Im all for embracing alternatives. Wikipedia is one example of what can be done with wiki's if that critical number of humans being involved is reached. It wont satisfy everyone, I think its possible to recognise its weaknesses without having to blow it off completely. I want there to be alternatives, I dont see wh the alternatives have to set themselves up as competing with wikipedia or better than wikipedia.
I dunno, I like balance, I would not actually take it as a good sign if the wikipedia entry for vlogging 100% satisfied the most active or vocal members of this group. If I agreed with everything in the entry then I would think something was badly wrong somewhere! Likewise I dont think anonymous posting is wrong, it has an effect, and its good for alternative services to experiment with something else. One potential consequence of conflicts like these is the effect it can have on the potential wiki-contributors posting confidence. Im sure a lot of people already fail to contribute to wiki's because they feel unsure of their own abilities, just as there are people who are fairly convinced their contributions are wonderful. If I ever fall out of love with wikipedia Id guess it will be as a result of some decision they could make in the future that smells too much like a commercially based decision, eg there is already some mild controversy about their policy of setting links to not count with searchengines (nofollow or something), which on the face of it may seem fair enough considering the potential for link-spamming of wikipedia. But I heard that they let 'interwiki' links to their commercial wiki site count, which probably makes some people worry. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Was reading up on this. Not clear on their exact peer review process > except that it clearly assumes that citations should not be dependant > on main stream media or printed books... that in fact the experts are > out there and are involved. > > not clear how this process will work... or how someone might rise to > the status of expert on a topic, but my guess is it would involve > identifying expert sources and individuals on the web, such as > specific blogs on an industry or topic. > > Anyway it's best sumarized as a consensus based "expert" peer review process. > > And also... it doesn't allow for anonymous edits. I do think... and I > will just come out and say it... > > that Jimmy wales is WRONG about annoymous editing. It does NOT protect > users and is unecissary. You can create a profile and login that is > anonymous... people do it all the time on various services... this is > actually a better protection for both the user and the service, ie. > wikipedia. > > Anyway... I just heard abut citizendium today... who knows if it will > go anywhere at all.. . but these are all experiments in better > collaboration and self governance. As such they are all important. > > Oh! And regardless of what happens with wikipedia I think it's time > we just say f*ck wikipedia and start creating our own article on the > vbgroup pbwiki jay dedman has created. > > Peace, > > -Mike > mmeiser.com/blog > > > On 5/2/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With all the wikipedia talk, I thought I would make mention of Citizendium. > > What do you think about this project? > > > > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page > > > > Over on AssignmentZero, their is a crowdsourced article that will be up on > > Wired.com tomorrow. > > It goes into the origins of Wikipedia and Citizendium. > > Here is one of the drafts: > > > > http://zero.newassignment.net/filed/weve_got_draft > > > > > > Sull > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
