On 3/20/07, Bennett Haselton bennett@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]