I keep my Google Alerts keyed for news about Wikipedia, so I just got a link this morning to an article in the Guardian about Larry Sanger. Sanger was the original editor of Wikipedia, when the project had some semblance of editorial organization.
When he was laid off from Bomis in 2002, Sanger left the project, and has been a gadfly for the project ever since. His article on Kuro5hin, Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism, was a call for better quality on the project.
I think Sanger is Stuart Sutcliffe of Wikipedia -- the Fifth Beatle who missed out on the project's success. I'd be a pretty bitter Herb myself if it was me in that position. I also think his criticisms are way off the mark. Not that Wikipedia doesn't have quality problems -- it does. Grievous ones. But the quality problems aren't with the factual accuracy, but with the poor level of writing, kitchen-sink compositional strategy, and sloppy logical development.
Sanger makes the same mistake that many Wikipedians do -- overemphasizing the characteristics and needs of contributors. Wikipedians are great, and their generosity of time and energy has made one of the crowning achievements of the Internet. (Disclaimer: I've been a Wikipedian since 2002, and I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia, so I have some bias.)
But their value comes from serving readers, not from serving themselves. Many of Wikipedia's quality problems come from a feeling of entitlement on the part of editors -- that the most important thing is to make sure every contributor gets their say. Too often, we use the NPOV rule as a conflict-resolution mechanism rather than as a guideline to writing good articles.
Sanger's solution -- putting "experts" back in the driver's seat -- will drive his new Digital Universe project. But I'm not sure he's focusing on the right part of the problem. Sure, scientists and historians know their subjects in-depth, but that typically means they don't have the perspective to create accessible articles for the general public. The hoi polloi probably do a better job writing their own summaries at their own level than the Ivory Tower can.
Grand plans for saving Wikipedia are like favorite characters on the Simpsons -- everybody's got one. Still, I'll give mine (plan, not favorite): what Wikipedia needs isn't scientists and historians, but writers and editors (in the traditional sense -- rédacteurs, redactors). Engaging that community's time and energy is going to be crucial to the project's success.
Oh, also: Manjula.
tags: wikipedia wiki editor larry sanger npov redaction experts digital universe manjula nahasapeemapetilon