background preloader

The Decline of Wikipedia: Even As More People Than Ever Rely on It, Fewer People Create It

The Decline of Wikipedia: Even As More People Than Ever Rely on It, Fewer People Create It
The sixth most widely used website in the world is not run anything like the others in the top 10. It is not operated by a sophisticated corporation but by a leaderless collection of volunteers who generally work under pseudonyms and habitually bicker with each other. It rarely tries new things in the hope of luring visitors; in fact, it has changed little in a decade. And yet every month 10 billion pages are viewed on the English version of Wikipedia alone. Yet Wikipedia and its stated ambition to “compile the sum of all human knowledge” are in trouble. The main source of those problems is not mysterious. When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today. In response, the Wikimedia Foundation, the 187-person nonprofit that pays for the legal and technical infrastructure supporting Wikipedia, is staging a kind of rescue mission. Progress was swift. Related:  Extra topics

Internet monopolies: Everybody wants to rule the world “WE ARE taking over the world of yoga.” At the graduation day for 500 Startups, a school for entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley, such statements of focused megalomania are the norm. “We will own this space,” predicts the founder of a company that helps shops send digital offers to nearby phones. It is a joke that sounds like hubris, and there is indeed plenty of that to be seen. Regulators worry that such dominance lays consumers and competitors open to all sorts of abuse. And it is not the only digital giant which has come under scrutiny. Standard issues Something about the internet clearly favours such mushrooming quasi-monopolies. In America, and in most of the rest of the world, private monopolies are treated with deep distrust. Those early years provide fodder for Mr Thiel’s argument that monopolies can be agents of progress. This will not necessarily come as a surprise to economists. A clever startup does not try to compete directly with an incumbent. The need for speed

Faut-il s’inquiéter de la course au monopole des géants du net L’année 2014 commence fort pour Google côté acquisitions : d’abord NestLab (pour 3,2 milliards de dollars) entreprise spécialisée dans la production d’objets connectés ; ensuite DeepMind, qui vient d’être acquise par le géant d’internet (pour 400 millions). L’entreprise est un pionner de ce qu’on appelle le « deep learning ». Et Google pourrait bien devenir leader de ce nouveau secteur … de quoi susciter des craintes et les fantasmes autour d’une emprise monopolistique de Mountain View. Le deep learning est une technologie de création d’intelligence artificielle (voir ici une vidéo du MIT et ici une explication de la BBC) : l’ordinateur apprend à reconnaître des éléments à partir des données qu’il enregistre. Par exemple, il devient capable de reconnaître un chat dans une vidéo sur internet, dès lors qu’il a "appris" ce qu’était un chat. Au-delà de la technique, la dynamique est intéressante car elle illustre bien les tendances "monopolistiques" d’internet. Intéressé par cet auteur ?

Aaron Sorkin’s Huffington Post criticism gets it right Christopher Polk/Getty Images During a panel discussion earlier this week previewing the new TV season, I worried, in regard to journalism, that “the metabolism of the Web is making us stupid.” Aaron Sorkin is equally concerned — and just as accurate — when he suggests the same culture is making us nastier as well. Now, I’ve been among the chorus of critical voices regarding Sorkin’s HBO series, “The Newsroom.” Certainly, it’s hard to argue with Huffington Post’s knack for generating traffic, so much so that its cryptic headlines and teases have given birth to a feed designed strictly to decode and spoil them. But it only reinforces Sorkin’s case, frankly, to see HuffPo staffers respond to his comments, as quoted in Mother Jones, with volleys of snark, as if there’s no room for legitimate criticism or self-reflection regarding the manner in which they operate. Still, just because you can’t change things doesn’t mean you have no right to gripe about them.

Six degrees of aggregation (about Huffington Post) Of the many and conflicting stories about how The Huffington Post came to be—how it boasts 68 sections, three international editions (with more to come), 1.2 billion monthly page views and 54 million comments in the past year alone, how it came to surpass the traffic of virtually all the nation’s established news organizations and amass content so voluminous that a visit to the website feels like a trip to a mall where the exits are impossible to locate—the earliest and arguably most telling begins with a lunch in March 2003 at which the idea of an online newspaper filled with celebrity bloggers and virally disseminated aggregated content did not come up. The invitation for the lunch came from Kenneth Lerer. He was 51 and casting about for something new, having recently left his position as executive vice president for communications at AOL. He brought the book with him and Watts would recall that the copy was dog-eared, the flatteringly telltale sign of a purposeful read. 1. 2. 3. 4.

1996: where the online music revolution began › Science Features (ABC Science) In Depth › Science Features The music industry has undergone massive change since the arrival of the internet, and most of those changes were predicted in a funky little TV show called " In 1996 the ABC produced a short TV series about internet culture, with the then obscure name " The show didn't just examine possibilities of the online world, it used subliminal text to give viewers a taste of hypertext. Back then, more people had access to a VHS video recorder than to the internet, so the program encouraged viewers to record the show in order to play back and use 'pause' to read additional text information that had been embedded within video frames at various points in the story. This episode, entitled Global Groove, was about musicians from around the world using the internet to connect and form "virtual" bands, playing together and sharing ideas to create something new. It was an exciting time. ^ to top 2015 Update More Videos from the Vault...

