that’s the site.
here’s the wikipedia page on wikipedia:
Wikipedia (wɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or wɪkiˈpiːdiə/ wik-i-pee-dee-ə) is a collaboratively edited,multilingual, free Internet encyclopedia supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia’s 30 million articles in 287 languages, including over 4.3 million in the English Wikipedia, are written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone having access to the site. It is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet, ranking seventh globally among all websites on Alexa as of July 2013, and having an estimated 365 million readers worldwide.
Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Sanger coined the name Wikipedia, which is a portmanteau of wiki (a type of collaborative website, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning “quick”) and encyclopedia.
our early on take/learnings on/from wikipedia:
hypertext allows for learning by whimsy, ability to add/edit allows for decentralization, democracy and a share economy..
nov 2014 – via #ccourses: Learn about #Wikipedia editing w/ @annebalsamo @vaparedes!
– – –
resonating comments from session:
#Wikipedia is our ubiquitous, but unevenly produced, cultural archive. – @annebalsamo #ccourses
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/catherinecronin/status/530135141633785856
Storming Wikipedia http://t.co/nLaNs8wV0L – from @FemTechNet DOCCS 2013 #ccourses
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/catherinecronin/status/530136234728099840
Unpacking #Wikipedia’s five pillars http://t.co/NEwFT5iMqT = valuable work with students. great point by @vaparedes #ccourses
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/catherinecronin/status/530139998507372545
check out http://t.co/zHEOAYRMA2 for lots of dataviz projects about wikipedia editing. wonder how one accesses the data? #ccoursesOriginal Tweet: https://twitter.com/yinbk/status/530140595973406721
building legacy w/wikipedia – (2010)
How we made editing Wikipedia twice as fast
Larry Sanger (co-founder) – revolutionary shift in society as big as printing pressinternets rebirth called: web 2.02 min – Charles Leadbeater – not i need/want but i can – a player not just a spectator – how highly dispersed people can come together to create.. the basis for creating democratic politics.. societies more democratic3 min – Tim OReilly – web 2.0 – making web whatever you want it to be – 2nd coming of the web.. 1st one – everyone was trying to make it like tv… but it was really always participatory5 min – more of a conversation than a lecturePhoebe Ayers – wikipedian6 min – jan 2 2000 – Larry and Ben – wiki wiki means quick.. quick way of everyone working together… possibility to create encyclopedia with same method7 min – Jimmy Wales8:50 – Ndesanjo Macha – digital activist – when i was in tansinia all the books were so old.. wishing i had up to date.. i was blogging swahili – first blog in an african language.. i thought cyperspace – if we’re going toward info age – we need that to be in our languages – not just english16 min – 2003 – Larry sends email to Jimmy about recognizing expertise… via Jimmy – he wanted there to be a credentialism.. when ie: often times the 17 yr old was right in the edit when the 40 yr prof was wrong18 min – act of creating knowledge with others – Ndesanjo21 min – Larry – use wikipedia as first resource.. then check sources.. if not – danger of people assuming things are right when they are wrong… less quality writing held up as an exemplar22 min – nature of content – the interlinkedness – very interactive/dynamic – is a strength – Ndesanjo23 min – most wikipedians don’t even pretend that they are getting at the truth24 min – doing away with gate keeper – in my view gatekeeper is the key player in truth (same guy that was worried about me-ism earlier on)24 min – pre-eminant gatekeeper – that of encyclopedia – Bob McHenry: wikipedia as compilation w/o any of control/authority/consistency… it’s like nothing but a game…which is fine.. as long as people know it’s a game.. don’t pay attention to the stuff written on any given day26 min – no mechanism to reel people in before publish – Larry – no mechanism for accuracy before publish – Bob – as thought as britanica we had solicited manuscripts.. and then printed.. we didn’t do that we solicited them then spent sometimes years on edit.. to make sure it was as reliable as possible.. i don’t see that in wikipedia.. the publish rough drafts27 min – a catastrophe to the truth – part of the fragmentation of mass society… by increasing individualization (same me-ism guy) – in terms of truth – that means truth gets personalized28 min – 1.7 minutes to get an error changed – Ndesanjo – you can go up to see the discussion/debate of edit – sometimes i learn more from that debate than from the info29 min – when you democratize this – truth is a casualty – (me ism guy)31 min – Charles – i think as long as it’s transparent.. it’s a good thing..Tim – makes visible process that happens in coming up with a34 min – Bob on people determined they have the truth and forcing sharing… then asked – so the truth is not democratic.. Bob: no, if it were wouldn’t we all know it37 min – problem of instant info – keeps people from hard work of forming own ideas…39 min – you don’t learn about the world from self-expression – you learn about the world from experts… 99% of kids have nothing to say – Keen (me ism guy)41 min – Charles – internet is just letting us do p to p at greater scale43 min – archiving stories – Ndesanjo46 min – on expertise – Keen – soon cult of expert will replace cult of amateur47 min – Njesanjo – amateur – people who love what they do..
