<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM, <a href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com" target="_blank">larry@garfieldtech.com</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com" target="_blank">larry@garfieldtech.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Uh, Victor, you are aware that Wikipedia has a "team" of editors who correct, prune, and curate content far more actively than anyone on Drupal.org, right?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Well, that is a relatively recent development, isn't it? Their initial success at least was due to crowdsourcing, wasn't it? Can you prove they are doing better as a result?</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>Victor</div></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No it's always been like that since the beginning. But to say we only need one or the other is a false dichotomy. You need people who produce lots of content and people who can take the rough ideas and shape them into something coherent. Ideally perhaps everyone could do best but the pattern that emerges everywhere (publishing world, open source development, online wikipedias, etc) is that there's many producers who produce the bulk of the stuff with varying levels of quality and quantity and editors that give order and consistency to the whole. </div>
</div>