United States v. Microsoft Corp. United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) is a U.S. antitrust law case, ultimately settled by the Department of Justice, where Microsoft Corporation was accused of becoming a monopoly and engaging in abusive practices contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890 sections 1 and 2. It was initiated on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 states. Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Compared to the European Decision against Microsoft, the DOJ one is focused less on interoperability and more on predatory strategies and market barrier to entry.[1] History[edit] By 1984 Microsoft was one of the most successful software companies, with $55 million in 1983 sales. In its 2008 Annual Report, Microsoft stated:[5]

The 20-year rise and fall of Microsoft Windows, from 1995 to now The mass shooting in Oregon prompted an angry response from US president Barack Obama. On the other side of the world, the vicious lynching of a man over beef in Dadri got Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s silence. Following is an embellished version of the official speech given by Obama after the mass shooting, to reflect the speech India deserves and needs right now. As an American somewhere sits and wonders why his country needs guns in every man, woman and child’s hand, I sit back and wonder if my or my loved ones’ culinary choices tomorrow could merit an assault or death. There’s been another mob lynching in India—this time, in Bisara village in the Dadri district of Uttar Pradesh. That means there is one Indian family right now—a daughter, two sons, and their grandmother—whose lives have been changed forever. I cannot recall whether I have been to Dadri or not. But our thoughts and prayers are not enough. We all know why these individuals did what they did.

How Microsoft Works Microsoft is a software company. It makes money by selling its software for use on computers. That's an accurate summary, but it doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story. It doesn't tell you that Microsoft is a business empire without equal, that its products are used in nearly every computer on the planet, or that it has yet to reach the height of its power and influence. Although you may find yourself cursing the "evil empire" when your system crashes, or when you spend money on another upgrade, Microsoft is unsurpassed when it comes to powering information technology. ­So Microsoft rules the world, but just what does it do, anyway?

History of Microsoft Microsoft logo since August 23, 2012 Microsoft is a multinational computer technology corporation. The history of Microsoft began on April 4, 1975, when it was founded by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in Albuquerque.[1] Its current best-selling products are the Microsoft Windows operating system, Microsoft Office suite of productivity software, Xbox a line of entertainment of games, music and video and Bing, a line of search engines. In 1980, Microsoft formed a partnership with IBM that allowed them to bundle Microsoft's operating system with IBM computers, paying Microsoft a royalty for every sale. In 1985, IBM requested that Microsoft write a new operating system for their computers called OS/2; Microsoft wrote the operating system, but also continued to sell their own alternative, which proved to be in direct competition with OS/2. Microsoft Windows eventually overshadowed OS/2 in terms of sales. 1975–1985: The founding of Microsoft[edit] 1985–1991: The rise and fall of OS/2[edit]

Edge.org In the 1980s I was a competitive bicycle racer, competing five times in the 3,000-mile nonstop transcontinental Race Across America, an event thatOutside magazine called "the world's toughest sporting event." I felt that the playing field was level because in a pure sport such as cycling (this was before the days of sophisticated doping programs) it doesn't matter what your last name is, what schools you attended, how much money your parents have, which country clubs you belong to, your politics, religion, or socio-economic status, or any other social conventions. It only matters how fast you can pedal your bike. In my intellectual pursuits, however, I never felt that the playing field was level. Thanks to the Internet, for the first time in my life I feel that I have a chance to compete on a level playing field. Who needs brick and mortar libraries when knowledge is available at fingertips' notice? This is real power, and I feel that power as never before.

Collective intelligence Types of collective intelligence Collective intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making. The term appears in sociobiology, political science and in context of mass peer review and crowdsourcing applications. Collective intelligence strongly contributes to the shift of knowledge and power from the individual to the collective. History[edit] A precursor of the concept is found in entomologist William Morton Wheeler's observation that seemingly independent individuals can cooperate so closely as to become indistinguishable from a single organism (1911).[14] Wheeler saw this collaborative process at work in ants that acted like the cells of a single beast he called a "superorganism". Dimensions[edit] Howard Bloom has discussed mass behavior—collective behavior from the level of quarks to the level of bacterial, plant, animal, and human societies. Openness

How Internet Infrastructure Works One of the greatest things about the Internet is that nobody really owns it. It is a global collection of networks, both big and small. These networks connect together in many different ways to form the single entity that we know as the Internet. Since its beginning in 1969, the Internet has grown from four host computer systems to tens of millions. In this article, you will learn about the basic underlying structure of the Internet. How Does the Internet Work? © 2002 Rus Shuler @ Pomeroy IT Solutions, all rights reserved Contents Introduction How does the Internet work? Good question! The Internet's growth has become explosive and it seems impossible to escape the bombardment of www.com's seen constantly on television, heard on radio, and seen in magazines. This whitepaper explains the underlying infrastructure and technologies that make the Internet work. Where to Begin? Because the Internet is a global network of computers each computer connected to the Internet must have a unique address. The picture below illustrates two computers connected to the Internet; your computer with IP address 1.2.3.4 and another computer with IP address 5.6.7.8. If you connect to the Internet through an Internet Service Provider (ISP), you are usually assigned a temporary IP address for the duration of your dial-in session. Protocol Stacks and Packets So your computer is connected to the Internet and has a unique address. Networking Infrastructure Internet Protocol

The world's 50 most powerful blogs | Economy The following apology was published in the Observer's For the record column, Sunday March 16 2008 The article below said 'Psychodwarf' was Beppe Grillo's nickname for 'Mario Mastella, leader of the Popular-UDEUR centre-right party', but it's actually his nickname for Silvio Berlusconi. Mastella's first name is Clemente and Popular-UDEUR was part of Romano Prodi's centre-left coalition. And Peter Rojas, not Ryan Block, founded Engadget and co-founded Gizmodo. Apologies. 1. The history of political blogging might usefully be divided into the periods pre- and post-Huffington. Bloggers saw themselves as gadflies, pricking the arrogance of established elites from their home computers, in their pyjamas, late into the night. But the pyjama purists were confounded. To borrow the gold-rush simile beloved of web pioneers, Huffington's success made the first generation of bloggers look like two-bit prospectors panning for nuggets in shallow creeks before the big mining operations moved in. 2. 3.

Related: