QUOTE(Elara @ Sat 10th February 2007, 6:16am)
Publically editable online encyclopedias are fine, if you are realistic about what you expect from them. Isn't that the real problem , pie in the sky style explications about "freeing information" and "sum of human knowledge" and other stirring, exhilarating melodramatic bullshit?
First of all, so many people misspell the word "publicly" now that the misspelling has actually been listed as a variant by Webster's! I find this
extremely disconcerting! The whole issue of expectations and the associated melodramatic BS is a good one to bring up, though. We have to look at Wikipedia's growth process in more "organic" terms, and doing that is made much more difficult by the tendency of Wikipedians to express it purely numeric and/or statistical terms - article count, edit count, user count, and the rates of growth for each.
Y'see, the "early adopters" of Wikipedia were "high-volume special-interest" people - i.e., folks who were obsessively into things like pop music, sports, porn stars, video games, cult movies, and TV shows. Just as an example, one of the first websites to fall into near-disuse once WP became popular was
ubl.com, the Ultimate Band List. Back when the UBL was started, it was quite popular and grew very quickly. But since each artist could really only have one page, the
really serious pop music fans all started moving to Wikipedia, where there were far fewer limitations.
Wheee! More link-spamming opportunities than ever! So now, the UBL is trying to redefine itself as a haven for unknown/unsigned acts who,
by sheer coincidence, have been the subject of a long-term "non-notability" deletion campaign on WP over the course of the last year or so. It's a nice idea, but it's not likely to restore UBL to its former glory, is it?
Anyhoo, Wikipedia is strong on pop-culture articles because that's what its foundation was. The people running it now don't want to admit that, but it's true. That's what kick-started its growth, gave it name recognition, and it also drew in younger people who gradually started getting older and more interested in so-called "serious" topics. (Not to mention their attachment to the WP community as a replacement for real life, in some cases.)
So...
how does this all tie in? I guess I see it as a bait 'n' hook scheme - young, energetic kids are brought into the system by their attraction to the articles on Metallica or Kobe Bryant or
Survivor:Palm Beach, but they're hooked by the "sum of all human knowledge" rhetoric that's bandied about to make them feel like they're doing something good and/or important, if not
vital in some way. Eventually they start getting into headier topics - which is good for them and their personal development, but perhaps not so good for the topics.
Finally, when Citizendium comes along, people who have been made to feel special in this way have already developed a sense of entitlement. When Larry Sanger tries to take the entitlements away, this is seen as mean-spirited and unfair. In fact, it
is mean-spirited and unfair - Sanger and CZ owe at least some of whatever success they're going to have to that very same bait 'n' hook process, and to jettison all of that shows disrespect for the project's real origins.
But at the same time, I'd have to say that if he can get away with it, he should do it. Aside from the fact that it's what he wants, it should also have the effect of more clearly defining the differences between CZ and WP, which is probably a good thing - even if you prefer the WP approach to his.
I do go on, don't I?