[Wikipedia-l] A Failure of Nerve

[Michael R. Irwin]

Larry Sanger wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Fred Bauder wrote:
> 
> > Experts will come, retired folks, occassional passersby, students.
> > Frankly, I don't want to see any expert (in some field) playing any
> > important role unless they are also expert in the give and take of
> > wikipedia article writing and editing.
> 
> But since I'm not proposing that experts play any important role (other
> than one that they can already play right now) in *Wikipedia*.

What precisely was the new proposal?

Nupedia already has panels and the FDL allows easy use of
the Wikipedia articles.  They can be frozen or modified at
whim as long as the attribution requirements of the license
are met.

> 
> > If you quit now or greatly modify the system you'll never know how what we
> > do now would have developed.
> 
> "Quit now"?  Who is proposing that anyone quit anything?  Besides, the
> systems running the free encyclopedia project been constantly modified
> from its very beginning.  

The procedures and the community have been incremented only
slowly due to the consensus driven process.  The substrate
is necessary but not sufficient.  It is much easier to change
a technical feature back after a mistake than regrow a community
or repair a community member's reputation or attitude.

Even today; as we argue about whether we are: successful,
on the verge of success, on track for huge success, or
something else suitably vague; the policies and guidelines
are voluntary and not uniformly applied by members.

The ensemble currently works.  Is it improving or
degrading?  Can you prove it?  Can you measure the
change when a contributor endorses, comments or takes 
exception to one of the policy guidelines?  Is any
persuasive yet inconclusive evidence available for
presentation to the next contributor judgement?

> Why stop doing that?  

Nobody has proposed to freeze the community or project.
What you proposed sounded like some potentially large
changes and you were very vague about the proposal.

It appeared you were seeking approval and support before
articulating the proposal.   A blank check.

> Do you really think that
> Wikipedia has found the magic formula?  

Yes!  Until it can be articulated; quantified; modified
by design (instead of prayer); incremental damage detected
and incorrect changes backed out swiftly and reliably; 
AND explained to the satisfaction of the newest readers or 
contributors via self reference such that they embrace its
working culture, customs, or "community";  it
is "magic" ... not science or engineering design.  The
mana could fade tomorrow and be difficult to reproduce.

I don't think so, and (if you'll
> forgive me) I played a larger part than anyone in developing the formula.

An interesting perspective.   If you will forgive me, you 
were compensated for your efforts.

I only arrived in Feb 02 but
from review of the list archives, policies, participation
in the community, etc. I have reached the tentative conclusion
that the chaotic collaboration of the volunteer community was
the critical element in the emergent success that would be
required to fork or establish a derivative project.

The inability to dictate terms to stubborn volunteers seemed
to play a very large part in the evolution of mostly working
customs and procedures that currently define a robust community
which jots or essays much material and iteratively keeps the
best and modifies (sometimes deletes) the rest.

The volunteers donate spare time or contribute portions of
their professional work which is compatible with the project
goals at no impact to their employers.  A crude estimate I
ran last Feb resulted in the relative stakes of Bomis vs
volunteer effort being roughly the same at 500K value each
using conservative guesses.  With increasing volunteer 
participation the balance can only shift towards the volunteer
community.

The paid professionals were necessary investment to get the 
systems infrastructure established, the software working well
enough to attract adequate free developer participation, and
the community collaboration started but insufficient to 
guarantee success.  The near instant large participation from 
the existing Nupedia community or dedicated enthusiasts and
professional was probably also critical in launching an experimental
project with experimental technology in a short reasonable
period of time.   Now that the prototyping has been completed
successfully to demonstrate the large potential in the approach,
subsequent projects should have less trouble convincing random
internet volunteers that a project is feasible.   The question
becomes is it desirable to adequate volunteers?

A derivative project could be launched on the cheap with a
server and a high speed domestic internet link or a detailed
plan could be assembled and grant funding sought or a combined
approach could team wiki a project.  Any approach is more
viable now that a successful community (philanthropist, paid
professionals, and volunteer philanthropists) has d3eveloped
and published several critical components and concepts under 
the GDL and FDL.

To summarize:  If you cannot articulate the details and
valid reasons in some valid form that I and our peers can 
recognize, then I am unlikely to be swayed by appeals to 
past glory.

Sorry, but my life is valuable and I only have so many
hours to invest in humanity's future glory.  I too require
food, shelter, consumers goods, and respect from my peers
must be bought or earned the old fashioned way:  Recent
cash or accomplishment.

Hmmm! Not bad.  Modified, that might do for some proposed 
non-policy on the oft alleged impending green space derivative 
open engineering site ... I could be a founder any day now.

With warm slightly trollish yet highly respectful
regard for past service to humanity,

Sincerely,
Mike Irwin