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

[Michael R. Irwin]

Karl Juhnke wrote:
> 
> Larry,
>
 
<snip excellent discussion>

> Semi-decent articles are only immune to editing until someone with just
> slightly more expertise comes along.  I say slightly more, because
> contributors with vastly more expertise may well consider an article
> not worth saving.  The person who is attracted is not the absolute
> expert, but the relative expert who thinks, "Hmm, solid start, but X
> needs to be added and Y needs to be fixed and the whole thing
> refactored."  This contributor then makes the article as good as s/he
> can, setting the stage for a slightly more expert person to be
> attracted.  Eventually Wikipedia will rise to the level at a few of the
> foremost experts in the world are duking it out in their respective
> arenas.

Perhaps multiple arenas differentiated on multiple axis will also
occur which form a weighted uncertainty zones around the solid/stable
mainstream view.   Thus revisionists and ideologues can be engaged
in flame war without disturbing the grade school kiddies researching 
their "What I did last summer" papers or scholars are at the leading
edge 
trying to figure out how to prove empiricially which self consistent 
hypothesis matches reality closest to always skeptical generalists
at large.

In this extreme, Wikipedia becomes a somewhat continuous body of
knowledge which the browser can move through to review at their own 
level as they are ready to absorb what is solidly "known", critically
assess or question  details, or add previously undocumented draft 
tidbits.  One can look for what is reliably known and widely 
accepted or for the chinks or messy remaining details or for the
better discussion addressing remaining questions and best judgment
of leading scholars regarding specific information.

> 
> My only counsel is patience.  The quality (not just the size) of
> Wikipedia is improving as we speak.  Better quality attracts people
> with more expertise.  It is a virtuous cycle.  I say that it will work
> in the long run, not based on some wild hypothesis, but because IT IS
> ALREADY WORKING in the short run.

The positive feedback cycle driving growth (higher content quality and
quantity attracting contributers, more contributors create incrementally
higher local quality and more content) will stabilize at some point
from our system or community dynamics or environment.

Revision Control -  This issue is already substracting some growth
not only in new contributors but, even more dramatically, eroding
long standing contributors.   This means we are losing project 
expertise developed locally from long time effective participation.
The question is can Edit War be replaced by a better mechanism?
If so, what is a better mechanism to try out?  At the other extreme
Nupedia's formal controls have apparently not worked out well.  I
suggest small increments of modification to the current wiki way.

Behavior Standards - What are the minimum standards of behavior
and how are they enforced?   This is more corrosive than many
believe because people inherently expect "fair" behavior.  Observing
community violation of personal expectations of fairness will
have impacts on the individuals observing or participating as well
as the victims.  As discomfort levels reach personal thresholds
and people leave what has become a stressful environment, the
community growth curve will negatively influenced.  It is the
expectations, not any specific absolute standard which must be
successfully articulated and met for the long term benefit of 
the community. 

Casual contempt of others efforts.  Our process of continuous
improvement of the material fundamentally relies on several
assumptions:

1.  Most people share the same goal priorities:  Highest overall 
content quality possible is a higher priority than satisfaction of 
personal agendas or ego.

2.  Poor material will be replaced on an opportunistic basis
in small and large chunks at the whim of random contributors
and fixated specialists alike.

3.  Brilliant, accurate, factual (or at least NPOV) information is 
sticky.  It will tend to remain in the content as experienced 
editors leave alone what they cannot improve.  Errors in judgement
will be reverted by subsequent editors.

4.  People are natively capable of applying sound editorial judgement
and this judgement will improve, relative to community standards
(articulated and implicit), with ongoing community interaction.

In summary:  In the aggregate, participation in good faith
results in steady improvement of the current and future value of 
contributors efforts and in the accumulated value of the content.

Contempt for others' efforts breaks all of the above assumptions.

Mailing list volume.  As changes are accepted by the mailing
list, people who dislike them but do not choose to participate
in the mailing will either adjust, gripe, leave, be diverted to
meta, or join the mailing list.   Changes are thus a net negative 
influence in the short term growth of content contribution.  Small 
gradual change will have less short term impact.  Research exists 
that show mailing lists to be a small group phenomenon which tend 
to stabilize and mature in predictable life cycle patterns.   As 
the mailing  list is currently our primary community governing 
process it may be a limiting factor in the size of the community; 
if we assume a fixed percentage of contributors like to participate 
in self government.  

If we assume that people like to ignore governing
issues unless controversy arises, at which time they like to
be heard, then the community may undergo a pattern of cyclic
growth.   Each consensus leading to a lull on the mailing list
with corresponding growth in contribution until the community
grows sufficiently that newcomers with new attitudes or size
magnifies the effect of previously negligable problems such
that the mailing list becomes overly active once again.

The above assumes the mailing list is primarily for consenus
building and discussion of meta issues.  If it also serves a
primary coordination role in community affairs then the steady
state volume may begin to scale exponentially with increased
group size.

Shifting leadership to an external panel of authorities potentially
eliminates the mailing list limitation and replaces it with another. 
How many volunteers wish to work for nothing under the direction
or leadership of busy authorities with credentials they cannot 
(at whim) compete with or influence?   At the moment all who choose 
to contribute but not participate in the mailing list can, at
whim, join the pubic mailing list and attempt to influence
policy and/or custom.  Busy authorities in charge break this current 
community consensus building model just as a governing or operational
distinction is forming:   If you will not collaborate nicely
(you have irritated several influential regulars by repeatedly violating 
local customs and in their perception wasted their time because you will 
not learn better fast enough) and will not come talk to the mailing
list to help build a better consensus (set of customs, implicit and
articulated) then you may be banned for the benefit of the project.   

Meta.   This was an interesting experiment in diversion and
ignoring contentious issues and people.  Perhaps it will
eventually grow into a discussion forum.  It may or may
not scale better with large groups.  I have not run across
any scholarly review of wiki group dynamics online yet.
One problem it seems to have is that the articles there are
viewed as personal positions not to be edited rather than
as a starting point for consensus building or collaboration.
This may be because topics there are known to be controversial
and people wish to avoid ideological edit war or perhaps feel
that the original positions need to be preserved for newcomers
in the future.  Whatever the reason, participation at meta
has been fairly slow and much of it seems abandoned.

regards
Mike Irwin