Results tagged “wikipedia”

One of the most frequent questions I get when I talk to people who are unfamiliar with social media on the web is, "Who writes all these blogs or Wikipedia? Who has the time?"

The answer, at least in this case, is me.

People who are skeptical about the web never seem to believe that we have a lot of time we could spend writing or collaborating on something original on the web. But they do understand the idea that people might be passionate and excited to write about topics they're passionate about.

So when I remembered a topic that's been an interest of mine for quite a while, I saw an opportunity to create a new Wikipedia page based on wanting to promote the work of someone whom I admire and respect, who inexplicably lacks a Wikipedia profile.

I wrote a simple page about Alan Leeds, whose role as a behind-the-scenes force in the popularization, promotion, and success of funk music truly can't be overstated. I admire his acumen, his taste, and the thoughfulness of his work over the years. But, as is the nature of people who work in music but aren't performers, his achievements thus far don't get enough attention outside of the respect for his work within the industry. I wouldn't argue a Wikipedia page is going to help improve that recognition, but it can help by being a useful resource for those of us who might want to make the case in the future. I have no doubt that I'm missing some of the subtle nuances that Wikipedia's moderators prefer (mostly because I don't really want to learn that much of the details of editing wikis), but the substance of the article is largely correct.

To my mind, that's a perfect motivation for the creation of a resource that people can use as a reference. Better yet, I am fairly confident I can draw the attention of friends and aquaintances who might have much more expertise about Mr. Leeds, and hopefully inspire them to point out resources or information that can improve the quality of the new page.

So, here's the brand new Wikipedia page about Alan Leeds. If you think you've got something to add, revise the article, pass along any relevant source materials, or add your voice in the comments. And if you're unfamiliar with his work, check it out — there's almost nobody else in the music business who's been so right, so many times, about the past, present and future of the funk.

There's been an interesting wave of news since my anti-Wikipedia roundup recently, most notably Jimmy Wales' comments about the evolution of the community. This is an IDG article on his statements, but it seems to be sourced from the AP story that appeared everywhere, including Wired, pegged to the beginning of the Wikimania conference.

• Why are half the pizza joints in New York City named Ray's? I think A Full Belly had the definitive answer to this question as part of a series of pizza posts a few years ago. Much more illuminating than the New York Times' brief telling of the story.
• PC World has been doing interesting A-B testing of potential cover designs, and I'm struck by how close the results are, almost 50-50 right from the beginning.
• Q: What if Jakob Nielsen had a blog? A: The colors would be based on his outfit.
• Christopher Hitchens on Mel Gibson's anti-semitism:
  

  This is not just proved by his twistedly homoerotic spank-movie The Passion of the Christ, even though that ghastly production did focus obsessively on the one passage in the one of the four Gospels that tries to convict the Jewish people en masse of the hysterical charge of Christ-killing or "deicide."

• Prince's soon-to-be-ex-wife Manuela is saving the children by selling candles. Though there are some minor details incorrect in the story, it gives me hope because I remember when she was just another fan hanging out in the newsgroup with the rest of us nerds.
• Some kind words from Mindy McAdams. Her thoughts about local journalism online remind me to direct everyone to this great interview with Adrian Holovaty about combining geekery and journalism. Which he does better than anybody.
• And if you're still not sick of Wikipedia analysis, the good folks at the Atlantic have sent this link to The Hive, an exhaustive look at Wikipedia and its culture. Set aside half an hour of quiet time to really dive into the piece.

The community of people who criticize Wikipedia form an interesting culture, as I noted earlier. If you want the links to do the research yourself, here's some places to start.

• The Onion, "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence": The first Onion piece that's actually made me LOL in years. "Did Betsy Ross, as legend has it, really have the biggest boobies in the New World?"

• ASCII: Jason Scott's weblog. Jason's done some amazing work with his BBS Documentary, his collection of text files, and he wrote a great post explaining why his documentary is Creative Commons-licensed, complete with a followup. But that's not why I mention him...
• Jason Scott's also written the most definitive critique of Wikipedia policy, here hosted by the Internet Archive.
• I mentioned Stacy Schiff's New Yorker article on Wikipedia, but this week's New Yorker features an article on the rise of amateurs that's really just a gloss on the most recent Pew Report on blogging. Apparently, most people want to use communication tools to communicate, but a few want to do journalism or make money.
• Finally ,Ikkyu2's Wikipedia user page, complete with a list of what's wrong with Wikipedia. See also LiveJournal and a phenomenal history of Ask MetaFilter answers.

Wikipedia's an amazing achievement, the kind of thing a lot of us use as a case study of what can go right on the web. But it's an effort that involves a large number of people, touches on politically sensitive issues and gets into topics like culture and authority over information. So it's inevitable there would be a certain number of naysayers, conscientious objectors, bitter ex-contributors, or legitimately frustrated users.

