I think there's a problem of focus on Wikipedia between
Before I start: I love Wikipedia and I think it may be one of the most important projects done on the Web, ever. I've been a Wikipedia contributor since 2002, I'm an admin on en: and a MediaWiki developer. I admire and applaud all the thousands of people who have put their time and effort into making Wikipedia a great resource. Discussion here is meant to be exploratory and constructive, not justification for 'Pedia-haters.
Managing writers
Wikipedia has balanced these two priorities very well in the past, but I think that of all wikis it's the most in need of keeping content in mind. This may come as a surprise for some people, since Wikipedia's stated purpose is so content-oriented.
However, Wikipedia's stupendous growth over its lifetime -- now one of the top 20 traffic-getting sites on the Web -- has made for an extremely complicated and difficult social environment. I think that many Wikipedia editors and administrators spend a lot of time dealing with social issues; like:
- Vandals
- Trolls
- Policies and guidelines
- Votes
I think that this tends to focus Wikipedians on the community aspects. That's good; it's necessary; it's the right thing to do. Developing a strong community makes for excellent content. However, I think for some new and inexperienced Wikipedians, and for outsiders who are hostile, the social aspects are the be-all-end-all of the project. And I think that's a grave mistake.
Nicholas Carr, for example, has declared the Death of Wikipedia due to its protection and semi-protection policies. How can a million-page encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of new edits daily be "dead"? Because it doesn't live up to a particular social or community standard.
Community is good; it's what makes Wikipedia possible, and gives it the focus and flavor it has. However, to a child reading the encyclopedia, the fact that there was an arbitration committee and a protection and edit wars and a 3-revert-rule and blocked users and yadda yadda yadda doesn't really matter. They just need to learn about the Arkansas River.
The rights of writers
I think one particular place that has over-focused on community is the intense concentration around the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I fully support the NPOV policy on Wikipedia -- I think it's the only way that the encyclopedia can work.
However, I think that NPOV's application has been particularly used for conflict resolution, which I think is extremely difficult. It is good to have a compass point to follow when navigating the difficult waters of religion and politics, and NPOV has been that guiding direction. However, its use has been an unfortunate side-effect.
Take this example: let's say that Alice and Bob are editing a Wikipedia article. Alice writes: Crackers are delicious and Mount McKinley is stupid. Bob changes this to, Crackers are stupid and Mount McKinley is delicious. After 30 rounds of reversions and recriminations, a wise Wikipedian steps in and helps them come to a reasonable conclusion:
- Some people think crackers are delicious and Mount McKinley is stupid. Other people think Mount McKinley is delicious and crackers are stupid.
This is the whole idea of NPOV -- expressing important opinions and facts in a way that doesn't side with one point of view or the other. In an NPOV framework, it's important to consider and describe (almost) every opinion and point of view.
However in this case, it's easy to see the application of NPOV as giving every contributor a chance to speak. There is a subtle difference here that's important to remember. NPOV is important to the reader, since they get all (or almost all) the information needed to make their own choices. The NFOB (Neutral Field of Battle) is more concerned with the needs of the contributor to have their say and feel good about themselves.
Giving content its due
One thing I find missing in the Wikipedia:About section on Wikipedia content criteria, as well as such summaries as Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words, is any mention of the quality of the articles, images, and other media in the encyclopedia. I'd say there are some very clear implicit criteria: that articles should be instructive and informative; that information should be well-organized and presented effectively; that articles should be pleasant to read; that it should be easy to find information on various topics. I know that there are some good guidelines on these issues, but I wonder if it would help at all
NB: ContentAndCommunity is copied in part from a page I did on content and community for CommunityWiki.
See also
These aren't new ideas. Jimmy Wales, in his message Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, says it quite clearly: Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.