Job sharing Options

[thekohser]

...See what Larry said in 2001.

Wikipedia articles are getting constantly better as people go back again and again to old articles to add to them, reword misleading statements, correct factual errors, etc. This means that the quality of Wikipedia articles is ever-improving. An improvement in quality will be noticeable to experts. A shoddy article about topic T in 2001 will be a great article about topic T in 2002." Larry Sanger, "Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias", section "A few speculations about a perhaps amazing future.
Sanger, L., Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias Kuro5hin, Wed Jul 25, 2001.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121

I have to imagine that Sanger would retract that statement, knowing now what he knows now.

[Milton Roe]

...See what Larry said in 2001.

Wikipedia articles are getting constantly better as people go back again and again to old articles to add to them, reword misleading statements, correct factual errors, etc. This means that the quality of Wikipedia articles is ever-improving. An improvement in quality will be noticeable to experts. A shoddy article about topic T in 2001 will be a great article about topic T in 2002." Larry Sanger, "Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias", section "A few speculations about a perhaps amazing future.
Sanger, L., Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias Kuro5hin, Wed Jul 25, 2001.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121

I have to imagine that Sanger would retract that statement, knowing now what he knows now.

If it was on a wiki, he'd have to re-edit it.

[Larry Sanger]

...See what Larry said in 2001.

Wikipedia articles are getting constantly better as people go back again and again to old articles to add to them, reword misleading statements, correct factual errors, etc. This means that the quality of Wikipedia articles is ever-improving. An improvement in quality will be noticeable to experts. A shoddy article about topic T in 2001 will be a great article about topic T in 2002." Larry Sanger, "Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias", section "A few speculations about a perhaps amazing future.
Sanger, L., Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias Kuro5hin, Wed Jul 25, 2001.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121

I have to imagine that Sanger would retract that statement, knowing now what he knows now.

Not really--it was true in 2001. Virtually all articles started in 2001 were better in 2002. If you read more of that essay, if I remember right, I believe you'll find that I was positing that Nupedia would work in tandem with Wikipedia as a necessary sort of review mechanism for Wikipedia.

Nupedia was still kicking when I left in early 2002. In November or December of 2001, the Nupedia editorial council had (finally) officially adopted a much simpler editorial structure. It would have made it a lot more feasible for articles to go from Wikipedia to a review process in Nupedia. I was also talking about (possibly writing requirements for--I can't remember) an automatic article submission tool, making it really easy to submit Wikipedia articles to Nupedia. But this never took off because no volunteer stepped up to write the software and Bomis had no money to pay Toan or anyone to code it. If the whole project had started a year earlier, and we had had another year of easy living while developing the Nupedia-Wikipedia tandem, it seems likely to me that Nupedia would still exist (in a much more streamlined form) and that Wikipedia would be very different.

[EricBarbour]

Not really--it was true in 2001. Virtually all articles started in 2001 were better in 2002. If you read more of that essay, if I remember right, I believe you'll find that I was positing that Nupedia would work in tandem with Wikipedia as a necessary sort of review mechanism for Wikipedia.

Yes, in fact it appears that it got better up until early 2007. Then the Essjay crap happened, and people stopped writing good articles about "serious" subjects. That was when Wikipedia became a Sports-o-pedia and a Cartoon-o-pedia.

And it's getting worse. You'll see.