Wikipedia articles drift in quality over time. Some days they get better, some days they get worse.
The big question is whether Wikipedia as a whole will continue to improve, or whether it will "peak out" and gradually slide downhill. It's very difficult to say, since there are no precedents in the area.
Or are there?
Written between 600 and 800 B.C., the Iliad is the ultimate model for successful longterm asynchronous collaboration. Arguably the greatest story ever told, this epic was passed down from generation to generation. Each poet was free to add a little here or subtract a little there. The end result? Perfection.
This process is much the same as is used to create Wikipedia today. Which is hugely exciting, if only because it means that Wikipedia has the potential to be every bit as good. But there's no guarantee.
The biggest differences between the two projects are the social incentives involved.
1) The Iliad would have taken years to learn, but once memorized would have acted as a huge source of social capital.
2) Because of the time invested and the social capital at risk, petty vandalism was unlikely.
3) The project attracted only experts. Not because the Greeks were credentialist, but simply because of the intellectual barriers involved.
4) It's safe to say that the epic poets weren't going for edit count.
In the short term Wikipedia continues to improve, but in the long term it's hard to say. If we want Wikipedia to retain its value ten, twenty, or one-hundred years from now then perhaps we should design the social incentives of wiki contribution to mimic those of the oral tradition.
Either way, the next century for Wikipedia will be a hell of an Odyssey.
Comments