He also says stuff about Everipedia and Greaterwiki and blockchain which I found too wordy and uninteresting to really follow. But I'd like to hear everyone's take.Larry Sanger wrote:Forget tens of thousands — why doesn’t Wikipedia have millions of regular voting contributors?
Why does Wikipedia have just one article on each topic? With the massive amount of traffic it gets today, in 2018, surely there could be many competing articles. There could be competition. Are Wikipedians afraid of competition?
Why aren’t Wikipedia articles, and versions of articles, rated by experts and by the general public? Why aren’t those ratings posted publicly? Doesn’t Wikipedia trust the general public to rate its content?
Why isn’t it much easier to contribute — and in lots of different ways? Surely we can make it much easier. Why do we have to use this shoddy, 1990s editorial interface?
And why is Wikipedia so insular, often driving away new contributors over minor issues and rarely polling its readers about what they want? One gets the sense that Wikipedians are writing for themselves, not for us.
Wikipediocracy has a thread on this but you never know if it will be locked.
Also Larry agrees with me about deletionism being a problem. He's an inclusionist.