... questions the "epistemic egalitarianism" adagium of Wikipedia. Simply stated: everybody is equal, an expert is not more (knowledgable) than a non-expert, together we define what is true.I went on to say:
Well, it seems Veropedia comes close to my solution and what Sanger is looking for. Veropedia is very comparable to Wikipedia. Everyone can write articles. However, before they are published, a panel of experts checks the articles and, if needed, corrects them.I understand the point he's making. And, though I too am enthralled by the success of Wikipedia, I also wonder how Wikipedia will solve, for instance, the "edit wars", that Sanger also mentions. Don't we need a mediator/expert to end those wars? Or can we simply allow two definitions to one entry?Another solution could be to get in between Sanger and Wikipedia. Every now and then we would let experts in Wikipedia and have them correct, extend, etc. the entries. After they've come in, we let "the rest of the world" in, etc. In this way we have expert and non-expert "waves".
I'm curious if this is the solution and if people will accept this model and submit their entries to this platform. And will they send them to Wikipedia and Veropedia at once? Or will the crowd move from Wikipedia to Veropedia because it's more "reliable"? We'll see!
Anyway, I'd like to hear what you predict!
Update Aug 5 2011: Also refer to Macrowikinomics, p. 362 about collectivism.