QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 26th August 2009, 1:25am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(WMF)
His extensive experience with online communities, trust, and reputation, will make him an excellent addition to our Board.
Jimbo's biggest fear is that the project falls into disrepute.
Bringing on board a person who understands how to build a community of reputable players is a good idea, but I fear it comes way too late in the game. The more disreputable players have mostly driven off the reputable academics who might have onced helped Wikipedia reach its original objective.
I'm quite certain that many "reputable academics" have chosen not to get involved in wikipedia, whether they've been "driven off" or not. The academic imperative to publish is not met by wikipedia articles, and not all "reputable players" will be academics anyway.
It would not be difficult to make a case that academics are perhaps those least likely to be able to write a neutral article on a subject dear to their hearts, as opposed to espousing the view they hope will make their name and give them tenure. Let's not fall to our knees in awe of "reputable academics"; the world of academia is no more "reputable" than any other human endeavour.