, but instead giving the parts of one grand piano to a
> million monkeys, and waiting patiently for the monkeys to
> assemble them into a playable instrument.

More like we rely on them to create their own list of parts and tools
to scavenge for, and patiently wait for them assemble said piano.

Maybe the result will be perfectly tuned but look like shit.
Or maybe it will be visually beautiful but sound like shit.
Or maybe the instrument will look and sound great, but smell like shit.
Or maybe it will look, sound, and smell like shit, but at least it
won't cost us a penny.
Nothing comes without a trade-off.

—C.W.

[1] (or any other issue, perhaps in the [[Rocket science]] article,
which would not benefit much, if at all, from expertise or even vague
comprehension of the subject)
[2] (C) 1983 Zevon Music (BMI), Tiny Tunes (ASCAP), Valgovind Music (BMI)