Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: Deletionists, inclusionis. “When you come to a fork in the road,” Yogi Berra said, “take it.” Wikipedia has come to a fork in the road, and it should pay heed to Berra’s advice. The rules that govern how the popular online encyclopedia works are set by its community of contributors – the so-called wikipedians – through a process of argument and consensus-building. But the community has begun to split into two warring camps with contrary philosophies about Wikipedia’s identity and purpose. On one side are the deletionists; on the other are the inclusionists. The adherents of inclusionism believe that there should be no constraints on the breadth of the encyclopedia – that Wikipedia should include any entry that any contributor wants to submit. Deletionism is a philosophy held by some Wikipedians that favors clear and relatively rigorous standards for accepting articles, templates or other pages to the encyclopedia.
There is an Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, with 207 members at the moment. Ross Mayfield's Weblog: Learning from Wikipedia. A closing Keynote by Mitch Kapor at OSBC. Kinda cool to see Mitch give this talk, as he has a strong interest in the community process behind Wikipedia and I joined him in Frankfurt at the Wikimania conference. Matt Asay: Grateful to finally have Mitch here. First interaction was for the organizational meeting for a industry lobbying group two years ago in Santa Clara. He was quietly typing in the corner, and I was kind of amazed that this unassuming guy was contributing. It can't possibly work. Zen masters give you something to meditate on, like the sound of one hand clapping, for you to muse over for years in a cave.
Myths include someone has to be in charge. Anyone can edit any article at any time -- the very openess that leads perpetually for opportunities for improvement. I became convinced that Wikipedia was going to be the next big thing. 1978 the Apple II 1982 Lotus 1-2-3 1992 UUNET, one of the first ISPs. 1995 Real Networks 2005 Mozilla/Firefox Community. Vision. Mission. The WikiScanner: Mining underneath t. Wikipedia has been around for some time now, growing the number and the length of its articles like microorganisms in a Petri dish, powered by anonymous contributors. But how anonymous are they and how well intentioned each of them?
How reliable is the information added and is it secured from being deleted or distorted? These questions are far from being news. They were addressed since 2005, when Congressmen or the e-voting machine-vendor Diebold were in the center of attention for modifying Wiki-content in their advantage. That was when people became aware of the vulnerability present in Wikipedia.
As Wired informs us, Virgil Griffith was among those concerned people at the time. Among other interesting things, he says that Wikipedia can be considered reliable on neutral topics, but surely not when it comes to controversial topics, where misinformation can be applied by interested parties under the layer of anonymity. Be Sociable, Share! The Right Way To Fix Inaccurate Wikipedia Articles. Suppose your company, boss or political candidate discovers that their Wikipedia article is wrong, or has subtle inaccuracies that nonetheless paint them in an unfavorable light? Most people unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works consider only two solutions: edit the article or sit on their hands. Unfortunately, neither approach typically results in the optimal outcome: a factually accurate profile containing trustworthy information. Search marketers and reputation management professionals should know that there are legitimate ways to correct errors in Wikipedia.
Knowing the right way to fix things is even more important now that Wikipedia results frequently appear in the top listings of Google search results. My last column looked at examples of inappropriate editing originating from a United States Congress IP address—meaning one politician’s staff was attempting to use Wikipedia for less than ethical purposes. The most serious problem occurred in the second paragraph. Blog. Five Things Wikipedia's Founder Has Learned About Online Co. Assessing the value of cooperation in Wikipedia. Reference desk. WP:RD redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Redirect, Wikipedia:Revision deletion or Wikipedia:Deletion review.
For information on any topic, choose a category for your question: For help specific to the operation of Wikipedia: For Wikipedia reference information: Further information Wikipedia department directory The following images are being used under the GNU FDL and/or the CC-BY-SA license:P computing.svg, P physics.svg, P mathematics.svg, P question.svg, P art.png, P literature.svg, P music.svg, P archive.svg. Wikimetrics. Dirk Riehle: How and Why Wikipedia Works: An Interview with Ange. See here for a citable reference of this interview (as well as errata) and here for the paper's PDF. The article was featured in a Harvard Business School case and is included in other corpora as well. This work is made available under the Creative Commons BY-SA license. This article presents an interview with Angela Beesley, Elisabeth Bauer, and Kizu Naoko. All three are leading Wikipedia practitioners in the English, German, and Japanese Wikipedias and related projects.
