[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

Wed Dec 27 19:18:36 UTC 2006

Marc Riddell wrote:
> Quite seriously, though, I believe one of the persistent flaws in Wikipedia
> that is preventing it from having a wider, more professional acceptance is
> its policy 'anyone can edit'.
>   
Have you thought through what you would change it to, and what would be 
the consequences? If only a chosen list of experts can edit article X, 
what do you do about spelling errors (many experts being atrocious 
spellers), and bad links to articles outside the experts' area? Do 
spelling fixes have to wait for the experts to approve them? How long 
would one have to wait, if the experts were all "too busy"? Would you 
let experts edit articles outside of their areas, even in areas where 
they might know less than a college student? What is an "expert", and an 
"area", anyway? There have been no lack of proposals since WP's 
creation, but so far no scheme has convinced very many people that it 
would be an improvement.
> I get a great deal of satisfaction from contributing to Wikipedia. It is
> what's right that makes us good; but it is what's still wrong that keeps us
> from being great.
>   
I believe one of the secret strengths of WP is that it doesn't actually 
need every expert to participate. Empirically, many experts that have 
worked here awhile tend to take on "editor-in-chief" roles in their 
respective areas, not necessarily writing every word, but organizing, 
setting standards, and cleaning up after the amateur hordes; 99% of the 
amateur editors are happy and even eager to get expert guidance, and as 
they learn, they contribute with more expertise themselves.

Since WP is now the largest single body of knowledge ever created, 
perhaps this is as good it gets for a project of this magnitude - 
nothing comparable to serve as a yardstick.

Stan