[WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?

Fri Sep 10 15:14:06 UTC 2004

Daniel "mav" Mayer wisely observed:

> But we have to start something ala Larry's sifter idea since 
> we are getting slammed in the media due to our perceived 
> non-trusted status (I personally think these objections are 
> laughable since they are comparing us to encyclopedias that 
> are hundreds of years old and that have very similar disclaimers). 

For our first 3 1/2 years, *all* our articles were development versions.
We had to do it that way because it was the only way to attract enough
writers to get started. For our next 96 1/2 years, as we catch up to
Britannica and World Book, I think we should adopt mav's idea.

We should make our "stable" versions more prominent. When Google sends
their robot by, to index the latest changes, tell the robot to look at
the stable version -- not the latest "development version".

If we agree on this (and I'm not saying we have done so) -- then we will
be able to move ahead and decide *what sort* of endorsement we're
looking for to flag a version as stable.

Jens is also right: we don't need academic degrees for everything. Okay,
in most areas of physics or chemistry I admit to being awed by PhD's --
but in any field of science less old than a few decades I stubbornly
refuse to accept the authority of academia as being capable of
"settling" anything.

Also, as discussed last month, there are different *types* of
endorsement:

* If mav has "patrolled" an article version, this means he did a diff or
read the whole thing and certifies that it's "vandalism-free"

* If Vicky Rosenzweig has "proofread" or "copy-edited" the article, than
I'm reasonable sure that it's free of typos, spelling errors and
grammatical mistakes.

* I'm not so sure about Grunt's "NPOV" stamp of approval: there will
always be a large handful of articles which NEVER produce a "stable
version" -- BUT the prospect of getting a version 'ready for 1.0' MIGHT
be an incentive for edit warriors to produce a stripped-down 'consensus
version' (in maybe 10% of cases ;-)

* Some professional or academic can throw their weight behind a version.
I'd rather read an article on teeth and gums with some dentist's "flag
of approval" than an unflagged article. As a reader, I can decide how
much faith to have in that dentist's education and experience.

What I'm saying is that the "rating system" won't be perfect, but that
it will be better than nothing (even at first) - and that over time we
can improve it! 

Ed Poor
An experienced Wikipedian 