[Wikipedia-l] The "Casio Effect"

Tue Sep 3 22:45:21 UTC 2002

lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:

>>>[Re: having experts write reviews of Wiki articles]
>>>
>>That's an interesting proposition.
>>Also, why would not near-expert wikipedians
>>(considering the real experts are on Nupedia :-)) do a
>>rather similar work of "reviewing" articles in which
>>they have not been involved themselves but are
>>interested and knowledgable. Maybe it could help make
>>another 2%.
>>
>They certainly could, but only in their capacity as vetted,
>recognized, and fully identified experts.  Nupedia's function,
>then, is precisely the selection of appropriate experts to review
>articles in certain areas.  This could be by reviewing academic
>credentials in some areas, professional credentials in others, or
>by whatever means are felt appropriate for things like games and
>hobbies.  Such reviews would be themselves fully credited and not
>editable, and attached to the article they describe, but the
>subject article itself would remain fully editable.
>
For the most part I see Wikepedia working very well, despite the fact 
that on an individual level, experiences can sometimes be highly 
frustrating.  Wikipedia has confronted some major contemporary issues, 
and come out remarkably well.  

Nupedia, on the other hand, is moribund.  It would would be a fantastic 
playpen for the experts, but they continue to stay away.  I believe it 
was Julie who criticized Nupedia for its overly complicated process.  If 
it's so complicated why aren't the experts on that forum busy finding 
more suitable processes.  If the plebeians at Wikipedia can manage that, 
it should be a simple matter for Nupedia's patricians.

Many of these expert complaints about Wikipedia seem like just so much 
expert foot-dragging.  The only valid reason that such an expert can 
have for not participating at Nupedia is that he is too busy 
accomplishing things at Wikipedia.

Eclecticology