Look Who's Using Wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Frederick Noronha
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html

Look Who's Using Wikipedia
Thursday, Mar. 01, 2007 By BILL TANCER
The Wikipedia home page

Poor Wikipedia. Professional Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing one of its
contributors for a defamatory cyber-attack. And last year, television
host and comedian Stephen Colbert urged his audience to vandalize a
Wikipedia entry about elephants to prove the point that in a model
where any user can edit encyclopedia entries, those entries are only
as good as their source. Take the case of retired journalist John
Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy,
who was wrongfully accused of involvement in the assassination of
Robert and John Kennedy by an anonymous Wikipedia contributor in 2005.
Given the controversy stirring around Wikipedia, the history
department at Middlebury College has banned its use as a research
source. When did the online form of the dust-covered encyclopedia
become such a magnet for drama?

Academics are split on the usefulness of Wikipedia, which bills itself
as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The sheer volume of
content (Wikipedia claims over 5.3 million entries, 1.6 million in
English) is partly responsible for the site's dominance as an online
reference. When compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites
in the U.S., Wikipedia is #1, capturing 24.3% of all visits to the
category, according to Hitwise data. But as the recent drama
illustrates, a body of online knowledge built by an army of 75,000
volunteer, anonymous contributors and editors is prone to anything
from simple benign errors to outright information vandalism.

Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this
powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core
groups of Wikipedia users are school children.

Determining the extent to which students leverage Wikipedia requires
some data detective work. The search terms that users enter to
navigate to the site are the most revealing. Along with searches for
various anime cartoons, sex topics and information on the most
recently shorn, exposed or departed celebrities, the majority of top
terms bear a close resemblance to elementary school homework and
research projects. During the month of February, which is also Black
History month, three of the top 20 terms sending traffic to Wikipedia
were for prominent black historical figures, while two other searches
were likely motivated by President's Day. In fact, changing
time-frames to any other month during the school year reveals a
similar result. (Source: Hitwise)

Along with the impressive growth in visits to the site, 680% in two
years, charting those visits over time confirms student activity. Over
the last three years of growth, traffic dipped during the summer
months and the weeks of spring break and winter vacation.

One of the reasons for Wikipedia's stellar growth rate in visits is
all the traffic it receives from search engines, over 64% last week.
In fact, due to Google's algorithm for displaying search results and
the abundance of links in any given entry, Wikipedia has become the #1
external site visited after Google's search page.

As students begin their online research, they could view the
prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy
and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer
volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of
relying on a single source for their education. Hopefully their
research projects won't involve elephants or professional golfers.

Bill Tancer is general manager of global research at Hitwise.
--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Stan Shebs-2

> As students begin their online research, they could view the
> prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy
> and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer
> volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of
> relying on a single source for their education.
What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our
sources and references and external links, and use those for citations
instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to
drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as
references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those
books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out
nonstop.

Stan


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

M. Williamson
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.

I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
coverage.

However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
when it comes to POV).

Mark

On 06/03/07, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > As students begin their online research, they could view the
> > prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy
> > and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer
> > volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of
> > relying on a single source for their education.
> What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our
> sources and references and external links, and use those for citations
> instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to
> drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as
> references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those
> books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out
> nonstop.
>
> Stan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

David Goodman
Well, using "we" in a more specific sense, we librarians mostly teach
the use of Wikipedia as a convenient first step, in order to get basic
information which can then be used to select the proper index or other
resource. I personally teach it using the concept of it as a filter to
the web.
In addition to printed books,  I try to add links   to the best
available online material, and also to the best available online
material that is available without subscription.

On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
>
> I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
> source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
> encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
> coverage.
>
> However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
> health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
> discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
> cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
> Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
> when it comes to POV).
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/03/07, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > As students begin their online research, they could view the
> > > prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy
> > > and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer
> > > volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of
> > > relying on a single source for their education.
> > What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our
> > sources and references and external links, and use those for citations
> > instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to
> > drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as
> > references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those
> > books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out
> > nonstop.
> >
> > Stan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Frederick Noronha [फ़रेदरिक नोरोनया] فريدريك نورونيا
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN

> On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
> >
> > I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
> > source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
> > encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
> > coverage.
> >
> > However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
> > health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
> > discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
> > cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
> > Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
> > when it comes to POV).
> >
> > Mark


--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Subsume
Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent
end products. FREE.

Weak: Entrenched in committess and committees and committees.
Overemphasis on Western and internet culture. Emergent 'Elite Class'
of editors and admins who not only know the ropes, but create the
ropes.

