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