Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Assuming that good content (if any) in sangers
project will be added
to wikipedia, why would potential editors prefer to edit these
articles that are copied back to wikipedia too on sangers project,
rather than on wikipedia? There has to be some added value to editing
on sangers project, rather than on wikipedia, for his project to
flourish. What is it? I genuinely want to know.
If I had to guess, one response would be: the opportunity for a genuine
expert to work hand in hand with other genuine experts, without the
social difficulty of having to interact with the general public, some of
whom are quite noticeably stupid and annoying.
That's what I initially thought, but as Sangers clarified his ideas in
his responses to Slashdot comments, it appears that he *does* plan to
have most users and article writers be non-experts. He proposes that
experts should have an "editorship" type role, to "gently guide" the
work of non-experts. It's unclear what exactly this will involve, but
it doesn't seem like it will be the place for experts who want to avoid
interacting with the general public---the only advantage is that in
those interactions they may be given some official levers to use (but
still be expected to use them "gently").
-Mark