-S

On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
> in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
>
> > On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
> > >
> > > I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
> > > source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
> > > encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
> > > coverage.
> > >
> > > However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
> > > health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
> > > discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
> > > cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
> > > Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
> > > when it comes to POV).
> > >
> > > Mark
>
>
> --
> FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Ronald Chmara
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha [फ़रेदरिक नोरोनया] فريدريك نورونيا

On Mar 6, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Frederick Noronha wrote:

> Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
> in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIAS

-Bop


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Subsume
I was thinking he meant subject areas, but you are right here.

The worst of all is that anyone who mentions the increasingly
hierarchial structure of our communities and the virtual impunity
afforded to certain persons (especially admins in medium-sized Wikis,
who often rule like dictators), they are instantly perceived as
anti-Wiki and/or paranoid.

The simple fact is, there _is_ a cabal now. In fact, there are
multiple cabals. They just call themselves different things. The
Board, Arbcom, etc. etc. etc., the number of admins now is so great
that it really is almost like real life, where people are divided by
class. Will people inherit admin accounts from their parents?
(kidding... mostly)

Ever since I joined, the community has been moving more and more in
this direction. I did not take things totally seriously here until it
was suggested in a serious tone that if I were just a couple of years
older, I should be _killed_ for the whole Zlatiborian fracas and that
it was "people like me" who were responsible for the turbulent recent
history of Southeast Europe.

Our community has faced several major trials, and we have pulled
through all but (an early) one of them almost completely intact.
However, I am afraid that will not always be the case. Although we're
growing larger, it doesn't seem to me that we're growing much smarter,
and I think we will end up with mass exoduses and large portions of
our community breaking off and forming similarly-sized competing
projects. I do not think this future is in the best interests of the
movement, it does not fit our aims, surely divided we shall fall.

And I know most of you will blow this off as utter nonsense, you will
say it's not going to happen, but if we continue on our present course
I promise you it will for the wicked are among us and it is only a
matter of time before the Wiki-empire falls into tiny pieces. Mark my
words, in two months, six months, two years, however long it takes for
us to crumble, if anyone remembers this e-mail they will know that I
was right.

Mark

On 06/03/07, Steve <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent
> end products. FREE.
>
> Weak: Entrenched in committess and committees and committees.
> Overemphasis on Western and internet culture. Emergent 'Elite Class'
> of editors and admins who not only know the ropes, but create the
> ropes.
>
> -S
>
> On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
> > in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
> >
> > > On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
> > > >
> > > > I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
> > > > source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
> > > > encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
> > > > coverage.
> > > >
> > > > However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
> > > > health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
> > > > discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
> > > > cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
> > > > Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
> > > > when it comes to POV).
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> >
> >
> > --
> > FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> > http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> > What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Ronald Chmara

On Mar 6, 2007, at 10:19 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> The worst of all is that anyone who mentions the increasingly
> hierarchial structure of our communities and the virtual impunity
> afforded to certain persons (especially admins in medium-sized Wikis,
> who often rule like dictators), they are instantly perceived as
> anti-Wiki and/or paranoid.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR> exists for a reason, and for  
me, that reason is to totally bypass bureaucratic wonks and trolls  
who get their rocks off from wiki-lawyering, and constantly  
complaining about process, pet projects, pet issues, etc.

> The simple fact is, there _is_ a cabal now. In fact, there are
> multiple cabals. They just call themselves different things. The
> Board, Arbcom, etc. etc. etc., the number of admins now is so great
> that it really is almost like real life, where people are divided by
> class. Will people inherit admin accounts from their parents?
> (kidding... mostly)

IAR.

We have people who jaywalk in real life, who deviate above the speed  
limit, etc. We also have murderers and pedophiles on wikipedia.  
Nature of the beast.

> Ever since I joined, the community has been moving more and more in
> this direction. I did not take things totally seriously here until it
> was suggested in a serious tone that if I were just a couple of years
> older, I should be _killed_ for the whole Zlatiborian fracas and that
> it was "people like me" who were responsible for the turbulent recent
> history of Southeast Europe.

I take it you haven't been on the internet for very long.

> Our community has faced several major trials, and we have pulled
> through all but (an early) one of them almost completely intact.
> However, I am afraid that will not always be the case. Although we're
> growing larger, it doesn't seem to me that we're growing much smarter,
> and I think we will end up with mass exoduses and large portions of
> our community breaking off and forming similarly-sized competing
> projects. I do not think this future is in the best interests of the
> movement, it does not fit our aims, surely divided we shall fall.

<Insert ranting counter-slogan here.> Whatever. I don't have any  
reason to care. I'm not writing or editing for "wikipedia", I'm  
writing and editing for people 300, 800, years from now. If we have a  
break into, oh, a wikia community of people obsessed with Manga,  
great! Less noise! Break into "vettedscholarpedia", cool! I only care  
that we have more vehicles for carrying information.