why wikipedia works really well
wikipedia works really well in practice but not in theory…
idea of having a scheme where the day to day governance/edits… to have the people doing that be members of the public at large… extraordinarily devolution of responsibility out to people who are … taking an oath to subscribe to the principles behind wikipedia: neutrality/fairness… can that survive.. i don’t know
how to shore it up… we should solve a problem with a problem – we haven’t really figured out in 21st cent what to do w/kids in school.. i think it’d be wonderful to make.. part of curriculum: part of your task.. you’d be graded on… edits to (on a service like) wikipedia…
whoa. onto something.. and then… graded on.. keeping school as school…? but i love the idea of the world editing/creating on wikipedia…
wikipedia’s ongoing search for the sum of all human knowledge… 15 yrs in (jan 2016)
1\ free culture (wikipedia)
p 16 – i mean, talking to your girlfriend can often be more enjoyable than listening to music, but i don’t think we need to start suing girlfriends.
p 17 – i’m optimistic that if you provide something people really like, and you make it easy for them to pay you for it, that you’ll do fine.
p 18 – geek seem a lot more willing to treat people based on what they can do rather than who they are
p 21 – on why bad ui – experts don’t need goo ui ‘ they know exactly what to do already and they just want to be able to do it as fast as they can
p 22 – tim berner lee‘s original plan was to let the web be a collab space… and web pages would be the trails left behind by their activities. web browsers would have an edit button that you could click and modify or annotate any page…
p 27 – sharing isn’t immoral.. it’s a moral imperative… there is not justice in following unjust laws.
p 28 – it is possible to take on grand projects
p 30 – semantic web.. berners-lee.. users together to build grand data bases
p 31 – a third way.. million-dollar users…wikipedia points to a diff model.. where all users come to one website… perhaps time to try 3rd way
p 35 – wikipedia too important both as resource and as model.. to see it fail
p 36 – on Jimmy Wales saying – wikipedia isn’t wisdom of mobs/swarm.. he insisted it as rather different… written by ‘a community.. dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers… who all know each other.. much like a traditional org.’
p 37 – wales saying wikipedia not that shocking.. his view is actually much more shocking.. around a thousand people wrote the world’s largest encyclopedia in four years for free. could this really be true?
p 39 – when put it all together, story becomes clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of info. then insiders make several edits tweaking/reformatting….. categorizing across entire site… as a result, insiders account for vast majority of edits. but it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.
makes sense.. writing encyclopedia.. you’d have to know tons of info… doing all background research seems impossible for a few.. on other hand… everyone has a bunch of obscure things that … they’ve come to know well..
p 40 – even if all formatters quit – wikipedia would still be immensely valuable…. so… growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute..
dangerous is wikipedia continues down this path of focusing on the encyclopedia at the expense of the wiki, it might end up not being much of either
p 42 – wikipedia runs because of community. .. a group of people that took the project as their own and threw themselves into making it succeed
everyone knows wikipedia as the site anyone can edit. the article about tree frogs wasn’t written because someone in chard decided they needed one and assigned it to someone; it was written because someone, somewhere, just went ahead and started writing it. and a chorus of others decided to help out.
huge. on collaboration (agenda) vs cooperation (choice everyday)
this is so unusual, we don’t even have a *word for it. it’s tempting to say democracy but that’s woefully inadequate… ie: wikipedia doesn’t hold a vote and elect someone to be in charge of vandal fighting. .. wikipedia doesn’t do anything at all. someone simply sees there are vandals .. and steps up to do the job
*word – perhaps – stigmergyness..?
p 43 – on the volunteerism ness of it.. that eliminates infighting about who gets to be what…. tasks get done by people who genuinely want to do them..
wikipedia’s biggest problems have come when it’s strayed from this path, when it’s given some people official titles and specified tasks… power..
labels et al
p 48 – building a community is tough.. need just right combo of tech rules and people.. we’re still at very early stages of understanding what it is that makes that work (2006)
ibp ness to the tech, people, rules..
p 49 – wikipedia as a community set up to make itself… and since wikipedia first to do that.. hardly know anything about building communities like that… radical collaboration… instead of assigning tasks… let anyone work on whatever they wanted, whenever they felt like it…
stigmergyness. – ginormous
p 50 – extending wikipedia’s success …means figuring out key principles of radical collab
Gary S. Stager Stephen Wolfram, perhaps the world’s greatest living mathematician and scientist told me that Wikipedia is “stable” enough that Wolfram Alpha and Mathematica can pull from it.
