[WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:10 PM 3/6/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
>I agree that something driven by reader choice would be good, but
>still with editorial guidance.

With a print encyclopedia, there is a publisher who is in charge. 
However, the publisher is dependent upon the buyers of encyclopedias, 
who are generally either readers or involved with readers and serving 
readers more directly.

The publisher then manages the editors, according to the standards it 
develops, either to please the readers, or to please the founders and 
investors (who may have independent motives, for better or for worse.)

The editors review and edit contributions by writers, to make them 
conform to the criteria set by the publisher. Good editors encourage 
writers and, at the same time, contain what they do within 
established boundaries. Sometimes, I believe, writers are called 
"editors," particularly if it's a writer coordinating any 
synthesizing content from a number of writers, but I'm sure DGG can 
contribute more and better detail. Then, if this is the case, what 
I'm calling editors may be called "managing editors."

Wikipedia mashed it all together, resulting in the predictable: 
massive confusion of roles, and the classic cats-and-dogs struggle 
between writers and editors, in the worst form. Classic publishing 
structure was designed to moderate and mediate this, for efficiency. 
Good writers are hard to find! So too, really good editors.

The Wikipedia model was innovative, in a way, but did not adequately 
consider efficiency. That seemed to be fine when new editors were 
arriving in droves. In the long run, the lack of efficient process 
will kill the project, if something doesn't change.