> And I know most of you will blow this off as utter nonsense, you will
> say it's not going to happen, but if we continue on our present course
> I promise you it will for the wicked are among us and it is only a
> matter of time before the Wiki-empire falls into tiny pieces. Mark my
> words, in two months, six months, two years, however long it takes for
> us to crumble, if anyone remembers this e-mail they will know that I
> was right.

Sweet. Now, mark *my* words: The reason a species dies out is because  
something else, or having nothing else, is better. I *hope* that  
either wikipedia, or something 10 times better, is around in 300-800  
years. I don't give a damn what rules it has, or what it's called, or  
who runs it, or how (I plan on being dead by then). The Library of  
Alexandria wasn't built because text authors gave a damn about what  
the politics of turkey would be like in 300 years. Heck, with forks  
in the empire, we have even *more* survivability over the next 800  
years.

I just don't have the vanity, or smug self importance, left, to think  
that I'm anything more than just another contributor to a possible  
vast knowledge base for the future.

-Bop

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Subsume
> I just don't have the vanity, or smug self importance, left, to think
> that I'm anything more than just another contributor to a possible
> vast knowledge base for the future.
>
> -Bop

Maybe, but at least you have enough smug self importance left to show
be utterly dismissive.

Enjoyed the rant. Thanks for emphasizing IAR. You're obviously
glossing over lots but I'm pretty sure that was half way your
intention.

-S

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha [फ़रेदरिक नोरोनया] فريدريك نورونيا
Hoi.
Wikipedia is very much lacking in all areas.. What Wikipedia are you
talking about; it is not the same situation on all Wikipedias.. On the
English Wikipedia I would say that subjects to do with Africa, Asia and
South America could use a lot of refinement. One topic I think is
worrisome is the lack of a full picture for Iran. It really makes it
easy to paint them as a villain when there is so little public knowledge
about the people, the country and the culture.

The en.wikipedia is strong on Pokemon, when there is an invasion of
these creatures we know all there is to know about them. :)

Thanks,
   GerardM


Frederick Noronha schreef:

> Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
> in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
>
>  
>> On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
>>>
>>> I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
>>> source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
>>> encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
>>> coverage.
>>>
>>> However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
>>> health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
>>> discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
>>> cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
>>> Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
>>> when it comes to POV).
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>      
>
>
>  


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Stan Shebs-2
Stan Shebs wrote:

>>As students begin their online research, they could view the
>>prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy
>>and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer
>>volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of
>>relying on a single source for their education.
>>    
>>
>What we *really* want is for people to pass through WP on the way to our
>sources and references and external links, and use those for citations
>instead of WP. I think we say that somewhere, but what else can we do to
>drive home the point? I've added some really topnotch books as
>references for articles, and yet when I go back to the library, those
>books are still sitting on the shelves, when they should be checked out
>nonstop.
>
As the messengers we can very well say, "Don't shoot the messenger."  
Anyone whose not a virgin newbie to Wikipedia is aware of the
limitations that you state.  I generally agree with those teachers who
reject Wikipedia as the sole source on which students base their
articles, but it would be inappropriate to downgrade an essay simply
because it uses Wikipedia as one source amoung others.

The real failing is with those educational establishments who have
neglected to give students, from a very early stage, the tools with
which to critically evaluate the information that they receive.  Instead
of viewing the internet as a source of mischief to be turned off, it is
important that teachers and parents alike recognize it as a primary
source of information for students.  The paradox that educators find
themselves in is that the student who makes judgements about the
information he receives online is also likely to use the same criteria
for making similar judgements about information provided by the educators.

Ec


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Subsume
On 07/03/07, Steve <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent
> end products. FREE.


NPOV. In my opinion that's much more radical an innovation than merely
letting any idiot edit your website.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html

"Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this
powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core groups
of Wikipedia users are school children."


OH MY GOD TEH CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!???

;-)

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

David Still
Jimbo Wales doesn't care about children. Film at 11.

On 3/7/07, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
>
> "Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this
> powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core groups
> of Wikipedia users are school children."
>
>
> OH MY GOD TEH CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!???
>
> ;-)
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Berto 'd Sera-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
HOI!

>The en.wikipedia is strong on Pokemon, when there is an invasion of
>these creatures we know all there is to know about them. :)

ROTFL! This is one of the funniest ways to tell a tragic truth I've ever
seen :) It's true. Once again, a wiki is but a reflection (a summa, if you
like latin) of the community writing it.

In the middle ages monks would write a lot about proto-martyrs that did not
even exist, in the current middle ages us monks like anime... virtual sex
happens to be an eternal human feature, ever since Aphrodite was invented
and people could dream of Her and Apollon :)

The Wikimedia tribe did not invent our carelessness for enemies either.
Subject like Iran are not interesting to westerners AND are little
self-promoting. There is a big number of Iranians who speak English, I don't
see much activity from them, either. As it often happens, the Byzantine and
the Parthian emperor will probably ignore each other until a weird Arab guy
won't kill them both. It's a pity for our will to influence society by
spreading awareness and culture, but it's also a reflection of what our
societies really want at ground-zero level.

