[WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

[William Pietri]

Sorry, I accidentally clicked send. Here's the rest of what I was trying 
to say:


Jimmy Wales wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>   
>>>       
>> You got it. "Of course. Wikipedia is not *reliable* in the sense it's
>> all checked. It can't be by the process it's written by. You have to
>> think when you're reading. But if you do, it's good and useful."
>>
>> ("But what if people take it as gospel?" "We can't and don't promise
>> to think for people. You have to do that for yourself.")
>>
>> I take this line every time this comes up - live radio, if not TV -
>> and it works fine. It would have worked here too.
>>     
>
> Well, it more or less DID, and that's what I call dancing.


Are you sure you aren't mentally accepting the premise of their
question? It seems to me there's no need for feeling like you're dancing
around something.

My take is that outsiders who look at Wikipedia and demand perfection
have a fundamental misunderstanding about participatory culture. It's
like bringing nothing to a church potluck and then getting sniffy
because haute cuisine restaurants have nicer tablecloths and people who 
bring you the food. Of course they do; $150 per head pays for a lot of 
pampering.

The engine of Wikipedia's advancement is people noticing something that 
could be better. That somebody has done that isn't a problem, it's an 
opportunity. It's reasonable and natural that they would misunderstand 
that, but I believe it is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Basically, I think you have created the world's biggest pot of stone 
soup. When people say it could use some carrots, I don't think we should 
apologize for a deficiency. I think we should say, "Great idea! Here, 
you can borrow my knife and cutting board."

William