[WikiEN-l] Contest and quality

Tue Sep 12 23:26:13 UTC 2006

On 9/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/09/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wikipedia is not popual due to it's FAs and GAs. It's popular becuase
> > > of it's good enough articles.
> > Alexa ratings are not everything.
>
>
> Indeed. They're not even the topic of this discussion.
>
>
> - d.

They do however illustrate the conflict between providing what people
want (more articles on sex and pro wrestling apparently) and creating
what we believe should exist.

We've comparisons with Britannica are difficult because we are
different things. They work from the top down. We work from the bottom
up. They are to a large degree a general education. We are tending to
head towards the sum of all knowledge.

The sum of all knowledge. Before Wikipedia did anyone really think
what that meant?

Of the various Si-fi encyclopaedias they mostly appear to historic
encyclopaedias with expansions made for advances in science and the
discovery of new planets. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy does
well in terms of realising there are areas of knowledge not normally
covered by such works but is of course famously light in it's coverage
of certain areas. Star trek's Memory Alpha does fairly well but it
apparently misses geography and some other areas (incidentally
[[Category:Fictional encyclopedias]] is seriously bare).

I don't think we really understand. And article on every school in
Africa? An article on every village in India?

Comparisons with Britannica are of limited use because we are not
doing what they are doing. We are doing something that has never been
done before.

-- 
geni