[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: The whole point of wikipedia (Martin Richards)

Wed Oct 19 21:18:11 UTC 2005

From: "Fl Celloguy"

> We *do* have a clone that requires that has restricted editing. It's 
> called wikinfo (http://www.wikinfo.org), and no IP editing is allowed. 
> It's run by Fred Bauder, who is also one of our Arbitrators. You may ask 
> him whether Wikinfo has signficant vandalism, but that's not the point: 
> we're here to make a good encyclopedia as well. But if we restrict IP 
> editing - even if we restrict it in some way, like with this blocking 
> policy proposal - we'll get a worse encyclopedia. I would dare say maybe 
> 80 percent or (probably) greater of our articles have been improved by IP 
> edits. We're talking about fixing a minor problem to create a major one; 
> Wikipedia's strength lies in the fact that *anyone*, regardless of whether 
> that person uses AOL, Firefox, or XYZ ISP, can edit, even without logging 
> in or registering. I doubt Wikipedia would be where it is now without IP 
> editing; even right now, we have trouble retaining good editors and 
> finding new ones. Should we make it that much harder to edit? Should we 
> violate the sacred principles that Wikipedia was founded on? I hope not, 
> and I think that the new blocking proposal would be highly detrimental.

That is interesting, however what I envisaged was in a few years when 
Wikipedia is much more mature and covers everything (there are still many 
articles missing) in much more detail, a clone would copy the entire 
database, images and all, and then set about essentially peer reviewing the 
wikipedia work and deleting the crap (fancruft etc.) at the same time, it 
would be a big job, but a fraction of the amount of people would be needed 
compared to the amount of people needed here at the moment. I have no doubt 
that if wikipedia does not adapt in the future, some kind of clone like this 
would pop up. If I had the money I would do it myself.