Recently, I've been kind of interested in this subculture of Wikipedians, those who've either quit or are advocating that others do so. Now, I'm not saying anything against Wikipedia, or being an advocate for it. I just think this topic is fascinating.

Probably the most prominent critic of Wikipedia policy is Jason Scott, whom you know from his work on Textfiles.com and his BBS Documentary. I think of him as a Waxy macropatron, collecting a lot of the raw materials of geekdom that make analysis possible. Jason's long been skeptical of many Wikipedia policies, inspiring posts about the Great Failure of Wikipedia, the Godwin-taunting Swastikipedia, five Wikipedia predictions, and the Great Success of the Great Failure.

Those last two items are the most cogent, culminating in Jason's (thus-far definitive) critique of Wikipedia, The Great Failure of Wikipedia. (That transcript is, appropriately, a text file. You can get the original audio at the Internet Archive.) What's great about this recording is that it's hosted by the largest digital archive on the web, features a performance/polemic by the individual who's created the largest solo information archive on the web, and is critiquing the largest collaborative information archive on the web. In short, the Internet Archive doesn't disciriminate: It collects everything. Jason Scott collects items with himself as gateway and curator, and criticizes Jimbo Wales for Wikipedia, which aspires to a libertarian information free-for-all but imperfectly implements democracy.

Jason sums up his argument best himself:

A lot of people thought I was going to attack Wikipedia as being "wrong" and something that should be "stopped", which is a useless argument/approach to take, especially if you're into freedom of expression. My main thesis is that Wikipedia's initial design and architecture, which is now changing constantly, failed to take the reality of humanity and the way people interact with information into account, and in doing so, has wasted a nearly-incalculable amount of energy and has betrayed, to some extent, it's promises, credo and goals. You know, minor stuff.

An excellent counterpoint is the mostly-positive New Yorker piece by Stacy Schiff from last week. Schiff's closing is the strongest part of the article:

As was the Encyclopédie, Wikipedia is a combination of manifesto and reference work. Peer review, the mainstream media, and government agencies have landed us in a ditch. Not only are we impatient with the authorities but we are in a mood to talk back. Wikipedia offers endless opportunities for self-expression. It is the love child of reading groups and chat rooms, a second home for anyone who has written an Amazon review. This is not the first time that encyclopedia-makers have snatched control from an élite, or cast a harsh light on certitude. Jimmy Wales may or may not be the new Henry Ford, yet he has sent us tooling down the interstate, with but a squint back at the railroad. We're on the open road now, without conductors and timetables. We're free to chart our own course, also free to get gloriously, recklessly lost.

There are many more Wikipedia critics, of course, but the ones that fascinate me are the people who used to be contributors but now have sworn off the site. All of these contributors volunteered for their roles before they stopped wanting to participate, but I find it interesting how much they sound like spurned lovers. WindyCityMike posted a request on Ask MetaFilter for information on removing Wikipedia from his entire web experience. (It's worth noting that this is actually difficult to do.) Just as interesting, he's got a complete guide to leaving Wikipedia, which is clearly effective, judging by his user page.

That request wasn't the first time someone had asked to remove Wikipedia from their web experience; Another Ask MetaFilter thread details some techniques for filtering Wikipedia results from your Google searches.

But these complaints aren't (merely) motivated by the technology or pervasiveness of Wikipedia. The real issue is that Wikipedia is a not-so-small community of people, facing the same challenges of governance, accountability, and policing that any community this size would face. I can't help but think that most of these issues arise because Wikipedia essentially runs with the equivalent of a Declaration of Independence but no Constitution. That lack of policy, or the overly vague wording of policy, seems to be the crux of the most convincing critiques. Take user Ikkyu's lengthy discussion of what's wrong with Wikipedia. It's impassioned and articulate, and seems like a reasonable starting point for making this great resource even better. His conclusion is damning in its resignation and apparent frustration:

I still like the Wikipedia, but not as an encyclopedia. It's just an enjoyable, relaxing way to fool around and waste some time; enjoyable for its own sake, but not useful as a finished product. I would never recommend it to my patients nor to anyone else as a source of reliable information.

Indeed, the harshest criticism of Wikipedia doesn't seem to be "It sucks!" but rather, "It could be great!" The negativity of all these legitimate criticisms masks the fact that Wikipedia is still an amazing creation. Because those making these criticisms are credible and articulate, I do believe that there's a real chance at making Wikipedia even better. To be honest, I'm not sure how they'll get there, but I do think it'll happen.

Finally, as someone who's constantly pleading for people online to have a more intelligent, reasonable discourse, it's really pleasing to see a debate that's being carried out in a (mostly) civil manner. I hope what comes out of it is not an attempt to tear down Wikipedia but a chance to fix what's wrong with it. In the meantime, we can enjoy watching a community re-imagine itself.