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

[Larry Sanger]

Thanks, everyone, for the replies!

Let me try to clarify several points--I now see that I should have written
a number of paragraphs completely differently.  I'm sorry about that,
really.

(1) Some people seem to have thought they were defending my view (or
expanding it) and others, that were attacking my view.  But (if you'll
read what I said) no part of my view is that we should change *Wikipedia*
at all.

In particular, my central suggestion (and sorry if I wasn't clear about
this) was *not* that we now try hard to design a Wikipedia-controlled
article approval system.  The idea is interesting, and it's something
we've discussed a lot (especially last fall, I think).  Presently, I am
pretty much neutral on the idea; in fact, I'm leaning a bit against the
notion.  Nor was my suggestion that we find a new individual leader for
*Wikipedia*.  (I said not long ago that I didn't think we needed one.)

In my post, I used the terms "free encyclopedia movement" several times,
to cover Wikipedia, Nupedia, and other similar projects extant and yet to
come.  Wikipedia is not coextensive with the free encyclopedia movement.

(2) In saying that most people weren't highly educated, I really *didn't*
mean to insult anyone, and moreover, what I meant (but didn't express
well) wasn't anything that anyone should feel insulted by.  (Some people
love to feel insulted, however.  I'm one of 'em, so I understand.)  What I
meant to say was something strictly factual and uncontroversial.  I should
have said: "There aren't many bona fide experts, leaders in their fields,
involved in Wikipedia right now."  For example, I am not a bona fide
expert about much of anything or leader in any of my "fields."

(3) My contention is that, for Wikipedia to succeed, we need experts
*guiding* the *free encyclopedia movement* (notice the key words).  This
must happen sooner or later, but I think it's very plausible to think it
must happen sometime if we're to succeed.  Now, in saying this, I am *not*
saying, or meaning to imply, that only experts can write credible
articles.  So it misses the point to insist strenuously that nonexperts
can write and make great progress on encyclopedia articles: obviously,
they can, and I'm sure I've said (and done!) so many times.

What I *am* saying is that, in the long run, unless a lot of experts are
involved and unless there is a process that holds *some* portion of the
free encyclopedia movement (not Wikipedia) up to extremely high standards,
the overall project won't succeed in producing a credible encyclopedia.
In some cases this might be because no one but an expert would be able to
write (or rewrite) an article on a topic properly.  In many more cases, it
will be because no one but an expert will be able to edit, supervise, and
otherwise whip into shape articles on subjects that many nonexperts think,
but mistakenly, they can write adequately about.  There are many such
subjects, at least if we want to compare ourselves to actual reliable
encyclopedias.

(4) I should have known better than not to spend at least a couple more
paragraphs explaining that I do not have a fetish for formal
qualifications.  I agree absolutely completely 100% that it is totally
possible for people who lack any sort of formal qualifications to write
(and edit and code) wonderful creative works of all sorts.  I also agree
that this is at the heart of the success of the open source movement.
But that mere possibility doesn't mean that we don't need a lot of experts
*guiding* a quality control process that Wikipedia benefits from.  Part of
the irony in my title was precisely this point: the open source movement
is full of all sorts of people with relatively few formal qualifications,
and no one cares.  But, IN FACT, the movement in general is guided by
people who are a lot more expert in coding than the average Wikipedian is
about what he or she writes about (and that couldn't be otherwise, given
its success).  There's nothing paradoxical about this--and it doesn't make
the free software movement into a cathedral rather than a bazaar.  It's a
bazaar *guided* by expert coders.  Kind of (but not entirely) like the
stock market, a more or less free market, being guided by Wall Street
gurus.

(5) I am not heralding the doom of Wikipedia, Daniel M., nor did I say (or
mean to imply) that what Wikipedia does is futile, and I'm sorry if I
wasn't clear about that.  In fact, I think that, eventually, Wikipedia
*will* get the loose direction (by example) it needs, by becoming an
independent part of an open encyclopedia movement that includes an (also
independent) expert-staffed review board.  Part of the purpose of my post
was to help move the movement in that direction.

(6) It is possible, as a few people seem to think, that by attracting many
experts *to Wikipedia* (and continuing to forget that Nupedia ever
happened) will result in the sort of excellent quality I hope we'll
achieve.  If that were to happen, I'd be delighted.  (I don't expect it to
happen; see (9) below.  But it wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was for
Wikipedians to get behind a new or newly revitalized project (such as
Nupedia), officially independent of Wikipedia, that would be managed by
experts.

Roll out the red carpet.  Create a structure that will make the elite feel
welcome to be involved in a *leadership* role.  Get universities involved,
and major research institutions, and even businesses--just as is the case
with the open source movement.

(This, by the way, doesn't mean that they would set the standards for
*Wikipedia*.  I would strongly oppose that; Wikipedia should be
self-managing as it always has been.  But Wikipedia articles are open
content.  They might manage a different project that uses Wikipedia
content, as is their right.  Wikipedia would hugely benefit if this
happened.)

