[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement

[Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Larry Sanger wrote:

> The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
> people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.  It's not surprising why not: I would
> like to suggest that this is similar to asking veteran programmers working
> on Linux and its applications to work with, supervise, and put up with
> rank beginners and script kiddies.  If they had had to do that, I doubt
> very much that the free software movement would have come a fraction of
> the distance it has.

> [ We're stuck with mediocracy. ]

Hi.

Every 16 months or so, some disappointed Linux fan will herald the doom of
Linux and perhaps even free software. This is generally because his
expectations, perhaps sober to begin with, have been tickled by dot com alike
impatience, and consequently left reality behind. I feel it is often combined
with a sense of powerlessness stemming from a failed sub project, a snubbing,
or perhaps general burnout.

  "Linux will be left behind."

  "The free software model is flawed."

  "There is no room for Linux on the desktop."

They point to relevant stats, pointing out tendencies and flat curves. There is
a lot of discussion, particularly at Slashdot, with CmdrNacho throwing in one
or two "Gotsta givit to him, he might on to smt...!!!1"

Depending on the issue, a year or a couple of years will pass, and the naysayer
will not only have been forgotten, but proven wrong. The people who work
instead of talk contiunue to churn out code. The inevitable rise of free
software has taken no notice:

* The driver problem is almost solved - many if not most devices are
  now supported in Linux.
* The desktop is complete - we have KDE, GNOME, word processors, spreadsheets,
  Wine.
* Mozilla made it.
* Countries are getting involved directly in free software, for all the right
  reasons.
* And so on.

So.

I think your comments are warranted. I showed Wikipedia to a litterature
undergrad the other day, and he was not impressed with the content. (The reason
he hadn't followed up the URL when I gave it to him, months ago, wasn't the
content however, it was his skepticism about about the openness - and this only
took 5 minutes to alleviate. Once he understood some of the mechanisms, and
that Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be absolutely neutral even thought it aspires
to be, he caught on.)

Do I agree that content today is often medicre? Yes.

Do I agree that with current mechanisms, this is our fate? No.

Wikipedia is hardly one years old (particularly if you subtract the lost time
when Phase II made it impossible to edit stuff). Linux after one year was
pathetic - nobody believed it would ever be anything than a toy kernel on a
386. GNU after one year was nothing at all (except source code on RMS'
computer). And I expect if they started from scratch, with sufficient
resources, the Britannica wouldn't have come very far in one year either.

I think we need a reality check. The article count may have made us dizzy.
We're not going to build the greatest encyclopedia in the world in three years.
Be prepared for 7 to 15 years. Free projects take a long time to mature, but
when they do, they're the best, and they're there forever.

Is it possible/wise to make course adjustments so early on? Sure.

But I also think it is dangerous to tell people here that what they're doing is
futile, because you're having a bad day (or week, or whatever) yourself.
Although I expect it to have little impact (much like the slashdotted "Linux
crises") - people will continue to work for their own reasons, and proving you
wrong as a side effect.

As for your specific complaint, sure we lack experts. But we _do_ have some. My
argument is that in any given field today, there are so many experts that it is
only a question of time until Wikipedia reaches that one of then who will
respond to our vision. The problem, then, is that not enough people know about
Wikipedia, and many of those who do haven't really understood it. The first is
solved by continuing to work hard like we do today, and our growth will
inevitably draw in the world. The second problem is not adressed today, and I
think we could certainly do better.

As for getting experts in right now, my response to that is: Use your
friendship, family bond, whatever clout you have with the experts you know, and
have them write one good and serious article for submission to Wikipedia. It
will not be Britannica material, but it will be better than most of what we
have today. This does not cost the expert very much, and being an intelligent
person, she will also appreciate the feeling of contributing to something that
will last forever, and be useful to so many people. In addition to some good
articles, we might even hook a new Wikipedia addict or two, as they keep watch
on their article for changes, contributions or praise.

I have five or six phd/professor level experts in my sights, and I expect I
could find more if I thought about it.

My conclusion: Things are going well. Let's not be carried away by the article
count. Continue working hard. Try to draw in the experts you know, by having
them write one good article (most will probably not become wikipedians, so use
this approach instead).

-- Daniel