Expert Answers » Mission Statement
Expert Answers was founded to create a useful "knowledge network." The Expert Answers "knowledge network" is a useful network of subject focused websites that offer factual, timely and comprehensive information.
Why Expert Answers?
If "knowledge network" is just a fancy way of saying "reference website," then why does the world another one? Especially if one considers successful projects such as Wikipedia. As a small group of former Wikipedia editors we founded Expert Answers because we found the process of "group editing" to be tiresome and in-effective.
While "group editing" systems such as Wikipedia can work, in our experience it didn't. In every instance we participated in the Wiki model we found quarrelsome obstacles to overcome. What is most disheartening about it all is the fact these obstacles were being set in place by other volunteer editors.
After personal ill experiences we decided to create a seperate, closed editor system. Similar to Wikipedia, Expert Answers capitalizes on expert volunteers but we are in no way an "open system." Similar to About.com, Expert Answers provides private editor tools for human verified and validated "expert editors."
Similar to the folks at Wiki we too encourage open communications. If you a) think this is a great/bad/crazy idea b) have suggestions c) have ideas d) would like to help then please let us know.
Hey, Stop dissing Wiki!
No we aren't the only people who have criticisms. Here are some of our favorites.
- "It’s just my opinion, but I think that the people who run Wikipedia are being lax in regulating the process their contributors have to go through in order to add their edits to the site. It’s a bit like living in a community in which you assume that everyone is trying to coexist in a spirit of good will — but you’re still a fool if you don’t lock and bolt your door at night. Wikipedia has generally taken the position that their community of contributors should protect, patrol and correct themselves. The site backs up each different version of an article, so in theory nothing can be irreparably damaged or vandalized beyond rescue. While there has been talk of making Wikipedia contributors register with the site before they can perform edits on the encyclopedia’s articles, I recently made an edit on an article myself and was asked for no information at all. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, but I urge a more aggressive guarding of the gates — for its own sake."
-- Michael Fraley, "Wikipedia needs to take greater precautions," KPCNews.com (18 Dec. 2005). - "Wikipedia keeps getting in trouble because its open model—where anyone can write and edit entries—is an invitation for character assassination, ideological crusades and outright vandalism, as well as legitimate scholarship. [...] The result of Wikipedia's open editing system is predictable: Most contributors provide useful material, while a small number of "trolls" repeatedly deface the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also plagued by endless "revert wars," where dueling groups keep reversing each other's changes to controversial articles. This undermines the credibility of Wikipedia, which now offers an unprecedented 857,000 articles in English, along with versions in more than 100 other languages. Wikipedia is becoming a first reference stop for millions of people, from schoolchildren to journalists, including me. But many of these users don't realize a small percentage of articles are flawed. Even more troubling, there's no way to know when you've hit one of those defective entries. That's why I never put a fact from Wikipedia into one of my columns without first double-checking it elsewhere. [...] Wikipedia is now big enough, with a core group of 13,000 active volunteers, to pre-screen all of its contents. New entries and edits could still be submitted—even anonymously—by any visitor to the Wikipedia site but would be placed in a kind of holding pen until one of the trusted volunteers took a look and said OK."
-- Mike Langberg, "Wikipedia needs safeguards that work," The Mercury News (11 Dec. 2005).
Thank you to Wikipedia for providing us with these quotes :).