[WikiEN-l] Nupedia?

Sat Dec 13 08:33:05 UTC 2003

Daniel-
> I've been basing this on the success of the distribution/project distinction
> in the free software world where the end users benefit by a two mode process
> (free software coders work on their own projects and the distributors put
> that all together in a nice, easy to use and polished product, while making
> sure that any improvements are incorporated into the free software
> projects).

That does not seem like a valid analogy to me. Wikipedia is neither user- 
hostile nor is it, like a free software application, an isolated piece of  
code that someone else needs to put together with other pieces of code.  
Wikipedia *is* a distribution of articles, it *has* a structure, it is  
easy to use. I've never heard anyone complain that they don't know how to  
read Wikipedia. It's not the Linux kernel.

And where Wikipedia has usability deficits - it does - we should work to  
correct them instead of trying to attract people to a more user-friendly  
read-only version.

> There will also always be a great many people who will not trust anything on
> a wiki.

And we should confirm this irrational fear by pointing them to a separate  
website? This would be very unfair. We should give people an opportunity  
to learn. Wikipedia's success is based on overcoming these kinds of fears.

One way to do that is to create a safe vector of entry on the regular  
Wikipedia, and to promote it prominently as such. What is now just an  
inconspicuous link on the Main Page -- Brilliant Prose -- could eventually  
be developed into its own navigational structure within Wikipedia, a  
structure which allows people to easily absorb the wiki experience while  
alleviating their initial fears.

Look at what you're saying: "Many people .. will not trust anything on a  
wiki". A *wiki*? Most people have no clue what a wiki is in the first  
place, and the few who do have an idea got it in the last couple of years.  
We can *define* what a wiki is. We can *make* people trust us.

> So all this begs the question; are we here to make an encyclopedia
> for the sake of making an encyclopedia, or are we here to make an
> encyclopedia whose content will be used by and be most useful to, the
> greatest number of people?

On the Wikipedia Main Page, there are two big rectangles, a light blue one  
and a light yellow one. The blue one has the title "encyclopedia", the  
yellow one has the title "community".

The Wikipedia project is both, and that is a good thing. We are a learning  
resource, and we should work to find ways to make that learning resource  
more reliable and trustworthy -- hence this discussion. We are also a  
knowledge community where people go to share their wisdom and ideas with  
others, to philosophize, to argue and to ask questions. Pages like  
[[Wikipedia:Reference desk]] come to mind, which is open for questions  
from everyone, like a library help desk. But also the countless debates on  
talk pages, which invite everyone to participate in intellectual  
discourse.

If we try to grow in one area at the expense of the other, we will lose.  
We need to nurture the mutually beneficial relationship between  
encyclopedia and community, not undermine it. With a separate "stable"  
website, there will be questions like: What are we going to promote --  
contributing or reading? What are we going to do about negative  
perceptions of Wikipedia -- correct them, or ignore them to promote  
Nupedia? This is a path of self-destruction.

> Do we still need to be so oriented toward editing when we already have well
> over 4,000 edits a day and nearly 200,000 articles? A slow-down in editing
> and increased emphasis on getting things in stable form should become more
> of a priority.

There should be no artificial limits of our growth. That doesn't mean we  
cannot work to make each aricle better, little by little.. There is  
nothing wrong with always having a 10%/90% relationship between high  
quality pages and works in progress.

There is also no fundamental difference between creating and improving  
content. Growing our community benefits both. And any systematic effort to  
focus on improvement over growth is not hindered by constantly recruiting  
new editors.

> Most people just want the reference material they use to fullfill their
> needs.

"We are the info-elite, the ones who create and improve. The unwashed  
masses can only consume. We must engineer a website that is useful for  
these troglodytes to avoid confusing them with possibilities that their  
feeble little brains will never understand!"

;-)

Let's be careful with assumptions about what people want or do not want.  
Of course we should provide an easy interface for reading our articles,  
and of course we should do everything we can to improve the quality and  
reliability of Wikipedia. We should not pander to irrational fears,  
however, at the expense of growing both our community and our  
encyclopedia.

Wikipedia works because it's made of people. Separating the people from  
the content they create is not a good idea.

Regards,

Erik