Do we really have to choose between Wikipedia and Britannica-style encyclopedias, as the WSJ’s duel between Jimmy Wales and Dale Hoiberg suggests? I want both. Wild, experimental but socially sophisticated Wikipedia, well-written, tightly controlled, old-fashioned professorial Britannica. Because both models have a lot going for them. Consider Wired News’ experiment with a publicly wiki-edited article. In a follow-up piece, writer Ryan Singel evaluates, and concludes:
Certainly the final story is more accurate and more representative of how wikis are used. Is it a better story than the one that would have emerged after a Wired News editor worked with it? I think not. The edits over the week lack some of the narrative flow that a Wired News piece usually contains. The transitions seem a bit choppy, there are too many mentions of companies, and too much dry explication of how wikis work. It feels more like a primer than a story to me.
I have very little experience as a Wikipedia contributor, but the first challenge if you want to improve an article there, is what to do with the existing text. Completely rewrite, improve a little here or there? Often the result isn’t very satisfying, if you like good writing (Bjørn Stærk first tipped me about this).
Still, this is no crushing argument against either Wikipedia or wiki-based editing. Wikipedia’s development is simply astonishing. In an article now published by Swedish magazine Axess (paper only) and in Norwegian by Dagbladet Magasinet today, I try to identify some of the reasons for Wikipedia’s growth – a subject I’ll return to here soon.
