This might be of interest.
Somebody from CZ told me to go look at a Wikipedia "essay" titled "Don't
just do whatever." It's very thought-provoking. I'm going to ruin
(Wikipedia) author Matt Britt's street cred forever by publicly agreeing
with it. But actually, I'm going to disagree with one point: the
importance of collaboration.
So here goes:
<< In reading some recent thoughts on Wikipedia authorship
and having some discussions with folks on the Wikipedia IRC channel,
I've come to realize that there are some flaws in the ideology of
the editing process that is held in such high esteem. More
specifically, the Wikipedia process as it pertains to individual
articles does not, in my experience, produce high quality articles.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will talk mostly about
featured articles. >>
Indeed, a lot of Wikipedians are deeply confused in many ways about how
and why Wikipedia both works and fails to work. It's hard understand in
all its glorious complexity. But Britt has dismantled one of the
confusions rather well. He says that there is an "ideal editing
philosophy," or what I would call the received wisdom or the
wikipolitically-correct explanation of how Wikipedia articles improve.
According to the received wisdom, a page goes from stub to brilliant
featured article because more and more people add their collective
wisdom and correct each other's mistakes. But, Britt argues, it isn't
quite that way:
(Finish reading on the CZ blog: http://tinyurl.com/ywj95o )
--Larry
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
