Got a Question for Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales? 303
We did our first Slashdot interview with Jimmy Wales back in 2001. We did another one in 2004. In 2005 we ran a feature article about Wikipedia's history. Now Wikipedia is in the news again, so this seems like a perfect time to make Jimmy Wales our first Slashdot Interview "three-peater." Ask whatever you like. Expect answers to 10 or 12 of the highest-moderated questions by next week.
Wikipedia in China(PRC) (Score:5, Interesting)
I was curious what Wikipedia's approach to blocking in the PRC was. Note that the entire wikipedia.org site is blocked, not only zh.wikipedia.org. Also 'wikis' are not blocked outright, such as blogs were in 2005 (for using 'blog' in the URL, a block which has now been reversed, now only selective blogs are blocked).
Does the Wikipedia organisation have any plan, such as a work-around or an agreement for a selective ban (such as blocking zh.wikipedia.org only, thus preventing casual browsing by Chinese internet users)? Has any analysis been done on the PRC's blocking of Wikipedia, and if so what is the status?
This message is sent from inside the PRC, where
Re:Wikipedia in China(PRC) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wikipedia in China(PRC) (Score:4, Informative)
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not mutually exclusive. (Score:2)
The ongoing war in Iraq is a perfect example. Those who had access to only the limited information provided by the American media, for instance, would not have gotten a very accurate picture of what was going on. Those of us in Europe, on the other hand, had a far wider variety of news sources to choose from, and hence were able t
Free or Not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Free or Not? (Score:2)
Yeah, I got a question... (Score:5, Funny)
Serious Changes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Serious Changes? (Score:2)
Re:Serious Changes? (Score:2)
I have thought that a signing system would be the most appropriate. Any text you create must be signed by you. You have the choice to sign off on any text you agree with. If any of your text is modified, you are somehow notified, and then you can in tur
Re:Serious Changes? (Score:2)
Approving diffs (Score:2)
Such a system would effectively remove all immutable pages, reducing the inability to edit to a mere incovenience. If you want, you could e
Sensitive Information (Score:5, Interesting)
Has the U.S. government ever attempted to outright censor any part of Wikipedia to your knowledge? Have you been contacted and asked to take down incriminating and/or secret information? Has anyone connected with the government tried to find out who has accessed/modified certain pages?
Lastly, I notice that Wikipedia is available in many languages, all across the world. Given that vantage point, could you describe the reaction (if any) of various governments to the possibility of the sum of human knowledge being available to their citizens with just a few keystrokes?
Thanks for the great resource!
Re:Sensitive Information (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I don't like it. I was just being sarcastic. There is nothing more hypocritical than 'skeptics' and 'debunkers' who are nothing but trolls.
Re:Sensitive Information (Score:2, Offtopic)
Actually, I am ignorant. That's why I'm asking questions. I am curious as to the true nature of many fantastic events. Those questions are considered unpatriotic, "uneducated" and "annoying," but I don't care. I want to know the truth, and I will keep asking questions until I know it.
Since you're obviously so smart, perhaps you can help me. Please answer me thi
Re:Sensitive Information (Score:2)
Funding (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Funding (Score:2)
Re:Funding (Score:2)
Trivially easy - since Jimmy Wales owns the moderately sucessful search portal Bomis.
Jimmy was able to leach off of the Nupedia project. (Which he was already running.)
There never was an idea stage. The Wikipedia went from 'hmm... this might be a good idea' to 'ok, its set up, lets roll' in about a week.
I've got one (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've got one (Score:2)
Re:I've got one (Score:2)
I've been editing random stuff for like 2-3 months, and never really wandered into talk pages. Then the whole mohammed cartoons thing came up, I started reading and all the links to past fights on other articles. So much wasted time and effort, and people always blame the tool whenever something untrue is found.
How is wiki going to handle increasing traffic ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bio Sanitizing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bio Sanitizing (Score:2)
The Assumption of Converging Correctness (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems similar to stock market theory and other areas (the "wisdom of crowds").
But this is obviously not always the case. You have market bubbles. You have widely believed fallicies (Eg, if you survey in Kansas on evolutionary theory). Etc.
The question: Is there any thought on how to deal with the situations where enough participants will converge on the consistantly wrong answer? There appears to be no mechanism for the correct minority to eliminate the large ignorant majority.
Re:The Assumption of Converging Correctness (Score:2)
"with enough participants, you converge on correctnenss".
Mod Parent up +1 Funny
Re:The Assumption of Converging Correctness (Score:2)
Re:The Assumption of Converging Correctness (Score:2)
So, suppose are article is being edited by the majority of editors into a blatant factual error. Then we get a single editor to dispute this flawed consensus. (This is attainable, usually.) Wikipedia guidelines dictate a need for verifiability, so the editor would cite a source for his change.
