Proposal talk:Drop the idea that everyone can contribute knowledge

From Strategic Planning
Jump to: navigation, search

This statement "The main problem of Wikipedia is the 'right' given indiscriminately to everyone to contribute." is a slight mistatement. There is no such right, and never was. There is the possiblity for those who have something to contribute (within the policies and guidelines of the project) to indeed do so.

What is there is a perception that anybody can edit anything, just like there is a perception that users should be merciless. This is an artefact of the oversimplified advertising slogans. Thus the proposal would do better to address the advertising done by Wikipedia, and bring it into line with the actual policies (rather than indiscriminately attract people who just want to make changes for changes sake). - Brya 07:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that any well motivated person who is sufficiently technically savvy to edit a wikipedia article has something that they can contribute. I am equally confident that no single person is qualified to be an authority on every subject in the pedia. The pensioner who donates their personal photos from an Olympics they attended in their youth may also be a POV warrior on some nationalistic dispute. The scientist who edits accurately in their own field may have some outre ideas about an aspect of literature. What matters is that we have ways to encourage users where they are helping build the pedia and discourage them where they are disruptive. WereSpielChequers 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone needs to contribute knowledge because that is what makes Wikipedia into the free encyclopedia that has plenty of articles about Japanese video games, obscure films from the 1980s, old-school NASCAR drivers, and much more. If it wasn't for everyone contributing knowledge, then Wikipedia would be the 60th most popular encyclopedia rather than the sixth most popular encyclopedia. GVnayR 03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Who are the five encyclopaedias that are more popular than us, and how do you define that popularity? I'm pretty sure that measured by readers Wikipedia is the most popular encyclopaedia, and measured by brand awareness we are definitely in the top four. WereSpielChequers 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse. It was late, I was tired, and I was typing lazy that night. What I meant to say was "Wikipedia would be the 60th most popular website in the world if it wasn't for everyone contributing knowledge." GVnayR 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There are no threads on this page yet.