As per wiki-layering, possible split editions and Committees... there never
was a human society that did not evolve into a class layering system. The
problem is that here we do not have anything that will protect anyone from
arbitrary moves from the "powers".

That is, nobody knows what the Board can do but basically we all think they
are local Tamerlans. In reality it's more like Ceasars, because they do
depend from the popularity they get among us plebeians. If we got upset, we
could get rid of them. But there are NO written rules. So it's all a matter
of negotiating the mood of the judge. We love to talk about anarchy and
democracy but... in reality we just moved from the fortunate period of King
Jimbo to a kind of large triumvirate and have no Magna Charta whatsoever.
Isn't this interesting?

BTW, saying that we are "plebeians" is but a giant lie. Plebeians work out
there making up links and articles, while us senators sit here and complain
that the House of the Emperor is centralizing too much power... There ARE
barriers to an enlarged participation. One is the English language; the
other is what in the old times was called "social engineering". That is, the
capability to get something from the people. Not everyone is capable to do
it, so not everyone will want to (be capable to) be a senator, in real life
as here. So that 0,5% of people who sit here and read meta can hardly be
labeled as "plebeians". And yes, since language capability and social
(should I say "political"?) attitudes are mostly the product of family
education... chances are that our places will be transmitted to our kids.
Let's be real about it. Wikipedia is just a bit of life, and life is like
that. We may want to change it (I do) but then we have to work on it, and
not simply be ironical about it.

Anyway, wikipedia is also just another living human society. As all such
bodies it has a living cycle. It has been young, now it's getting older. One
day it will die, and it will spread its kids in virtual space. There's
nothing wrong with it, it's the way Nature works. It applies to languages,
nations, political parties, religions and Carnaby Street's miniskirt fad,
too.

Technology will get older and the wikimedia machine will look simply
ridiculous (as a visicalc looks today). So you can also get ready for the
time in which we will have to think about migrating content to more
"contemporary" platforms (kids at that time will say "not fossile"), while
people will have PHP emulators run a "real wiki" on their machines. It's
happened with pacman, it will happen with us, too.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Berto 'd Sera-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Hoi!

>NPOV. In my opinion that's much more radical an innovation than merely
>letting any idiot edit your website.

Yes, it's the first time that our western culture embarks in the project of
exporting its good sides, instead of simply bombing those who happen not to
be telepathic.

My concern is that very little people realize how little NPOV is an easily
understood concept. If you go down to it it's the root of expressions like
"democracy", "human right", etc. Waste this and what you have is but a posh
chat-line about philosophers...

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia

Walter van Kalken
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
Maybe a daft question .... but ..... What is so alarming about children
using wikipedia?

Waerth

>http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html
>
>"Search and Internet behavior data provide alarming insight into this
>powerful but volatile resource — alarming because one of the core groups
>of Wikipedia users are school children."
>
>
>OH MY GOD TEH CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!???
>
>;-)
>
>--Jimbo
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia ... gerardm

Walter van Kalken
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
The problem is with the current rules on en.wikipedia which are totally
geared towards western style relevance and references ,and the bias
amongst editors,  it is difficult to get the same debt for Africa, Asia
and South America. Something has got to give. And the rules will never
be changed because of the western pov of most of our editors. So we will
have to accept that we will be weak in these areas forever. Or somehow
with a miracle an exception clause has to be made for topics regarding
this area.

Waerth

>Hoi.
>Wikipedia is very much lacking in all areas.. What Wikipedia are you
>talking about; it is not the same situation on all Wikipedias.. On the
>English Wikipedia I would say that subjects to do with Africa, Asia and
>South America could use a lot of refinement. One topic I think is
>worrisome is the lack of a full picture for Iran. It really makes it
>easy to paint them as a villain when there is so little public knowledge
>about the people, the country and the culture.
>
>The en.wikipedia is strong on Pokemon, when there is an invasion of
>these creatures we know all there is to know about them. :)
>
>Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
>Frederick Noronha schreef:
>  
>
>>Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong
>>in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
>>
>>  
>>    
>>
>>>On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>    
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
>>>>
>>>>I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary
>>>>source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would
>>>>encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide
>>>>coverage.
>>>>
>>>>However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their
>>>>health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would
>>>>discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some
>>>>cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to
>>>>Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress
>>>>when it comes to POV).
>>>>
>>>>Mark
>>>>      
>>>>        
>>>>
>>  
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Look Who's Using Wikipedia ... gerardm

Berto 'd Sera-2

Hoi!

> current rules on en.wikipedia
Which ones? I'm interested and willing to help, just specify, pls.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
123