Usually, things stop right here, and the error is corrected. Suppose otherwise. The opposing editors might try to es
Re:The Assumption of Converging Correctness (Score:3, Insightful)
Ha. This after going into detail about the truly vast amount of effort an expert needs to go to in order to impose the facts against stubborn idiots! Not to mention that cranks usually have much more free time than experts (who are busy writing books and giving lectures on the topic). No, I don't see that the system as it stands favors anyone except those who have lots of time to waste.
Re:The Assumption of Converging Correctness (Score:3, Insightful)
Post an initial edit. Give the reason for your edit in the talk page.
If that fails, put a request for a third opinion, comment or mediation, depending on how many stubborn idiots there are.
And that is all. In total, only TWO edits are required, in the worst. And the result will be almost permanent. Compare to the difficulty of getting Britannica to correct an error. The difficulty you occasionally hear about from people always happ
Re:The Assumption of Converging Correctness (Score:5, Interesting)
What, if anything, is Wikipedia doing to encourage academics and scientists to contribute their knowledge and expertise?
Fork (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you think about allowing the same for wikipedia articles? Consider this - say there is a long complex wikipedia page. To rewrite to make it more clear requires a single massive commit by a single person.
It would be better to allow that page to be forked, then people can work on the rewrite, then tag the fork to be the main one once it's done.
Re:Fork (Score:2)
Re:Fork (Score:2)
For big changes that require multiple days and/or multiple editors, it's not uncommon for someone to copy the contents of the page to a temp subpage (so for article foo, you would copy the article to en.wikipedia.org/wi
Re:Fork (Score:2)
This is already occasionally done within Wikipedia. Also, everyone possesses the right to fork the entire project, or any individual article, under the terms of the GNU FDL.
Merkey (Score:2)
Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary
Reliability (Score:5, Interesting)
An expert in a field could 'sign' a version of an article that they deem to be accurate. This article can still be edited, amended etc. On the article page, the user is given the option to consult a frozen-from-edits version of the article
Moderators would be able to contact the 'expert' and confirm their authority in the field, since pre-authorising the individual before they can confirm the article's accuracy would deter busy individuals from making the effort in the first place.
I would be greatful if other Slashdotters would like to develop this into a more eloquent point and question.
Re:Reliability (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
The problem with my idea is that experts are often wrong and that is why peer review is such an important part of getting published in journals.
If the signature idea was ever implemented, it must accept multiple signatures per article.
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Re:Reliability (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
This is why the signed versions would not become the main article, but would instead stand parallel to it, hosted within the encyclopaedia as a CC licenced reference. Rather than overriding the common artical, it would info
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
I'd rather give everyone the ability to sign articles. That way, over time, wikipedia builds its own reputation for articles and users. I don't want to throw out unpopular opinions or inflammatory articles -- if wikipedia wants to be comprehensive like an encyclopedia, it has to include them. However, in this age of information, the computer's job is to search and filter in the sea of data. A reputation system for articles and
How do you feel about hate crime laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does such legislation impact on the ability of Wikipedia to provide accurate, truthful information, even if that information may be deemed to be "hate literature" by certain groups?
Trivia... (Score:5, Interesting)
Quantum Dictionary (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not quantum if you can see what's going on (Score:2)
And besides, the quantum truth is true of any other source. A website could be hacked or hoaxed at the time you read it. A newspaper could print a page that was complete garbage and delete it 20 minutes later. Britannica is known to have a number of errors that will p
Re:Quantum Dictionary (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to learn about a controversial topic in Wikipedia, you obviously need to read the article in conjunction with its history and its discussion page. If you do that, you'll get a very well rounded view of the controversy, including the positions, arguments, biases and lies of the involved parties. No ordinary encyclopedia (or newspaper, or peer-reviewed article) comes even close in this regard.
Moving away from PHP. (Score:2, Troll)
Do you think that it would be possible to effectively reimplement the system around Ruby on Rails, Django, Seaside, or some of the other Web frameworks that are popular today? Also, do you think such a reimplementation would decrease the server requirements, thus potentially bringing financial benefits, in addition to an improved level of
Wiki entries (Score:4, Interesting)
Structured data (Score:5, Interesting)
Tried and failed (Score:2)
Re:Tried and failed (Score:2)
Re:Tried and failed (Score:2)
Re:Tried and failed (Score:2)
Re:Structured data (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Structured data (Score:3, Informative)
Dear Jimmy (Score:2, Funny)
Anything you would NOT put in Wikipedia? (Score:2)
Stable/Experimental versions (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason would be because when I direct students to a certain page on Wikipedia on an assignment, I can't be sure it will contain the same, correct, information today as when I wrote the assignment description. For all I know, it can be edited by the first student reading the assignment!
