[Wikipedia-l] The future of Wikipedia

[Larry Sanger]

I think Wikipedia is doing remarkably well, and while considerations about
the future are certainly understandable just now when we're experiencing
unprecedented growth, I don't see any necessity for any *radical* change.
This is not at all to deny, of course, that there are some features we
desperately need, that we have been requesting for months, such as a file
uploader.  There are a few replies I'd like to make, too.

From: "Bryce Harrington" <bryce at neptune.net>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> > The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
> > possible lack of reliability.
> > This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
> > credibility and ultimately her success.
>
> No one in the world expects credibility from Wikipedia.  And Wikipedia
> requires nothing from the world at large to be successful.  Thus to me
> it seems like there is only a tenuous connection - at best - between
> credibility and success, regarding Wikipedia.  If Wikipedia were *only*
> intended to be a literal replacement for a traditional encyclopedia,
> sure.  But it's something a tad less, and something a tad more.

That's close to how I would answer.  I would say that it *is* going to be a
replacement (or a competitor) for traditional encyclopedias, precisely
because it *will* be remarkably reliable--as well as more massive than any
traditional encyclopedia.  It already is remarkably reliable given that
there is no peer review process at present.  I think it's a very long time
indeed before we'll institute anything like a peer review process.  That
would stymie development.

What we might want to do in the nearer term, particularly if there is
programming support for it out there, is some manner of voting system about
articles (good articles get high votes, e.g.).  But, frankly, I think that's
a complete and utter waste of time, precisely because we don't know who's
voting--but if we were to have a huge panel of *experts* voting on Wikipedia
articles, that'd be something else.  Of course, we aren't going to get any
such huge panel anytime soon, so...

> That said, I do not think that the lack of credibility is as clear cut
> as would appear at first glance.  Yes, logic says one should expect to
> see a distinct lack of credibility in Wikipedia.  However, the evidence
> we're seeing is that many articles actually *are* reliable and credible.
> In a small but growing number of cases, the articles are actually
> *better* than you'd find in a traditional encyclopedia.

Another important point, well stated.  (Of course, strictly speaking, logic,
or logical application of straightforward principles derived from common
experience, doesn't apply here: Wikipedia is really a *new thing*!

Re: "Reliability"
> > This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
> > here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
> > example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.

Excuse me, Krzysztof, but this isn't just *my* view.  As far as I can tell,
it is the view of *most* people who have been actively working on Wikipedia
for more than a month or two--more importantly, it's common knowledge just
how robust wikis are.  You make it sound as if it were something that were a
matter of serious dispute.  Well, notwithstanding your view, and that of a
few very new people who lack experience with wikis--it isn't!  Not at all!
It's pretty much self-evident to old hands here that articles *do* tend
constantly to be improved, repaired (when, as sometimes occurs, a
disadvantageous edit is made), etc.  I think you simply have yet to fully
appreciate this.

I think you could stand to stop talking *about* Wikipedia and use your time
to do some actual work on it.  I think this might help you understand some
things you don't seem yet to understand fully.

> Well I have disagreed with Larry on many things, but on this particular
> one I think he is correct.  I've been involved with Wikipedia since the
> start, and have watched the evolution of many articles.  I think this
> "self-healing" is not an expression of an idealistic wish of his but a
> characterization of a real thing that we have been observing again and
> again.

Very well stated.  In other words, it's practically self-evident, to someone
with adequate experience with wikis.

> I don't know that I would go so far as to say that self-healing will
> ensure that at some tangible point wikipedia will be 100% correct.
> Actually I'm fairly confident that will never happen.  But then, does
> that matter?  No encyclopedia is 100% correct, and probably not even 75%
> correct, when you consider how much is unknown or incorrectly known in
> the world.

When it is much more mature than it is now, I think there will be some
benefit to be gained, *perhaps*, in setting up some sort of
professional-level review system.  But setting up such a system now would be
extremely counterproductive.  So, I counsel patience!

> > Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is
almost
> > frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like).
And the
> > working Wikipedia for contributors. Forseeing your criticisms of the
proposal
> > that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead
into the
> > working Wikipedia.
>
> I agree.  However, to me it seems like this describes what Nupedia's
> role has become, and I think it already serves this purpose very well.

More to the point, this is what the Chalkboard does.  Krzysztof, maybe you
should just devote your efforts to the Chalkboard.  I think you'll find it
*much* more to your liking, and your active participation may be just the
extra little push we need to get that project really moving.  Have a look at
the Chalkboard policy statement
http://chalkboard.nupedia.com/wiki.cgi?Chalkboard/Policy
and I think you'll find a few of your suggestions already implemented there.

> > Multimedia
> >
> > A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
> > It is rather trivial.
> > I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
> > real encyclopedia.
> > I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
> > AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
> > linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
> > pages.
>
> Agreed, agreed, agreed.  What we need, essentially, is an upload tool
> that lets us post images onto the wikipedia site.  This opens many
> benefits but also some cans of worms, so this is not a trivial request.

Well, I've asked our guys *repeatedly* for an upload tool.  Maybe that's the
next thing they'll give us.

> I've written file upload systems several times over the years, and I'm
> about to need to do yet another one at work.  I will *tentatively* offer
> to volunteer to provide something that can be plugged into wikipedia to
> do file uploads, if Larry and Jason give the go ahead for it.  It may be
> a few months, if at all, before I can have it ready, though.

Please do--there's really no need to ask permission to write obviously
useful tools for the project.  If you show the initiative of writing complex
code, I'm pretty sure Jason and others will want to take the time of
uploading and using it.

But bear in mind Nupedia has an upload tool too...that could be adapted,
perhaps.  I do think we need some sort of approval system for Wikipedia's
upload tool, though--if we don't, it *will* be used to try to crash the
server, upload porn, and otherwise cause problems, of that I'm sure.

> > Editorial process
> >
> > Much has been said about it but not much done.

That's because, frankly, most of what's been said reflects a failure to
understand ***WHY*** Wikipedia has been so successful so far.

> > My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :
> > Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias
> > borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the
> > simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted
> > to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.
>
> I think this is a good idea.  Many pages require editing attention.
> This is a topic I've heard Larry and others discuss many times.  The
> issue is just finding a way to incentivize folks to do this.  I think we
> are still searching for the solution here.

I'll bite: what would the editor teams be *for*, and what would they *do*,
and, to be consistent with what does make Wikipedia work, how could they
possibly be anything other than a bunch of pompous blowhards who want to
control what everyone else is doing?  I wouldn't *want* to be on an
editorial team for philosophy, myself; Krzysztof, would you want to be on
one for your field?  How would you try to control what people do on the
wiki, and do you really think that it would be for the best?

I have a better idea.  Let's encourage every person who might possibly be a
member of an editorial team to go in and work directly on the articles that
would be in the purview of their editorial team.  That way, all the energy
that goes into the silly politics of an "editorial team" is channelled in a
positive direction, viz., working on articles.

Larry, who would much rather be working on the wiki than writing this