(7) Fred Bauder was right to point out that a lot of the people who could
help *Wikipedia* most just won't put up with arguing with people who they
think should be sitting down and taking notes.  A college professor who
has spent his life studying X would, at least in many cases, find it
absurd and ludicrous that he should have to argue with someone about X who
has maybe had a college course on the subject and read a few books.
There are exceptions, but they are *really* exceptions, and be grateful
for them.  You might hate this attitude, but it's a fact of life.  The
free stuff movement (how's that for a name) might be fantastic and
wonderful, but that doesn't mean it'll magically change this fact.

The free encyclopedia project--not Wikipedia, necessarily--needs these
people.  It's frankly a little silly to expect them to help us as long as
we continue to be wide open to everyone (except "24" and Helga,
perhaps...) and to follow the editing policies and practices that we all
know and love.  It's much *less* silly to expect a number of them to join
a free encyclopedia project advisory board of some sort, made up of
leaders in all fields, that would set standards and procedures for the
selection of *some free articles* (not to lead Wikipedia).  It's also
quite possible many of them will want to get on board as active parts of
the writing and vetting process--but on their own terms, not on Wikipedia.
We've already seen some potential for this with Nupedia.  But I think we
can do better, by getting behind the notion of a project led by, well,
*real* experts.  Not me, but Jacques Barzun, or someone of his stature.
Someone, or a group of people, that the best minds of the world can look
to and say, "This is fantastic.  They want to do this?  I want to be part
of it."

That's how academics and scientists think, hate it or not.  But it *is*
how they think.  Hard-headed problem-solvers will devise ways to work with
it, as a constraint.

(8) A few people think I misunderstand the source of open source's
success.

Stephen G., did I say that Linux Torvalds set out with exactly the goals
the free software movement has come to have?  If so, I apologize.  I'm
sure that most people got involved in the movement because it was fun
(challenging, inspirational, etc.).  I'm sure that freedom from
requirements of academic and other formal qualifications (and employer-
and client-defined standards) is an important element of what makes free
software attractive for many of its developers.  Moreover, I agree with
you that there are important analogies here to the present and future
success of Wikipedia.  But this doesn't contradict what I did say, which I
will refrain from reiterating.

Similarly, Karl J., I am sure the final decisions about what to officially
release are made as you say they are (by whatever experts are at hand, not
by the world's greatest expert about the thing).  It so happens, though,
that as the movement has growed in stature, those people who make the
decisions really *are* software experts.  If I'm wrong, please supply me
with an example.  How could the leaders of kernel releases, GNOME, etc.,
fail to be experts in what they do?  The success of their projects is
sufficient evidence.  This doesn't contradict anything I said, moreover.

The disanalogy between software and encyclopedia article writing is simply
that software has to work.  It has to do what it is supposed to do.  As
software grows in sophistication, this requires huge amounts of expertise.
But encyclopedia articles do not work or fail to work; still, very many of
them *do* require the attention, at *some* point, of an expert, in order
for anyone to be able to trust them reasonably.

(9) Now to address a point that at least three people made.  If Wikipedia
develops by itself, without any association with any sort of expert-
controlled approval mechanism, to the point where it is used regularly by
librarians and referred to as a good research source by college
professors, I would take that as prima facie proof that a *lot* of experts
are involved in Wikipedia.  But this is precisely what I predict will not
happen.  Wikipedians, in too many cases unduly confident (it seems to me)
of their project's modest successes, *need* a Nupedia.

Compare:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121

I know exactly what you guys are saying.  I used to think Wikipedia
*might* succeed on its own (but the involvement of Nupedia has always
seemed important to me); I now fear otherwise.  "Dreamworld" is hyperbole
--I have *never before* been given to hyperbole, though.  :-)

Axel and Lee both opined that Wikipedia might be able attract experts to
lead it (hopefully not in an official capacity but due to proper respect
to their expertise in their areas of expertise) all on its own, due to the
(eventual) strength of its material.  Bootstrapping, as many people have
observed.

I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong; I don't have a crystal ball.
But, looking at Wikipedia's contents now and comparing it to what I recall
from times past, I do have to say that I'm worried.  I don't think that in
terms of quality, overall, it's getting that much better.  But I also
admit the project is still very young and no trends can be reliably
predicted.  That doesn't stop me from being worried, and I think you
should be too.  There's nothing utterly magical about the Wikipedia
formula that *necessitates* that articles *on the whole* will not reach a
level of mediocrity they never excel *on the whole*.

Moreover, there's a reason to think far too many experts won't ever give
Wikipedia the attention it needs: it's just not a "form of life" that
they're interested in and used to.  It's important that we properly come
to grips with this fact.

My experience with Nupedia makes me strongly suspect that the ablest
possible contributors to the open encyclopedia project need their own
project with their own rules, and that it's unwise to expect most
academics and professionals anyway (I dealt with many dozens on Nupedia)
to be interested in joining a wiki and contributing in that fashion.

If Wikipedia gets behind the notion, it'll happen!

Larry