User:ChrisG

Just a note to say that I never have the time now to edit Wikipedia. I still drop in a check how things are going. It never ceases to amaze me. :) --ChrisG 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm tremendously excited by Wikipedia; it is the most exciting project I have seen since I have started using the Internet. I intend to become a regular contributor. I have a wide range of interests - Philosophy, New Age, Psychology, Politics, Religion, Science Fiction, Soccer and Information Systems - so who knows where I shall contribute.

My Vision for Wikipedia
My vision of Wikipedia is that in a time of ever increasing information overload on the internet there is a need a free and neutral source of information that is not afraid to tackle controversial topics and is independent of the systematic biases created by state, economy, and religion. Currently on the internet the best way to find information is to use Google and then use your own judgment to identify a useful article. Wikipedia can solve this problem and serve to direct you to other articles within its information space, but also in its exploration of issues direct people intelligently to other sources of information on the internet.

The problem will be ensuring the trustworthiness of information to the external world. I agree that the anarchic process advocated will work most of the time and in the long term; but many people will not trust it, because they will not know if the article has been recently re-edited in a poor or biased way or just defaced; which would prevent Wikipedia from becoming an authority in some eyes.

As such then some form of Trusted Wikipedia or Wikipedia pages will be necessary for such concerns. Many users on the Internet will prefer to surf the approved pages and only go to the unapproved and developing pages for current information and to see if the debate has changed. This Trusted Wikipedia should not interfere except positively with the ongoing Wikipedia project. It seems obvious that such a 'trusted' Wikipedia, though obviously it won't be a Wiki, will evolve out of the Wikipedia 1.0 project.

Personally I am against any Trusted Wikipedia which comes to rely on people with the best academic qualifications. How many people in the world have even a degree? I would like intelligent contributions from anyone, whatever their qualifications or age. The people who approve articles - the trusted -should be the people who somehow evolve out of the system. There needs to be a process whereby people earn trust and status through their actions.

The beauty of this schema, is that people who are anarchists will be happy that Wikipedia remains as it is with only some subtle approval mechanism going on.w While those people who value order can have their own Encyclopedia that uses the Wikipedia as the source of its articles, but of course approves them as suitable and appropriate.

I have a detailed a suggested approval mechasism here.

Categorisation
Thoughts about an alternative top level categorisation schema. User:ChrisG/categorisation

Forum links

 * Single sign on
 * Single sign on


 * Reliability
 * 
 * 
 * 

NPOV
 * 

Help using Wikipedia

 * Summarize_discussion
 * HowToSummariseChanges
 * neutral_pov
 * Help
 * Welcome_newcomers
 * internal_links
 * Wikiquette
 * Cite your sources
 * Build the Web
 * 

Status Quo

 * Most-active_wikipedians
 * Wikipedians by most recent edit
 * What_Wikipedia_is_not
 * Wikipedia_utilities/Controversial_subjects
 * Most_edited_pages
 * Glossary
 * Wikipedia namespace
 * Brilliant prose candidates
 * Announcements
 * Recent Changes summary
 * List of ongoing votes
 * Developers
 * Peer Review
 * Category Schemes
 * Topic Maps
 * Replies to critics
 * Wikipedia is so great Why Wikipedia is so great
 * Why Wikipedia is not so great

The politics of Wikipedia

 * Wikipedia 1.0
 * Best_cases]


 * Building Wikipedia membership


 * Systematic Bias

1