If I could enter the "stable" version of the page, I'd be sure it will be correct in the future as well.
I assume lots and lots of people would like to have a "stable" version to use as reference in their papers and reports.
ps. I got the idea from a post by a fellow slashdotter...
Re:Stable/Experimental versions (Score:2)
It's not the solution you're looking for, but have you considered pointing students to a specific revision of an article? For example, I want to point my students to George W. Bush, but I know that this article frequently has the picture of its subject replaced with pictures of Jar-Jar Binks and Chacellor Palpatine. So I go to George W. Bush [wikipedia.org], click history [wikipedia.org], and then click on the top date listed [wikipedia.org]. This last link gives me the current revision of the article, which I can send to my students in the relative s
Re:Stable/Experimental versions (Score:3, Informative)
Googlepedia? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you expect any direct competition from Google in the near future? Would you be surprised in Google made a bid for Wikipedia, given Google's propensity for snapping up useful companies and their technology? Would you say "no" if they offered you a large compensation package and the promise of continued autonomy over it?
Voting on revisions. (Score:3, Interesting)
Multiple concurrent articles (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'm proposing is a system where the user sees an interface like the disambiguation page, which offers different articles for each title, including a purportedly nuetral one. So for example, the abortion article would have 3 or more texts: a nuetral one, a pro-life, and a pro-choice.
Re:Multiple concurrent articles (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an interesting idea but I see a couple of immediate problems. First it will tend to promote polarisation and probably lessen the quality of the articles. With 2 or more parties arguing over a page new material tends to
"Official" partnerships with academia (Score:5, Interesting)
If so, do you intend to have their edits/suggestions be treated identically to any other Wikipedia user, or would you give their input special status (as "experts").
If nothing of the sort is underway, what do you think of this idea? Does a more direct (and official/public) involvement of such institutes sound like a good idea? Thought?
(Note: Yes I'm well aware that a great deal of the content in many subject areas, especially sciences, already comes from these very academics... my question regardings making the partnerships more official, in order to encourage faculty who may not be aware of Wikipedia to contribute, and also to lend their "expert seal of approval" to a particular version of an article.)
Requiring real names of all editors? (Score:5, Interesting)
Every editor should be required to submit and display their verifiable real name. Anonymous contributions, while still possible, would not go into the live article right away, but would rather be made available to all editors who "watch" the respective article, and to the last 5 editors who have worked on the article; any one of those editors could then easily accept the anonymous edits. (This requires a tiny bit of software support.)
Rationale:
Re:Requiring real names of all editors? (Score:2)
Re:Requiring real names of all editors? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, every editor can provide their own procedure of verification. Verification then consists of carrying out this procedure.
Possible methods would be "Call the information desk of Metropolitan State University, have them connect you to Axel Boldt; the guy who picks up the phone is me. If you say 'quick' I'll answer 'quack'." or "Come on over to 1572 Portland Av. #5, Saint Paul, MN and I'll buy you a beer and show you my driver's license."
semantic webbing of Wikipedia (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear Jimmy (Score:2)
Committment to Students (Score:2, Insightful)
Accuracy - yeah, right. (Score:2, Interesting)
Question for Jimmy: Wikipedia's Integrity (Score:2, Interesting)
Wikiversity? (Score:2)
Wikipedia versus Digital Universe foundation (DUF) (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you foresee perhaps a partnership with DUF if this were to happen?
Creating a web of trust of editors? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nevertheless, the Wikipedia remains one of mankind's biggest "dream", the New Library of Alexandria, as it were.
Are you considering employing any "countermeasures" to avoid such content violations such as web-of-trust of academics, digitally signing contents, or other such means?
Your perspective on... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you had to suggest changing something about how Slashdot works, what would it be? And how would that tie into things you've done, encountered, or seen on Wikipedia?
I've got a question (Score:5, Interesting)
Why was MySQL chosen as the backend? (Score:2, Informative)
How Can I Trust Wikipedia ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then I heard on the radio that Capitol Hill staffers had edited/rewritten entries about their bosses to remove or slant all sorts of information, to make their reps or senators look better, remove divorces, etc etc.
How do you expect someone like me, a Wikipedia neophyte, to trust the information in Wikipedia when it can be so easily changed/falsified/distorted ?
Long term outlook (Score:5, Interesting)
Why isn't there more coverage... (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&
A shame that one was fixed.
Scholarly papers (Score:3, Interesting)
A basic rule of research is to never trust a single source alone; to always find corroborating stories/explanations/etc. in another source. Unfortunately, for a lot of the topics in which I am interested, there are very few official sources, and Wikipedia is the most prominent of them.
What can we, the people who trust Wikipedia the most, do to convince our professors and colleagues that Wikipedia is still a highly trustworthy source of accurate information?
