Comments Elsewhere

Holmes is right about the differences between controversial and non-controversial articles, and having dealt with some of the characters who make editing an article such as WikiPedia:Anarcho-capitalism such a tremendous pain in the ass, I think I have some idea why. WikiPedia is based on a surprisingly simple and surprisingly robust consensus process, but consensus processes have problems when faced with belligerent fanatics and self-appointed hall monitors, and controversial articles attract both. (The kind of editing that instant in-place revisions on web content makes easy also encourages certain kinds of incoherent mishmash that accumulate when the hall monitors make several lazy edits that attempt to do away with controversy by piling on endless qualifying phrases.)

As for the complaint that WikiPedia contributors don’t have an incentive to help produce good articles because they don’t make a profit from a good outcome, there are two things that I wish I understood better. (1) First, “profit:” when you assert that WikiPedia contributors don’t have a profit motive, what do you count as “profit”? Does it have to be monetary? (2) What sort of outcomes do you have in mind that would qualify as “good outcomes” for an information source? (Is it a single characteristic, or are there multiple characteristics? If multiple, are there any trade-offs involved?)