[Wikipedia-l] Why the free encyclopedia movement needs to be more like the free software movement

Sun Sep 1 17:05:02 UTC 2002

Larry,

Thanks for your great commentary.  It is refreshing to get an infusion
of perspective from someone who understands what is going on here, but
also has some distance.

> If our encyclopedia project doesn't get an infusion of that
> expertise, the quality of the result will suffer accordingly,
> which is a lot.

I think you are right on target.  To write a world-class encyclopedia
requires expertise, period.

> The problem is that, with several notable exceptions, highly-educated
> people aren't drawn to Wikipedia.

Again I think you are dead on.  The people who are drawn to Wikipedia
at the moment are excited more by the concept rathet than by the
content.  If you take a bunch of people like me who believe in "free as
in freedom", there will be some experts in some fields just by random
chance, but the odds of our tiny band containing someone with the
expertise to write a top-notch article on, say, existentialism are
small.

> If we really want to make the best encyclopedia in the world (the
> original stated goal of Nupedia, by the way), we must discuss a
> pressing question that I suspect very few people on this list are
> disposed to take very seriously: how can we arrange for our free
> encyclopedia movement to be led by representatives of the creme de
> la creme among the world's scholars and scientists?

I can't speak for the rest of the list, but I am disposed to take this
question very seriously.  Wikipedia won't become world-class until it
is led by the best of the best.  We need to consider very carefully how
to get experts on board, or else suffer perpetually from mediocrity.

I also agree totally with the sentiment of you subject line, namely
that the free encyclopeida movement needs to be like the free software
movement.  By all means let us learn from success.  But your
suggestions on how Wikipedia might be moderated by experts would make
it LESS like the free software movement.  The free software movement
doesn't have anything analogous to what you suggest.  For example, look
at the way the Linux kernel is moderated.  If I understand correctly,
they did not say this:

"We need a first rate expert in asynchronous I/O to moderate all
patches that are being submitted, decide which to include and exclude,
and to do whatever extra coding is required to bring this area up to
snuff.  Let's sit down and think how we are going to get one.  What
incentives can we provide to draw Expert X into the project?"

On the contrary (again if I understand correctly) what happened was
more like this:

"Among the ranks of our current contributors, we have some guys who are
actively working to address this issue.  All other contributors in this
area, except for the most active and most expert, are contributing only
by tweaking and debugging the major contributions.  For clarity, let's
just give a semi-official status to what has naturally occurred, and
say that so-and-so is in charge of moderating submissions in this
area."

In short, the expertise was already there, and the moderation was
already occurring naturally.  I submit that the same thing will happen
with Wikipedia.  That is to say, in answer to the pressing question of
what we need to do to attract experts, I would say we need to do
exactly what we are already doing.  The current trajectory is
fantastic.  No course corrections are called for.

Why would free software naturally attract more expertise than a free
encyclopdia?  Obviously there is the maturity of the project to
consider.  The fact that Linux is an outstanding OS has much to do with
attracting outstanding contributors.  But what about contributions in
the infancy of a project?  Is there something that makes software
design inherently more of an expert activity than writing informational
articles?

I contend there isn't.  Having worked as a programmer for several
years, I can vouch for the fact that ninety percent of programmers
stink at programming.  It is decidely NOT an activity which, if you can
do it at all, you can do it well.  It boggles my mind that so many
crappy IT professionals are pulling down large paychecks, but I
consider it a temporary phenomenon of the transition to a society-wide
computer infrastructure.  The efficiences of automation are so great,
and expertise so scarce relative to society's needs, that idiot
programmers can still do well financially.

The question is why contributors to open source software projects are
overwhelmingly from the top ten percent of programmers that do know
what they are doing.  Is there something about software that makes
quality easily recognizable?  Is it an "objective discipline" and
therefore not analogous to writing encyclopdia articles?

My own opinion on this matter has shifted.  In the past I was curious
about the possible success of open-source-like tactics in non-objective
fields, but I couldn't quite persuade myself that they would work out. 
Contributing to Wikipedia has taught me otherwise.  I can't explain to
you why Wikipedia is working, but I can directly observe article after
article getting better.  Objectively better!  Wherever people turn
their attention, good things happen.

Nor have I seen any asymptotic leveling out.  Yes, individual articles
temporarily plateau when the primary contributor runs out of steam. 
Yes, there may be a pause when the driver of an article realizes that
that is about as far as a schmoe such as himself can take it.  But
those articles are routinely and naturally picked up later by new
people joining the project.

If you personally are distressed about your philosophy articles having
hit a brick wall, reflect that they are stalled only because you did a
reasonable job on them.  Had you done a shoddy job, you would have
likely seen more activity, but since your work was basically OK it goes
untouched for now.  This situation is only temporary.  As Wikipedia
snowballs, the rising tide will lift all boats.

Semi-decent articles are only immune to editing until someone with just
slightly more expertise comes along.  I say slightly more, because
contributors with vastly more expertise may well consider an article
not worth saving.  The person who is attracted is not the absolute
expert, but the relative expert who thinks, "Hmm, solid start, but X
needs to be added and Y needs to be fixed and the whole thing
refactored."  This contributor then makes the article as good as s/he
can, setting the stage for a slightly more expert person to be
attracted.  Eventually Wikipedia will rise to the level at a few of the
foremost experts in the world are duking it out in their respective
arenas.

My only counsel is patience.  The quality (not just the size) of
Wikipedia is improving as we speak.  Better quality attracts people
with more expertise.  It is a virtuous cycle.  I say that it will work
in the long run, not based on some wild hypothesis, but because IT IS
ALREADY WORKING in the short run.

Peace,
-Karl

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com