Content vs Control (Score:3, Interesting)
recognition of contributors (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't Wikipedia a reflection of your biases? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have said [lessig.org] that "[Friedrich] Hayek's work...is central to my own thinking about how to manage the Wikipedia project". Or you've said things in interviews [com.com] such as "Unlike some other grassroots journalism type of projects like Indymedia, which is a very far left type of thing written by activists, we strive to be a neutral, high-quality source of basic information." (which of course implies that the supposedly "very far left" Indymedia is not a good source of information, whereas Wikipedia is).
Regarding the most powerful group of your lietenants, the Arbitration Committee, last year you had an election. This year you wanted to appoint them with little input until an uproar allowed more input from the community. During this (s)election, you put in the people with the highest vote rates, except for JayJG, who had people ahead of him since so many people voted against him due to his lack of the neutrality you espouse in interviews. You say you did this because he was on ArbCom - which he is, because you appointed him to it in the past few months. This was after the election last year, where he received no votes. Instead of having another election, or going down the 2005 election list, you appoint your crony who shares your point of view. When in the election he has people ahead of him due to strong opposition over his lack of opposition, you appoint him anyway.
As a post-script to this message, which is not part of my question, I would note to the readers that Wikipedia review [proboards78.com] is a board where people discuss their unhappiness with the Wikipedia "cabal". That board has some trolls, but some of the discussions are enlightening, from experienced users. Wikipedia looks open and inviting, but experience shows that is not the case. The one good thing about Wikipedia is the licenses for Mediawiki and English Wikipedia are GPL and GFDL, so that if people become unhappy enough they can fork. I myself tend to edit on other wikis since I'm tired of the nonsense on Wikipedia. I began editing in 2003, and have watched it go downhill from then. A lot of smart experts in the field have been driven off, and the cabal, Jimbo and his lieutenants hold sway. The fact that 2005 had elections from ArbCom and 2006 had "selections" should say something about how things are headed on Wikipedia. This [wikipedia.org] is a policy everyone becomes familiar with after a time.
Actually, I think Wikipedia does a decent job on articles like quantum mechanics, but it is a complete mess in articles pertaining to say relations between the Israelis and Palestinians and that type of thing. And it has just gotten worse and worse. So Wikipedia isn't all bad, just anything to do with politics or history is a mess.
...somehow more restrictive policies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello.
I feel the amount of time/effort put into dispute resolution could be a reason to many for leaving the project. I am thinking about requests for comment, mediation, arbitration. I feel some users are gaming the project by trying to play smart ass during discussions. As an example, a recent RFC saw it's subject try to define gently the term fuck-off. No joke here. (No link because my point now is not to have fun).
I reduced drastically my contributions to WP for this very reason. It is exhausting having to work around cruft/fun/gamers.
My question. Is there any plan to have somehow more restrictive policies during disputes ? It would not be about a higher price to enter the WP "game" (need to show credits for example...), but a higher one to stay in the "game". Something like any strong words or any one caught at disrespecting the consensus (as an example re-creation of an AFD'ed article) will immediately trigger a short term block, or a way to slow down hot contributions. The goal would be to alleviate the burden by stopping at once what I identify as noise. Give every one a real chance at thinking within a collaborative spirit. Indeed, to my opinion there is a lack of understanding from some user that WP is not a forum or a game where one scores points.
I have seen recent new policies (no anonymous creation, semi protection...) with interest. A next step seems needed.
Note: I am well aware of things like consensus is not necessarily right. This is not the point of my question now.
For less WP aware people, a quick analogy : If one plays chess game, one have to abide by the chess game rules. There is no other way. The difference being if one wants to change WP rules, well... there are rules and processes to do so. It _IS_ possible. Yet, one still have to abide by the rules.
Thanks for this tool. Thanks for time and consideration.
Zijus.
Re:Wikipedia's Roots (Score:3, Informative)
"In 1996, Wales founded a search portal called Bomis, which also sold photographs of softcore pornography until mid-2005. Because of his past position with Bomis, Wales was asked in a September 2005 C-SPAN interview about his involvement with what the interviewer, Brian Lamb, called "dirty pictures." In response, Wales described Bomis as a "guy-oriented search engine." In an interview with Wired, he also explained that he disputed the
Re:Wikipedia's Roots (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wikipedia's Roots (Score:3, Funny)
Re:editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia's greatest weakness is also its greatest strength -- 50 million editors and contributors. Some of whom are brilliant, some of whom are morons. Hopefully the brilliant ones win out but every now and then you have to put up with (or even step in and edit) some inanity.
Just like democracy, it only works when informed, concerned and intelligent people step forward and take an active role.
-Coach-
Re:editors? (Score:2)
Who'd do that job, you've seen how much flack the
Re:Terrorism (Score:2)