I used the Google translation tool [google.com] to read the last link. The translation is actually almost readable. Some funny quotes:
"The project is not much too much the Amateurhaftigkeit" (said by Sanger)
"Wikipedia is today one of the 20 to most called web pages in the Internet, over five million article in over 100 languages the unpaid Freiwilligen already gathered."
As for the last line in the summary, of course they aren't 'amused'. But, a fork is legal, and legitimate. We'll see how it turns out.
They can be "Not Amused" all they like... A second point of reference can only be a good thing. Especially for topics like nuclear power. I have noticed how everyone becomes an expert as soon as the topic of "melt downs" or "nuclear power" comes up. Their fields of instant expertise vary from nuclear physics to statistics to medicine to environmental engineering to genetics.
Having an Wikipedia alternative where a real (I hope) expert watches entries like this and provides good solid data and knuckle dragg
I'd prefer if they improved the current Wikipedia by implementing an (optional) reputation system to identify experts in particular fields. That way the data would all stay in one place where all the people are and that all the people are using for research already, yet we'd accomplish the same thing of having known experts have more influence on an article. All they'd need to do is create a verification system where you could submit your credentials and identifying information (if you wished), then tag your
I'd really hesitate to denote myself an "expert" in anything related to my career, which is where most people probably center their expertise. I mean think about it: I send my credentials in, whatever they may be, and I'm putting myself on the line for zero gain. Wiki is already enough of a self-sacrifice in that regard.
It also doesn't stop the most problematic areas. Who is an expert in Middle Eastern politics? Israelis? Palestinians? Iranians? Iraqis? A polisci prof in midwest America? Who's an expert on the famous person that keeps getting their page defaced? What credentials do I need to decide what the valuable sources are in an article about The Hulk?
I don't want to say it's working well enough and I'd hate to mess with a good thing, but that's sort of how I feel. There's already enough bickering on Talk pages that it's hard to sort out interpersonal conflicts from legitimate disputes. I think an "expert" designation would only raise the ire of more non-experts who get off on challenging them. Look at all the trolls that arise whenever the "establishment" surpresses their whacko, uninformed viewpoints. Those tend to be the guys that get into revert wars.
And even so, I don't really see that I'd read an entry differently even if it was by someone labelled by an expert. I'm still gonna verify it if it's important, and if it's not, the accuracy of Wikipedia is good enough for me right now.
Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The project is not much too much the Amateurhaftigkeit" (said by Sanger)
"Wikipedia is today one of the 20 to most called web pages in the Internet, over five million article in over 100 languages the unpaid Freiwilligen already gathered."
As for the last line in the summary, of course they aren't 'amused'. But, a fork is legal, and legitimate. We'll see how it turns out.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Having an Wikipedia alternative where a real (I hope) expert watches entries like this and provides good solid data and knuckle dragg
Reputation system was a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
All they'd need to do is create a verification system where you could submit your credentials and identifying information (if you wished), then tag your
Re:Reputation system was a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
It also doesn't stop the most problematic areas. Who is an expert in Middle Eastern politics? Israelis? Palestinians? Iranians? Iraqis? A polisci prof in midwest America? Who's an expert on the famous person that keeps getting their page defaced? What credentials do I need to decide what the valuable sources are in an article about The Hulk?
I don't want to say it's working well enough and I'd hate to mess with a good thing, but that's sort of how I feel. There's already enough bickering on Talk pages that it's hard to sort out interpersonal conflicts from legitimate disputes. I think an "expert" designation would only raise the ire of more non-experts who get off on challenging them. Look at all the trolls that arise whenever the "establishment" surpresses their whacko, uninformed viewpoints. Those tend to be the guys that get into revert wars.
And even so, I don't really see that I'd read an entry differently even if it was by someone labelled by an expert. I'm still gonna verify it if it's important, and if it's not, the accuracy of Wikipedia is good enough for me right now.