 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopaedia. Yet it differs drastically from conventional encyclopaedia projects in the dynamism of editing, the relatively ahierarchical organisation, and the low barriers to participation. Which attitudes, norms and culture of interaction are conducive to the purpose under such circumstances?
- Ideal norms
- Professionalism, content-orientation
- Caveats
- Scalability and sustainability of norms[1]
- Dangerous norms
- Frivolity, malice and power-hunger[2]
Footnotes
edit- ^ Case study: Assessment procedures, most successfully featured articles process. This drives high-quality encyclopaedia quality and more importantly norms, without discouraging new or less competent contributors to the wider project. Good Articles sucks in mid-level contributors and infects them with quality-driven norms.
- ^ Proposed course of action: discourage, punish, and diminish status respectively.