Wither Wikipedia?

My goodness:

Until now, Wikipedia has allowed anybody to make instant changes to almost all of its 2.7m entries, with only a handful of entries protected from being altered.

But under proposals put forward by the website's co-founder Jimmy Wales, many future changes to the site would need to be approved by a group of editors before going live.

The standard argument against Wikipedia is that it's not accurate: the standard Wiki booster argues that not only is it perfectly fine that way it is, but that it's more accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. So it seems strange that now Wales is proposing to up the accuracy quotient.

Of course, the thing about Wikipedia is that while it may be accurate at some point, it is really not at others:

On the day of Barack Obama's inauguration, the site reported the deaths of West Virginia's Robert Byrd - the longest-serving senator in American history - and Ted Kennedy, who has been diagnosed with a brain tumour and collapsed during the inaugural lunch.

How reliable is a 'pedia that is driven by misinformation and rumor? I know, an extremely uncool thing to say, and the mistake was fixed. But how many others aren't?

This move also seems antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia which, when you look at it, is more a social ideal than anything. That people working harmoniously together, building and sharing knowledge, is a cornerstone of the collaborative intelligence and social media movements. And we will gently police each other, smooth over mistakes, harbor no grudges, hard feelings, biases, etc...

I want what they're having.

Critique as My Point of View

This article from a site called The Daily Gorilla mourns the decline of more experienced reviews as internet reviews take their place:

The online blog and review culture of saying whatever is “cute, smart or attention-grabbing” gives less chance for context and leaves no room for reasoned discussion, Moon says. The problem is that few people have an extensive knowledge or understanding of what went into the work. As critics more and more simply report their visceral feelings, actually knowing something about music has become seemingly unnecessary.

Yes, this is probably the case, although not necessarily the case. Most people still put more credence in a newspaper review versus a blog post, though they may be reading the newspaper review online for free. This screws up the paper's revenue stream -- less eyeballs means less ad income -- but it's not going to stop anytime soon. As information circulates freely online, newspapers desperately need a new approach for income. What that might be escapes me; the first to think of a viable model wins a sack of cash.

I was also interested in reviewer Moon's take on the content of reviews; the professional has a historical understanding of the craft in question and is able to separate out his personal opinions from his critique. For instance, my 'professional' take on the movie Appaloosa might focus more on the unexpectedly heartwarming relationship between the two male leads, and how this is a departure from traditional western roles. My blog interpretation might harp on how annoying Renee Zellweger is trying to play a femme fatale who apparently squints all the time. All that New Mexico sun, I suppose .

The distinction is definitely not a hard and fast rule -- many blog reviews can be insightful and many print reviews can be dreadful. But this dichotomy speaks to two different approaches to reviews, and the decline of the insightful review in favor of the more easily accessible, shallow and emotive review.

The future of novels

I'm going to bypass all the stuff around literacy rates, because they confuse more than they clarify. I'm also not going to dignify the arguments that the novel is swirling around the cultural drain.

No, I'm going to focus on business models for publishing. Time has a great article about the changing business model of the book, as typified by the success story of one Lisa Genova. An aspiring novelist she did "everything right" within the traditional publishing framework: networked with agents, sent out lots of queries, etc. Nothing. But then, she paid a company $450 to publish the book herself. That was 2007. We rejoin our story in progress:

By 2008 people were reading Still Alice. Not a lot of people, but a few, and those few were liking it. Genova wound up getting an agent after all--and an offer from Simon & Schuster of just over half a million dollars. Borders and Target chose it for their book clubs. Barnes & Noble made it a Discover pick. On Jan. 25, Still Alice will make its debut on the New York Times best-seller list at No. 5.

So what's the moral of this story? That book editors are morons? (Maybe). That Lisa was lucky? (For sure, but only partly). Or perhaps that this was a success story where a persistant author gets her work out and starts growing an audience over time. A savvy publisher notices, and gives the author a book deal (smiles all around).

Who are the losers? Lisa G. wasted time, effort and likely some money, but that half a million dollar advance will help take the edge off. Simon and Schuster gets a young, proven author added to the roster. It seems to me, looking down this road, that the only losers here are the unnetworked -- ironically, many of which are book readers who disparage the web -- who won't have a say in the future of publishing.