Thomas Dalton wrote:
Then why do we allow people to edit articles at all. Under strict risk/reward analysis, that was the wrong thing to do. Yet by doing the "wrong thing" we have created something quite significant. In my opinion, your assessment of risk/reward is more appropriate to a well-established institution than to a cutting-edge web project.
In what way was it the wrong thing to do? The gain from allowing everyone to edit is enormous. The risk is significant, but manageable.
I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work, allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody editing is impossible.
All decisions should be made by comparing the risk and the reward. The difference between a well-established institution and a cutting-edge web project is simply one of degree - we are willing to take more risk to get the same gain, but no unlimited risk. We still have to balance it.
And I think that's the difference in perspective. Is Wikipedia a well-established institution? Or a cutting-edge web project?
The other day, I went to a BayCHI presentation by the folks at NetFlix. They are several years older than Wikipedia, their model is much clearer, and as a publicly traded company with a half-billion dollars in revenue, they face at least as much scrutiny. You would think that would put them more toward the well-established end of the spectrum.
However, they're continuously and aggressively experimenting. They view what they've done so far as a beginning, not an end. They act as a cutting-edge web project does.
Personally, I think that's the right attitude for Wikipedia as well. Six years is a fantastic start, but against the 236 years that Britannica's made it, it's not much at all. I'd like Wikipedia to have the same run.
William