On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton <bennett(a)peacefire.org> wrote:
Well Citizendium also builds up articles by having
them go through an
initial growth period, before they are "approved" and signed off on by
editors, and any future changes also have to be approved by editors.
If the difference were only due to the fun of real-time editing, then there
would be just as many Citizendium users participating in the
real-time-editing process during the growth period of an article, as there
are on Wikipedia. I think it's safe to say that Wikipedia's first-mover
advantage and name recognition is the main reason this is not the case :)
Hmm. If someone told me that any change I made to Wikipedia would have
to be "approved" by someone, or that the change would be somehow
"provisional" or "second-rate', I would be less motivated to work on
it.
If the person's name is not right there on the
article (even if it can be
looked up in the history), then the reward associated with signing off on
it, decreases.
"Article approved by Professor John Smith. And written by 190 nameless
contributors." Hmm. I'm not against...but I guess I would have to see
it in action.
Steve
[whoops, wrote this earlier, forgot to send it]