Aaron Halfaker – perhaps heading rna ish route to helping wikipedia..?
another/longer twitter/swimming reflection..
cc/grazies.. @jack @jimmy_wales @flakenstein @cblack_ @leashless @campoSOFIA
WIRED (@WIRED) tweeted at 4:16 AM on Fri, Nov 10, 2017:
Opinion: Wikipedia’s promise of a free and open collection of human knowledge is in trouble https://t.co/g8kWNZ4uGo
not money wise.. trump funded that.. but contribution wise
via Mike Caufield:
OK, hopping on a plane in a minute but wanted to let everyone know about this cool research-philanthropy-teaching project I put together with some others, which will have students improve Wikipedia while learning about journalism. https://t.co/WwtKLamGcg
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/holden/status/1012364656478806017
The Newspapers on Wikipedia WikiProject attempts to get students and other interested citizens to improve the number and quality of articles on local newspapers on Wikipedia. We have a current goal of creating 1,000 U.S. newspaper articles complete with infoboxes by December 15, 2018.
We think the main incentive for working on the project is the good this project will do in the world — better coverage of news sources in Wikipedia will make it easier for the public to sort the real from the fake, the straight from the slanted. But we’re excited to announce an additional incentive for project participants.
[originating from bonnie tweet]
via jimmy rt
Maddie Knickerbocker (@maddieknicker) tweeted at 4:16 PM – 30 Aug 2018 :
Hi #NativeTwitter & #twitterstorians!
Instead of essays, my #IndigenousHistory students are writing Wikipedia articles this term. It’d be great to create content people want.
What pre-1850 Indigenous person, event, or trend would you like to see a Wikipedia entry for? (http://twitter.com/maddieknicker/status/1035290181916454914?s=17)
Dr. Max (@MaxMckeown) tweeted at 5:11 AM – 2 Sep 2018 :
A vice-chancellor of top university made dismissive remark about Wikipedia, only to have world-leading chemist in the audience icily retort that pages on his speciality were the most up-to-date summary currently available anywhere – because he wrote them.. https://t.co/4Lt4zunpnt (http://twitter.com/MaxMckeown/status/1036210058496028672?s=17)
just after this
going through my old syllabi (& blog) & realizing i STILL don’t have a great intro article to participatory digital pedagogy/digital participation/collaboration. blogosphere OR social media era. ideas welcome. THX!
@Bali_Maha @jessifer @slamteacher @sundilu @Autumm @amcollier
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/bonstewart/status/1036053167765630977
@bonstewart @Bali_Maha @Jessifer @slamteacher @sundilu @Autumm @amcollier great question, Bonnie. you, Dave & George wrote some of that in xEDbook, no? like others in this thread, I tend to start with participatory communities/culture. I’d sure love an open version of ‘Participatory culture in a networked era’ (2015), but don’t think there is one…
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/catherinecronin/status/1036201310683578368
so reply to @bonstewart
perhaps have your first/intro activity be to create that article together on wikipedia
ie: https://twitter.com/maddieknicker/status/1035290181916454914?s=17 ht @jimmy_wales
and reply to reply
you got twitter.. maybe go for wikipedia as hosting space.. until we get something better
ie: hosting life bits cc @jimmy_wales
last ie is from this post: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/02/in-hysterical-world-wikipedia-ray-of-light-truth
It started with the wiki technology invented by Ward Cunningham, which allowed anyone to write and publish (and edit) live web pages, together with an acceptance that while “truth” might be unattainable, nevertheless achieving what it called “a neutral point of view” was a worthwhile aspiration.
It’s like reading the transcript of an argument that has gone on for a long time – an attempt to track rationality in action.
Like every other human-made thing, it’s imperfect. But in a polarised political climate, it shows what can be done to preserve us from the madness of hysterical, uncivil, conspiracist discourse that now characterises social media.
Craig Calhoun (@craigjcalhoun) tweeted at 5:43 AM – 13 Sep 2018 :
Precisely because of Wikipedia’s enormous importance as an information resource questions like this deserve serious attention.
To reduce inequality, Wikipedia should consider paying editors https://t.co/xGvEiFiX0g (http://twitter.com/craigjcalhoun/status/1040204437158076416?s=17)
Its reliance on self-motivated volunteers works exceedingly well in certain parts of the world; but, in other regions, this model has become an economic barrier to entry. Maybe as a consequence, Wikipedia is surprisingly imbalanced in its coverage of global knowledge..
Our own research found that the availability of broadband is a clear factor in the likelihood of people around the world participating in Wikipedia.
ie: paying for work on wikipedia wouldn’t help the broadband issue
Wikipedia remains highly lopsided in its coverage of the world..t There is a remaining and significant gap in global participation: many regions of the global South are still underrepresented among Wikipedia’s contributors, even in countries where digital connectivity has soared
Tim Hayward (@Tim_Hayward_) tweeted at 11:03 PM – 19 Sep 2018 :
Why Wikipedia is profoundly unreliable on controversial topics, especially those touching on corporate interests, foreign policy, or generally those where the 1% have a particular view to impose. A long read by Helen Buyniski https://t.co/JJITt902JG (http://twitter.com/Tim_Hayward_/status/1042640272428072967?s=17)