October 20, 2005
In a recent post to a Wikipedia mailing list, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales described Nick Carr’s post on “The amorality of Web 2.0″ (which I, along with much of the blogosphere previously linked to) as “a valid criticism” and agreed that “the two examples [Carr] puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment” and “nearly unreadable crap”.
This sparked several uncharacteristicly self-critical responses from Wikipedians:
Although the raw numbers [of editors] are large, the number of articles is even larger, and so there are not enough editors to go around. […] Where are all the subject-matter experts?
We’d like to think that it’s inevitable we’ll asymptotically approach high quality, as Tony defended with [[Eventualism]]. But I think it’s too simplistc.
In my view, wikipedia has to undergo a paradigm change if it really wants to succeed in creating a good encyclopedia. […] We shouldn’t give up the principle of open editing but we should make clear now from the beginning that we seek good writers and knowledgeable people, not anyone. Yes, anyone can edit an article. But not anyone should edit any article.
If Robert Henry [sic] is right (and judging by a number of fine articles now laying in ruins I suspect he is), then WP, should it desire to get finer control on article quality, needs to modify its “completely open” model a little bit.
[Via Andrew Orlowski at the Register]
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://eblogger.blogsome.com/2005/10/20/wikipedians-on-quality/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Why do you call those responses “uncharacteristically self-critical”? If you read the mailing list, you’ll see that my remarks were routine, and the responses were also routine.
Wikipedians are hardcore about quality and always have been. That’s why Wikipedia is as good as it is. Andrew Orlowski can try to blow up random remarks on the mailing list as if they are news, but the truth is, this is just all part of the ongoing story of Wikipedia.
Comment by Jimmy Wales — October 20, 2005 @ 11:00 am
Jimmy,
I say “uncharacteristically self-critical”, because it has been my overwhelming experience that the most vocal and zealous supporters of wikipedia assume, as an article of faith, that (a) wikipedia is already higher quality than “traditional” encyclopedias and/or (b) it is inevitable that wikipedia will become highter quality than “traditional” encyclopedias. Indeed, it precisely this faith the Nick Carr bemoaned in his “amorality” post. We see this attitude throughout the blogosphere, on wikipedia talk pages, and yes, on the WikiEN list itself. E.g.,
“I cannot remember the last time I accessed a Wikipedia article that was not of apparent professional quality.”
“The quality of Wikipedia Articles, at the very least, at a moment in time are better than they were before and will improve over time.”
“I for one think Wikipedia is more prestigious [than Britannica].”
“But like good wine, articles in Wikipedia get better with time.”
In fact, Anthony DiPierro put it succiently when he wrote on wikien-l: “You know, if it was anyone else complaining about article quality, the response would be something more like “{{sofixit}}”.
You, personally, Jimmy, are often frank about Wikipedia’s shortcomings and are “hardcore about quality”. Others, indeed many others, are not–as you yourself have dealt with on that thread (example 1, example 2, example 3). This is also helps explain why Wikipedia is “as good as it is”.
I agree Orlowski blew your remarks out of proporition. The headline in particular was, let’s face it, sensationalism. Yet that doesn’t make his general or specific critique invalid.
Comment by eblogger — October 20, 2005 @ 4:30 pm
It seems that Thomas Hawk tried to post the following comment, but was blocked by blogsome’s spam filters:
Andrew Orlowski has had more than a little problem with the truth in the past: http://thomashawk.com/2005/10/andrew-orlowski-writes-article.html.
(The number of dashes in the URL seem to be triggering the filter.)
Comment by eblogger — October 24, 2005 @ 3:12 pm