[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikipedia-l
Subject:    Re: [Wikipedia-l] An idea
From:       Mattis Manzel <mattismanzel () yahoo ! de>
Date:       2005-05-24 21:28:18
Message-ID: 42939C72.8090905 () yahoo ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Cool Jimbo,  An important credential is: How much do the other 
inhabitants of this "free and open mind-plasma-online" (or whatever 
better term there is) trust the person? It is not how much do 
wikipedians trust the person? it is not even how much do inhabitants of 
wikilandia (the fucking wholeness of wikis) trust the person? There are 
thousands and millions of possible others in blogs, podcasting, playing 
onlne-games, etc pp.
We're "one big soup".

Maybe we need wiki-Woodstock? 
http://oddwiki.taoriver.net/wiki.pl/WikiWoodstock/HomePage

Or maybe we just need a voting system? Like supersimple on 
http://www.emacswiki.org/cw/MiniContribution

Sorry for spammin', have a nice day everybody.

mattis


Jimmy Wales schrieb:

>I had an idea the other day while I was on a radio interview.
>
>Someone was making the usual (uninformed) complaint about Wikipedia that
>we "pretend to have no authors" -- which is nonsense of course -- but
>the undertone (in my opinion) of the criticism was that Wikipedia is
>written by a bunch of random morons on the Internet rather than Real
>Professionals.  As such, it is argued, it's a perfectly fun forum for
>people to post their stupid rants, but it is not an encyclopedia.
>
>However, I travel all over the world meeting Wikipedians, and surprise
>surprise, most of them are Real Professionals of some sort.  And of
>course, Wikipedia *is* an encyclopedia.
>
>Now, here's the idea that I had, and there are perhaps some reasons it
>is a bad idea, but I think it has more merit than not, so I wanted to
>bring it up for feedback and see if it is something we want to start
>thinking about and discussing more generally.
>
>Some years ago, Amazon.com instituted a system that they were calling
>something like "Real Names intitiative" for user reviews.  In order to
>increase the public perception of trust in those reviews, they made it
>possible (but optional!) for people to go through a process to identify
>themselves by their Real Names.
>
>We could do something similar, but also allow for the inclusion of
>credentials.  People could *optionally* go through a process to confirm
>their credentials.  When you do this, a small icon appears by your name
>in the edit history, and when you click on it, you get to a new tab of
>the user page, which contains a list of the confirmed credentials.
>
>What kinds of credentials would be acceptable?  This could be totally
>open to a community process.  Clearly, all sorts of college degrees make
>sense, but the wide kinds of expertise that are involved in writing
>Wikipedia might call for useful credentials of many kinds.
>
>Examples would include computer certifications such as MSCE or LPI or
>Redhat.  Our article on [[Amateur Radio]] has surely been edited by
>people who have advanced licenses.  Published books might count as a
>credential.  Magazine articles.  Awards, recognitions of all kinds.
>Positions held in relevant organizations.
>
>Have you won a prize at a dog show?  Then this is a credential which
>testifies to the public about your expertise in that area.
>
>Such an initiative would have to be done carefully in order to respect
>our (fairly anti-credentialist) culture.  First, anyone who ever
>suggests that a credential gives one precedence in editing gets a bonk
>in the head with a WikiClueStick.  Second, it should be made clear at
>every point of contact with a credential system that it is fully and
>completely optional.
>
>The idea is this: people wonder, and not unreasonably, who we all are.
>Why should the world listen to us about anything?  People think, and not
>unreasonably, that credentials say something helpful about that.  As it
>turns out, we mostly do know something about what we edit, and although
>we never want Wikipedia to be about a closed club of credential
>fetishists, there's nothing particularly wrong with advertising that,
>hey, we are *random* people on the Internet *g*, but not random *morons*
>after all.
>
>--Jimbo
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]