[WikiEN-l] About the reliability of the Wikipedia process and content

Wed Nov 17 19:07:09 UTC 2004

--- Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Imagine I am Anonip the Egyptian, and I go to the article "Jerusalem"
> and get dropped into Revision 20040807:45. I read it, it's a lovely
> article, and I get all warm and fuzzy inside. 

You would, by default, be dropped into the current version. There would be a
link at the top of the article to the reviewed version. Clicking on that link
would bring the person to the reviewed version where he/she could then click on
a diff link to see the differences between the reviewed version and the current
one. 

> Then I decide to add something to it... Alas, we are now on version
> 20041116:398, the bastardized spawn of Hades, mangled to death by
> edit warriors, pov pushers, and a veritable army of sock puppets
> (would that be a drawerful?). I recoil in horror and decide to not
> edit, since, well, it's frankly quite depressing.

If the article had slipped into such a state, then it would be a good time to
start fresh from the last reviewed version and merge-in all the subsequent good
edits. What matters here is the content. 

> So the average man, in constant fear of the marauding trolls and
> hordes of vandals, steers clear of the bleeding sword-edge version
> and stays within the clearly marked path of the Official and Right
> Version of Safety. 

The average man is not the kind of person who edits Wikipedia now. Last time I
checked there were greater than 40 views to every edit (which was over a year
ago - I'm sure it is greater than 50:1 now but we don't seem to track those
stats anymore). 

The big question is this: 

Are we primarily here to create a community based on wiki principles, or are we
primarily here to expand access to the sum of human knowledge? My answer, and
I'm sure Jimbo, the board, and most longtimers will agree, is most certainly
the latter. 

Having a review mechanism will enable us to much more easily move into other
areas of publication (like print and digital media). It will also make it
possible for our work to be much more trusted by end users. 

Of course we should do this in a such a way so as to minimize negative impacts
on the community (which are responsible for maintaining and expanding our
work), but some aspects of community and 'wikiness' may have be compromised for
the sake of the product.

Wikipedia is not a social club and wiki is a means to an end. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) 

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com 