[Foundation-l] Wikipedia and Wikimedia Software Prompt Solution to Problem Posed in 2000 by David Brin?

Sun Jul 30 05:11:55 UTC 2006

Hoi,
Two things:
* Wikipedia needs publicity badly. As long as many of our projects do 
not cover encyclopaedic and other information well, there are MANY 
projects that are in a genuine need for more contributors and also 
readers. I am sure that the Neapolitan wikipedia would be thrilled to 
bits to have 5 more regular contributors. It would grow the content a 
lot and this in turn would increase the exposure of Neapolitan to many 
people.
* Coding is done on LiquidThreads. This may help make a proposal like 
yours interesting and relevant.. The publicity we could have: "hey guys, 
we can still innovate".
Thanks,
    GerardM

Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Some of you might find this article by David Brin (P,hd in Space Physics 
> & SciFi Author) interesting:  
> http://www.davidbrin.com/disputationarticle1.html
>
> He outlines a top down design to try to use the Internet as a 
> collaborative discussion and thinking tool.
>
> It seems to me that the Wikimedia software and various projects 
> utilizing some simple rules (NPOV, only one 32K article per subject or 
> title, comprehensive history of revision, and the ever evolving 
> community guidelines) allowed solutions meeting his basic criteria and 
> goals to self organize.
>
> As a publicity drive or stunt we might consider inviting him to evaluate 
> how well Wikipedia or some other Wikimedia project meets his proposed 
> requirements for useful Internet sites on his website for his fans.
>
> Perhaps a good time (considering that Wikipedia hardly needs publicity 
> drives considering its current success and maturity) would be after a 
> few months of Wikiversity's authorized operation makes it clear that 
> good ideas or material tends to float or stay on the current page of 
> learning/study activities there; just like the best material and 
> presentations drift to the current article or definition on Wikipedia 
> and Wiktionary.
>
> I would be very interested in reactions or opinions why or why not 
> Wikipedia currently meets or does not meet his stated goals or criteria 
> for a "Disputation Arena".
>
> regards,
> lazyquasar