The interview focuses on how Wikipedia works and why these three practitioners believe it will keep working. The interview was conducted via email in preparation of WikiSym 2006, the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis, with the goal of furthering Wikipedia research [1]. Categories and Subject Descriptors H.4 Information Systems Applications, K.3 Computers and Education, K.4 Computers and Society General Terms Design, Economics, Human Factors Keywords Dirk Riehle (DR): Hello! Angela Beesley (AB): I am Angela Beesley. Social computation and creativity » Blog Archive » Was Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales, a founder of Wikipedia in his recent talks suggests that Wikipedia is not a technological innovation, but a purely social one: When Wikipedia was started in 2001, all of its technology and software elements had been around since 1995.
Its innovation was entirely social - free licensing of content, neutral point of view, and total openness to participants, especially new ones. The core engine of Wikipedia, as a result, is “a community of thoughtful users, a few hundred volunteers who know each other and work to guarantee the quality and integrity of the work.” In his view, Wikipedia is not an emergent phenomena of the wisdom of crowds, where thousands of independent individuals contribute each a bit of their knowledge, but instead is a relatively well connected small community, pretty much like any traditional organization, e.g. one that created Encyclopedia Britannica.
Jimmy suggests that the Wikipedia technology and software had been around since 1995. Just Shelley » Wikipedia and nofollow. Search Wikia - search - A Wikia wiki. Wikiseek - Search Wikipedia and its external links. Apophenia: Wikipedia, academia and Seigenthaler. For the last couple of weeks, i’ve been watching the Wikipedia bru-ha-ha. As folks probably know, i got really upset a while back when folks were talking about Wikipedia being the essential collection of knowledge, meant to replace school books and other refereed knowledge containers. I still strongly believe that Wikipedia will not be that. But Jimmy Wales reminded me that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a library replacement. It should be the first source of information, not the last.
So, when i heard about Seigenthaler, i rolled my eyes. Seigenthaler had a very reasonable conversation with Wikipedia, telling them of the troubles. What pissed me off more was how the academic community pointed to this case and went “See! And then, as if i couldn’t be more cranky, i watched Internet Researchers take up the same anti-Wikipedia argument. Imagine that we are designing a restaurant. All too often we blame the technology for problematic human behaviors. WIKINOMICS | HOME. Results of Wikipedia Research. These are some of the drafts that went into my dissertation on Wikipedia. Open Content Communities In this brief essay I sketch the characteristics of an open content community by considering a number of prominent examples, reviewing sociological literature, teasing apart the concepts of open and voluntary implicit in most usages of the term, and I offer a definition in which the much maligned possibility of "forking" is actually an integral aspect of openness.
Four Short Stories about the Reference Work Many histories can be written of the reference work. There is the chronicle of technical and institutional forces intertwined in the production of the book: of conquest, co-option, trade wars, empire and religion. Also, there's the drama of clashing conservative and progressive impulses: the expectation for the humble reference work to fixate the social order, or to shatter it and form a new realization of social possibility. Is the Wikipedia Neutral? Article about Negatives of Collective Intelligence (with rebutle. On "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" By Jaron Lanier Responses to Lanier's essay from Douglas Rushkoff, Quentin Hardy, Yochai Benkler, Clay Shirky, Cory Doctorow, Kevin Kelly, Esther Dyson, Larry Sanger, Fernanda Viegas & Martin Wattenberg, Jimmy Wales, George Dyson, Dan Gillmor, Howard Rheingold Now, another big idea is taking hold, but this time it's more painful for some people to embrace, even to contemplate.
It's nothing less than the migration from individual mind to collective intelligence. I call it "here comes everybody", and it represents, for good or for bad, a fundamental change in our notion of who we are. In other words, we are witnessing the emergence of a new kind of person. Lately, there's been a lot of news concerning the Wikipedia and other user-generated websites such as Myspace, Flickr, and others. "At first, it seemed like the sort of silly, self-serving thing that many companies are wont to say about their products. "The mass. . — Clay Shirky. An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility.
DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism By Ja. Wiki. Type of website that visitors can edit A wiki ( WIK-ee) is an online hypertext publication collaboratively edited and managed by its own audience, using a web browser. A typical wiki contains multiple pages for the subjects or scope of the project, and could be either open to the public or limited to use within an organization for maintaining its internal knowledge base.
Wikis are enabled by wiki software, otherwise known as wiki engines. The online encyclopedia project, Wikipedia, is the most popular wiki-based website, and is one of the most widely viewed sites in the world, having been ranked in the top twenty since 2007.[3] Wikipedia is not a single wiki but rather a collection of hundreds of wikis, with each one pertaining to a specific language. In addition to Wikipedia, there are hundreds of thousands of other wikis in use, both public and private, including wikis functioning as knowledge management resources, note-taking tools, community websites, and intranets. Characteristics. The New Yorker: Fact. Stigmergy - Wikipedia, the free encycloped. Stigmergy is a mechanism of indirect coordination between agents or actions.[1] The principle is that the trace left in the environment by an action stimulates the performance of a next action, by the same or a different agent. In that way, subsequent actions tend to reinforce and build on each other, leading to the spontaneous emergence of coherent, apparently systematic activity.
Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. It produces complex, seemingly intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even direct communication between the agents. As such it supports efficient collaboration between extremely simple agents, who lack any memory, intelligence or even individual awareness of each other.[1] History[edit] The term "stigmergy" was introduced by French biologist Pierre-Paul Grassé in 1959 to refer to termite behavior. Stigmergy is now one of the key[4] concepts in the field of swarm intelligence. Stigmergic behavior in lower organisms[edit] Applications[edit] Main Page. Main Page - Wikimania. Wikipedia, the free encycloped. Free multilingual online encyclopedia Wikipedia has received praise for its enablement of the democratization of knowledge, extent of coverage, unique structure, culture, and reduced degree of commercial bias; but criticism for exhibiting systemic bias, particularly gender bias against women and alleged ideological bias.[13][14] Its reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has improved over time, as Wikipedia has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.[3][13][15] The website's coverage of controversial topics such as American politics and major events like the COVID-19 pandemic has received substantial media attention.
It has been censored by world governments, ranging from specific pages to the entire site. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has become an element of popular culture, with references in books, films, and academic studies. History Nupedia Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project called Nupedia. Launch and growth Milestones Openness. Jimmy Wales. Wikipedia Showdown!-- A Grupthink Topic. Ross Mayfields Weblog: Heavy Lifting.
One interesting Wikimania session by Seth Anthony presented some research on contribution patterns. My notes: Only 10% of edits are high content edits. 30% of those are anonymous, none are by admins, 52% are by someone with a userpage, none have a barnstar. The people who are creating content are relatively new, not versed in style guides and bureaucracy. Their use of Wikipedia speeds up a little bit through use, but not much. Admins, on the other hand, are relatively efficient in their edits and have a consistent pace. They only edit within the article namespace 60% of the time. In other words, most edits are revisions of vandalism. In other words, the core community within the Power Law of Participation, the 500 people that do 50% of the edits, or 0.5% of the registered population -- does the heavy lifting for subject experts.
I should highlight, as with most things, Wikipedia is an exception for wiki communities. Antiwikipedia.com. Wikipedia comes clean quick. Untitled. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, collaboratively being constructed at the web site using the Wiki metaphor. There are four main differences between Wikipedia and E2: Editing: Nobody owns a node; (almost) everything can be edited by anybody, even without logging in. History The project was started in January 2001 by Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D., and Jimbo Wales, an internet entrepreneur.
The most important early actions by Sanger were the formulation and enforcement of the NPOV policy, setting up the site's general link structure, and the weeding out of non-encyclopedic materials. In 2001, RMS endorsed Wikipedia as the embodiment of GNUpedia, a project of constructing a free encyclopedia and learning resource which he had envisioned earlier. Many hundred writers contribute on a regular basis. Occasionally, obnoxious users ("vandals") have to be banned from the site. As of August 2005, Wikipedia contained more than 700,000 genuine encyclopedia articles. Organization. Actor model. Petri net. Smart Mobs: Jimbo (Wikipedia) Wales calls for Wiki Politics. Social organism. Who Runs Wikipedia? (Aaron Swartz's Raw Thought) Phantom authority. Problem solving.
Problem finding. Leet. Database download.