Wikipedia has a structural contradiction (or perhaps a fine line to walk). In order for people to care enough to put in high quality edits, they have to feel like they're contributing to a grand encyclopedic project; but it's also helpful if people don't think of the site as an exact equivalent of paper encyclopedias -- they have to critically examine articles, figure out possible reasons they read the way they do.
This is one reason it's so important for there to be more (and better) software interfaces to wikipedia: there's a sea of information to sift through that helps you figure out what's really going on, how much you can trust an article, etc., and it would be nice to take it in at a glance.
« Older Were you left as ambivalent as I was by the introd... | The White House nominates... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt