[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

[Michael R. Irwin]

lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> 
<snip background>

> But what it doesn't do well is grunt scholarship: meticulous
> checking of facts and references, proper listing of all the best
> sources in the field, expert summary of the state of a field and
> its history, etc.

Perhaps a verified facts page and/or a bibliography page would
help encourage the first two.

Facts could be stated, citations, sources etc. could be 
listed in an acceptable standard format and "signed" by the
provider.  This would then be tracked as "contribution" and could 
easily be updated or changed as improvements or errors are noted.
Someone detecting an error can either notify the originator
(forming a feedback loop for incremental improvement), fix it
themselves and change the signature, or some other compromise.

Thus some credit would be given for improving the reliability
of our article material (and the community) rather than merely 
the original text.  Volunteers love recognition, it is often 
their only immediate compensation.  Particularly in risky endeavers 
that may collapse at any time without the long term 
anticipated payoffs.  This credit might be left off the 
"contributions" page but still presented in the form of a
tally.   Thus it would be incremented at the edit time and
not be a continuing burden on the server.   It could be in
a YTD format that includes an account aggregate or not as
the community feels most appropriate.  One might come to 
know not to attempt to shine on a scholar with ten thousand
citatations and sources identified to date.  That person will
look up a fact on you in a heartbeat!

Likewise, a new policy or guideline that summarizes what is
desired (if this is not already available) and some links to
exemplary samples.  These could also be placed prominently
and simply at the front of the suggested ways to contribute
rather than the current attempt at humor (my assumption, perhaps
someone is attempting to encourage brilliant prose?) requesting 
brilliant complete articles.  

I would tend to expect an expert summary of the state of a
field and its history to emerge from a consensus of even
mediocre or amateur contributors.  If an expert or two is
an active participant then it should converge quicker, but
not necessarily to a greater ultimate level of completion.

> 
> Nupedia tried to do everything--generate content, expertly review
> it, publicly review it, finish it for publication, etc.  I think
> that's too much to ask.  Perhaps Nupedia could be pared down to a
> simpler function, and one that would be easier for experts to
> participate in: instead of creating articles, or even editing them,
> why not simply let the experts /write reviews/ of articles submitted
> to them, which then get attached to the articles?  Wikipedia authors
> could, whenever they feel an article is ready for it, ask for it to
> be submitted to expert review. The expert then just writes what he
> thinks about the article (you've omitted this, you got that wrong,
> etc.) and sends it back.  The Wikipedia process can then go to work
> on the article again, with the expert commentary available.
> 
> That way, the experts never have the problem of having their names
> associated with the mediocre work itself--only with the review,
> which is entirely their own creation and therefore ego-satisfying.
> And those of us who enjoy the work of writing and polishing have
> the expert's input to work with.  The experts will be providing
> only the last 10% of quality that Wikipedia can't, and no more.

I think perhaps you are making the implicit assumption that the
expertise is available as input only in person.

The previously proposed (by others) model, of non-experts
keeping quiet and taking notes when an expert speaks, is already
widely and easily available.   I have a fairly extensive library
of professional books written by experts and published for profit
that are easily consulted for fact checking or verifying a concept
only vaguely remembered or understood from the previous readings.

Other books are widely available to anyone with sufficient 
interest and cash ranging from 10 to under a thousand dollars.
I would suspect an average price for professional books in the
U.S. at around 100 dollars.

I suspect that most or at least many Wikipedia contributors
have access to similar books or libraries where they can be
accessed or borrowed briefly.

Therefore, while I see the rationale for complicating the
existing process to attract a special class of contributors
that we can already effectively access, I am unconvinced
of its benefit to the project.  I think we should move 
slowly and incrementally on this, if possible, and evaluate
the results carefully before full scale implementation. 

If current estimates of 1% of very active contributors are 
truly credentialed experts then further growth in participation
should bring in plenty of experts in the life cycle 
remaining to the project.

regards,
Mike Irwin