[WikiEN-l] purpose served by anonymity / unmoderated edits

[Steve Bennett]

On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton <bennett at peacefire.org> wrote:
> balance, independently of which system is actually better -- such as,
> Wikipedia having gotten there first, or having more users.)

Why do you think Wikipedia has more users? I know that's kind of a
cheap shot, but it's true: unfettered ability to edit and publish is a
major drawcard for people wanting to contribute. And, of course,
vandals.

Your idea is interesting, and I agree with your "more bang for your
buck" theory: 100 hours of community-provided work followed by 20
minutes of expert work could easily double or triple the value of the
work provided by the community. However:
- Where would we find experts?
- Who would want to verify our really boring articles, lists, etc...
- Would an expert really "stake their reputation" on an article?
What's in it for them?
- Can we really present this in a useful way to the public? "This
article is unverified. However, 3 months and 280 revisions ago, an
expert from a university you've never heard of verified it as
accurate." Um...

Steve