Wikipedia

ThoughtStorms Wiki

Wiki encyclopedia : http://www.wikipedia.org - (read with DemocratizeScepticism)

(now 1 million articles : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimediapressreleases/OnemillionWikipediaarticles%28US%29/Print))

On the reliability :

Trace who's editing : http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

See Guardian article today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1335892,00.html

Usual sniffy stuff from librarians and the editor of Britannica, but overall the coverage is positive. (SJ)

Excllent comment by MattJones on AuthorityVsAutonomy in the reliability of wikipedia debate.

: Like this comment : I haven't spent a lot of time looking at the wikipedia, but I would expect that it would do better at the smaller, fact-centric articles than at broader, "put-it-all-together" articles. (See also : MicroContent)

** ClayShirky defends : http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/05/25/newsofwikipediasdeathgreatly_exaggerated.php

:: We’ve said it here before: Openness allows for innovation. Innovation creates value. Value creates incentive. If that were all there was, it would be a virtuous circle, because the incentive would be to create more value. But incentive is value-neutral, so it also creates distortions — free riders, attempts to protect value by stifling competition, and so on. And distortions threaten openess.

::As a result, successful open systems create the very conditions that require a threaten openess. Systems that handle this pressure effectively continue (Slashdot comments.) Systems that can’t or don’t find ways to balance openess and closedness — to become semi-protected — fail (Usenet.)

::A huge number of our current systems are hanging in the balance, because the more valuable a system, the greater the incentive for free-riding. Our largest and most spontaneous sources of conversation and collaboration are busily being retrofit with filters and logins and distributed ID systems, in an attempt to save some of what is good about openess while defending against Wiki spam, email spam, comment spam, splogs, and other attempts at free-riding. Wikipedia falls into that category.

** ZbigniewLukasiak says Shirky misses the point : http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/2006/05/founding-myth-and-reality.html

** RossMayfield : http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/nickcarris_th.html

Other stories

: My response : Surely Wikipedia doesn't need to be the web in miniature. If it was, why would we need it? Every webpage would be part of webipedia.

: There's something that makes a wikipedia page interesting and distinct. And that thing must come from both the community and the "rules of engagement" and the style guide.

: The next wiki / community might have a very different opinion mediated through it's different rules.

(See also : PersonalWiki, WikiIsLikeLanguage)

See also :

  • KarlPopper / CriticalRationalism - and particularly Popper's criticism of authority. Although the role of reputation is interesting. (See the Mayfield piece) How much does it correspond to "authority"?

: Introducing reputation for contributors or articles is the greatest risk to the Wikipedia community. Could lock in the old-guard and their received wisdom. Could introduce perverse incentives (Also OnIncentives)

  • The emphasis on "authority" is fairly lame, but I'm starting to wonder how much the idea of security through social structure (ie. reputation systems) is becoming the important idea of epistemological justification in NetoCracy (More on ConspiracyTheories)

Contrast :

New page : Wikipedia

Bookmarked 2021-01-15T13:52:49.940057: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/15/wikipedia-at-20-last-gasp-of-an-internet-vision-or-a-beacon-to-a-better-future

Backlinks (35 items)

Page Last Modified @ Tue Jun 14 00:29:33 BST 2022 Exported from CardiganBay @ 2024-10-28T13:42:48.468520140