Wikipedia talk:Success factors

Untitled

Any comments are very welcome!

Success Factors - Comment

The suggested theoretical model summarizes very well the requirements for successful knowledge supply. Despite the fact that Wikipedia users are people of all ages and with different educational backgrounds, I do believe that there is only a specific type of audience which participates actively in the creation and the discussion of the website content. It is rarely the case that a person who does not have a certain level of expertise would be able to comment intelligently on a published article. Definitely, another requirement is the possession of the necessary computer skills. However, what matters most of all, in my opinion, is the user’s interest, creativity and readiness to discuss the topic openly. Still, we should also take into consideration the more passive part of the users, namely the ones who use Wikipedia only from time to time for finding concise information. The characteristics that these people have may be much more general and quite similar to the ones of the average Internet user. Nevertheless, it is important that the information that is available on Wikipedia is up-to-date, covers a large magnitude of topics, is easily accessible, and responds to the needs of both target groups.

Check this out...

Check out this essay on Wikipedia's success factors - you can read it at:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/A_small_scale_study_of_Wikipedia

Probably more interesting than the essay itself are the responses to the questionnaire, which are available in the appendices to the essay...

...also this,

Joseph Reagle has written some excellent papers on Wikipedia - the first one here is a historical background to the development of encyclopedias leading to Wikipedia: http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/historical/digital-works.html http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html There is really plenty written on Wikipedia (and its success) and you can find these from wiki bibliographies, such as: http://bibliography.wikimedia.de/ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Bibliography (you will be able to access far more papers, seeing as you speak German).

Openess Important

For me, the success of Wikipedia is based on its openness, ie. anyone can edit (this is how people get involved, and thereby join the community). But even this can be problematised - putting the focus on Wikipedians, as you are doing, openness could also be viewed as how open we are to criticism from other points of view, and how well we work in a collaborative space.

Motivation matters

I would really suggest someone would downscale that opening image.

My 2 cents on the Motives of intellectuals

"Why would highly qualified people get involved with Wikipedia? Why should any researcher care about it, since it's not a serious reference work?"

First of all, what does serious mean? Serious can mean:

• timely and up to date
• open to change all the time, with no unalterable dogmas
• immune to political or economic pressure

Wikipedia provides free, unlimited server space and well-designed page construction tools for anyone doing something that fits within the Wikipedia mission and doesn't care about owning the information; a description that matches the archetypal academic researcher. Academics generally get their jobs because they like learning and/or teaching others. Wikipedia provides both.

It can be fun for intellectually serious people if we know that we're creating something of quality. It's part of the volunteer ethic — the joy of helping others. And many people believe that Wikipedia is creating something of quality here. See also Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Wikipedia_can_never_be_high_quality

Tony7444 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

polishing this essay

Hi, I came across this essay by way of Wikipedia:About -> Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great#Success Factors, so it needs to be polished enough to suitable for new readers. As a result, I've made a few adjustments. Any objections to my changes or ideas on how it can be further polished? There are some interesting comments above that we should probably integrate. John Vandenberg 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)