QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Thu 20th March 2008, 2:05am)
QUOTE(Wolfe @ Wed 19th March 2008, 2:07pm)
If people can write a functional open source operating system, there is no reason why they can't write an encyclopaedia.
This comparison keeps turning up, and while it sounds reasonable on a sloganeering level, its fundamentally wrong.
The driver for the development of Linux is real and pressing - the movement of mass computing to a monolithic, corporately-controlled standard is stiflingly unhealthy, and OSS breeds diversity and invention. Particularly, had LAMP not been created, a lot of the web innovation of the last decade likely wouldn't have happened. Good-quality developers were drawn to OSS for good reasons, and established a decent level of governance because you just can't engineer software without it. Because the technically incompetent don't last long, Linux benefits from a virtuous circle: better software = more users = more developers = better software.
There is no such driver for the development of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a redundant re-mediation of the internet, which is already an "open-source encyclopaedia", and which anyone on a connected network can contribute to with a lot less moderation and interference than they'd get from a wp admin.
You must be joking. There is an obvious driver for the development of wikipedia and that is that people want a centralized repository of information in a standardized format because it is easier to use (and other people want to write it). In fact, it is the exact same motivation for the creation of paper encyclopaedias. Saying that the internet is an unmoderated "open source encyclopaedia" is like saying that the British National Library is. Sure, anyone can contribute to the National Library just by having a book published, but while the National Library contains vastly more information, it is no substitute for a traditional encyclopaedia, like Britannica which serves a simpler and more practical purpose.
Centralization and standardization of information is the whole purpose of reference works. You are must be confused about the purpose of an encyclopaedia to make such a comment.
I agree that incentives make it more difficult to develop an open online encyclopaedia than open software (although some open software is harder to successfully develop than others). There are also going to be different rules needed. But the basic principle is the same: openness can be an advantage.
Even open source software projects have rules. If the rules were bad, they wouldn't work. So the comparison is not "fundamentally wrong".
QUOTE
Because the task of a wp editor is to basically read and re-mediate, without the need to engage with ideas and work hard to (god forbid) become an expert, its a magnet for the not-particularly-bright. Many contributors aren't really interested in putting knowledge on the internet, because they fear the obscurity that awaits their mediocre contributions - so they rely on wikipedia's skewed pagerank to put their stunted prose at the top of search results pages and give them that warm glow of self-importance. And there's no effective competence filter, so the circle is reversed: higher SERPS for mediocre content = more users = more talentless nincompoops throwing shite at the wiki and linking to each other = higher SERPS for mediocre content.
Yet your complaints are disproved by the fact that Wikipedia is largely accurate. There are of course caveats regarding controversial subjects, and other errors, but that is true of Britannica as well. What Wikipedia lacks in accuracy it makes up for in breadth. I don't argue that Wikipedia is perfect - only that it is surprisingly good given its open nature.
That's the one inconvenient fact that all the moaners on this site ignore. You can go to a random Wikipedia page and you are most likely to read something that is true and reasonably informative.
And your fascination with mediocrity makes me wonder whether you understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Britannica is mediocre. It's a reference work for non-experts written in a style that they can read easily. People who spend all their time moaning about mediocrity and incompetence tend to be either fairly insecure about their own abilities or wildly overestimate them. If you want it to be some super academic resource, then you are missing the point because that's not what it is for.
Wikipedia certainly has its problems. But every human community has its problems. We eliminate them by trial and error. Perhaps Wikipedia should hire professional moderators. Perhaps disclosure of identity should be required before editing BLP articles. Perhaps those who have recognized qualifications should receive greater weight in content decisions (but even then, there will be disputes - people often have no idea how diverse expert opinion can be). There are a bunch of things that could conceivably make it better.
These are the sort of questions that are worth asking. Wanting to destroy the whole concept because it doesn't live up to impossibly high standards is simply childish.
QUOTE
And the worst bit - the bit that really shows up the facile nature of the "wp = open source" comparison - is that the logical conclusion of wikia/wikipedia is a monolithic, corporately-controlled standard, where every page and every site pretty much looks the same, works the same, and has the same culture.
It's supposed to look the same. Have you seen Britannica? The articles have the same format. That's because it is an encyclopaedia and that is what encyclopaedias look like because that's what readers want them to look like. Standardization can actually be a good thing. Why are you insisting that the virtues of Wikipedia are in fact vices?
Besides, you are flat out wrong. Since Wikipedia is GPLed, anyone with the means could hoover it up and reformat it, or reorganize it under different rules. I hope Google will do that, so we can be rid of the odious Wales.
The complaints on these forums that have any real legitimacy are the BLP stuff, since the potential for defamation is obviously a problem, and Wordbomb's stuff, since Wikipedia seems incapable of dealing with people Gary Weiss. The rest comes across as the whining of people who didn't get their own way and want to destroy the whole thing because of it.