[Wikipedia-l] comment on wikipedia

Sun Feb 1 19:02:08 UTC 2004

Optim wrote:

>I was describing to someone how Wikipedia works:
>"anyone can edit" etc.
>
>He answered with this argument:
>"Wikipedia is the triumph of the average person!
>of the man in the street!)"
>
>(average meaning: not good, not bad, just OK)
>
>I asked "why?"
>
>His explanation:
>"Great brilliant works are built by individuals.
>Groups of people can only create average works.
>If someone writes something good in the wiki,
>other average persons will intervene with his/her
>work and turn it into an average work. If someone
>writes something bad in the wiki, the others will
>again turn it into something of average value.
>with your system (meaning: Wikipedia's system)
>you can be sure that you will never create
>something too bad but also never something too
>good. You can create only average articles."
>
>The idea behind his argument was that Wikipedia
>will be a good resource as long as it attracts
>good cotnributors. but it will soon become an
>average site/encyclopaedia because it allows
>anyone to join the project and edit, and most
>people are just average persons and not brilliant
>writers.
>
>Do you think it's true? and how can we answer
>this argument?
>
>--Optim
>
Does the argument really need answering?  That sort of normalising 
influence is a fact of life that needn't be turned into a value 
judgement.  I think the effect is much stronger on the poor articles 
where the average person can see the article's weakness and bring it up 
to his standards.  When that same person looks at a great article I find 
it hard to see him inclined to touch the article.  Dumbing it down would 
be a lot of hard work that could be beyond his capacities.  In any 
event, the standards of the average Wikipedian are higher than the 
standards in the general population. :-)   We begin by excluding 
everybody who has not yet learned to turn on a computer.

The controversial articles should not be viewed as a factor in this.  As 
hot as some of these debates may be, we are still only talking about a 
small fraction of all the Wikipedia articles.

I would venture to guess that Optim's critic may have had some degree of 
association with a university.  In some cases simplification of the 
writing may be  desireable if we are to make things understandable to 
the general population.  That motivation is certainly there in the 
development of the Simple Wikipedia.  By making material that could only 
be found in university libraries accessible to the general public we are 
advancing the spread of knowledge.  There are also many people out there 
who for whatever reason may not have had the opportunity or inclination 
to succeed in a university setting who can be a valuable asset to 
Wikipedia.  Some who can focus very well on a single topic and write 
credibly may not have the determinationto maintain that focus over the 
time needed to graduate from university.

Around 1900 many public libraries were established to make books and 
knowledge available to a wider public.  Perhaps Jimbo may even some day 
be revered as the Andrew Carnegie of the internet age. :-)
.
Ec