Sorry, but your last sentence is a bit confusing to me.
Are you trying to say "the Polish Wikipedia would be part of assignments to add bibliographies, annotation, and various other activities"?
Mark
On 04/06/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
On Jun 5, 2005, at 1:31 AM, Sj wrote:
On 5/24/05, Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:04:02PM +0200, Angela wrote:
On 5/24/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
What Chad said. Wikipedia will be recognized as an unparallelled reference work soon enough, without anyone apologizing for its muddy openness. And I think that we will see small scalable gains by improving the way we recognize excellence and expertise in subject-areas -- say, by avoiding the initial stages of certain edit wars, by improving the efficiency of RC-patrol, watchlist-patrol, and article/subject reviewing. But it seems far more interesting to me to emphasize that our success emerged from the mud and with its help, than to assure everyone that the mud can be washed off.
It isn't clear to me that the project would have become such a success /without/ contributions from dedicated kooks, eccentrics, trolls, and people who are just plain misguided in their convictions. Explicitly focusing on credentials might well reduce contribution; even in its absence, the most common reason my brilliant iconoclastic US friends give me for not writing about <whatever they're reading / studying> in Wikipedia is that they are "no expert" on the subject.
--SJ _______________________
In a world that is moving to greater transparency, wikipedia is, in fact, a model. Consider being able to earn one's degree by writing on wikipedia. Edit articles, have a thesis advisor review contributions, and score credit appropriately. Adding bibliography, annotation and other activities which "polish" wikipedia would be part of assignments.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l