FT: Wikipedia founder plans rival -- with editors

[DeepModem Mom]

Wikipedia founder plans rival
By Richard Waters in San Francisco
Published: October 16 2006

One of the founders of Wikipedia is days away from launching a rival to the collaborative internet encyclopaedia, in an attempt to bring a more orderly approach to organising knowledge online.

Wikipedia – which is available to be written and edited by anyone on the internet – is one of the most visible successes of mass collaboration on the web, with many of its 1.4m articles appearing high in search results.

However, its openness has also drawn charges of unreliability and left it vulnerable to disputes between people with opposing views, particularly on politically sensitive topics.

The latest venture from Larry Sanger, who helped create Wikipedia in 2001, is intended to bring more order to this creative chaos by drawing on traditional measures of authority. Though still open to submissions from anyone, the power to authorise articles will be given to editors who can prove their expertise, as well as a group of volunteer “constables”, charged with keeping the peace between warring interests.

Accusing Wikipedia of failing to control its writers and editors, he said: “The latest articles don't represent a consensus view – they tend to become what the most persistent ‘posters’ say.”...He said he became frustrated with Wikipedia's failure to build expertise into its editing process and left after its first year....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e62ce8a4-5d3e-11db-9d15-0000779e2340.html

[flamingyouth]

1. Interesting.

I look forward to seeing this.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. I'm a Wikipedia fan...

...and feel that their vetting process is adequate.

[BootinUp]

3. I would rate

the quality of wikipedia pretty good, but then I have only been using it for a year or so, and haven't seen enough to have a strong opinion.

[brentspeak]

4. After reading the Wiki article which said Trotsky was a humanitarian

I gathered that Wikipedia was as reliable as an automobile manufactured in China.

[Tesha]

5. So fix it!

Remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that *ANYONE*, even you,
can edit!

Tesha

[SlipperySlope]

7. Typical response...

This is the classic Wikipedia response to attempt to disarm most critics. It is really just an invitation to get sucked in and chewed up by the system.

Oh wise Tesha, ponder me this, how can an innocent user "fix" wikipedia when the problem is that it is run by Jimbo and the cabal?

[stevietheman]

8. It's classic, and works in most cases.

Most articles are uncontroversial, and as a long-term editor as you claim, you should know that. I've been editing for 2.5 years with around 20,000 edits.

[Bucky]

20. "Jimbo and the cabal"

It is of limited value for indepth stuff. But it is convenient, user friendly, and utilizes the trivial knowledge of millions of editors. You find in depth stuff on wiki that you don't find elsewhere without extensive and sometimes haphazard searching. It's not the sort of thing you can base research on, but if you just want quick answers, it's a great tool.

[Tesha]

22. Look, if the article on Trotsky is wrong...

> ...how can an innocent user "fix" wikipedia when the problem
> is that it is run by Jimbo and the cabal?

The problem with the Trotsky article is probably unrelated to
the fact that Wikipedia is run by Jimbo Wales and his alleged
"cabal". The problem with the Trotsky article is more likely
that someone who's a real Trotsky fan put in that bit of
"Point of View" and no one else has noticed it or been willing
to fight the battle to remove it.

So if the article on Trotsky is wrong, you *KNOW* it's wrong,
and you have some external, valid citations to back up your
knowledge that it's wrong, you sound the perfect person to
"be bold" and fix it.

But, of course, if you'd rather just bitch about how Wiki is
a cult of personality, well, then, knock your socks off. But
you know what they say with regard to lighting candles versus
cursing dark spots.

Tesha

[SlipperySlope]

6. Wikipedia is broken

I am a long time (and I mean LONG TIME) editor on Wikipedia.

You would be surprised at how intense the politics are behind the scenes. There is a small cabal of Administrators who have the favor of Jimbo Wales who are pretty much allowed to do whatever the hell they want, damn the consequemces to whoever they have to crush along the way.

Sanger is also right that many articles are controlled by the loudest editor. There are plenty of articles where the smallest of edits will bring down holy hell on you by the people who act like they "own" them.

As a long-time editor, I pretty much know the game, as much as it disgusts me. I wish Sanger all the luck in his fork.

[stevietheman]

9. Rubbish.

As a long-time editor (2.5 years), I know that most articles in the Wikipedia move forward without controversy. Just about all of the articles in my sizable watchlist are becoming better and better articles, mostly due to other editors' work.

As far as some admins and other editors go, yes, a few are anal, snippy and occasionally mean, but I've found those to be few and far between in 2 1/2 years.

I have found Wikipedia to be mostly inviting, especially to those who are serious about contributing to an encyclopedia.

[Simeon Salus]

10. I second everything Stevie says...

...except insert "1.5" where the man says "2.5" or some such.

The wiki projects are a phenomenon of goodwill. While there is some controversy on many articles (natural when rough consensus is being attained), it's absolutely amazing to watch what has evolved so far. I can only imagine what WP might be like in a few years. It's a far more organized and rational endeavor than many might think (he said, using weasel words).

I would encourage people to visit the Wikimania2006 website to get a special taste. Many of the conferences are available via mp2 or rough video.

Making all public domain information available to all human beings in our lifetime is possible, and a good start. Remember that sunlight is often the best disinfectant.

[expatriot]

11. As long as you understand what Wikipedia is, it is an awesome tool.

Is it the best tool for fifth grade research reports? No. For internet junkies who understand that the article could be very, very, inaccurate. Yes.

[LTR]

12. I had that happen to me

Wikipedia is full of self-styled faux moderators (often self-appointed) who think their shit doesn't stink. Had a run-in with a few, and told them in much kinder words to go fuck themselves and get off my damn back. They leave me alone after that.

The place is infested with a bunch of sissy high-and-mightys that think they own the world. They're all talk.

[stevietheman]

15. This is usually the response from a newbie trying to create a vanity

article. :)

Honestly, people who do that have to be slapped! :)

[entanglement]

13. Wikipedia is good for non-controversial stuff

n/t

[gatlingforme]

19. I agree I think it is great for stuff like that too

[bemildred]

14. Well, it depends on what you want.

Do you want to see what other people think?
Or do you want someone to tell you what to think?

[stevietheman]

16. Wikipedia is great with...

subjects such as science, geography, computer science, but not as great with political-related articles.

Where there's partisanship, there's controversy. Who knew? :)

[Odin2005]

17. History articles on Wiki can be VERY biased quite often.

One of the most pathetic examples was the article on the Minoans, which made absolutely rediculous claims of the Minoans being matriarchal. I pointed out the page to the ancient history folks at a history forum I post at and they all declared the article to be biased crap. A week later the article I checked and the page had been corrected.

[Bucky]

21. "A week later... the page had been corrected"

Sure you find bad information there, sometimes. I've fixed a few factual errors there, even tho I'm not a heavy dury wiki person (I rarely even log in). That's the point of the place--to be a constant work in progress, to collaborate. You example shows how it works.

[SoCalDem]

30. Perhaps they need a Politiwiki

:)

[HuffleClaw]

18. *snicker* good luck

larry's gonna need a LOT of 'editors'.

[Tesha]

23. Actually, his strategy is pretty clever.

Basically, his encyclopedia will deliver to you the Wikipedia
content *UNTIL THE MOMENT* that one of his editors edits the
article. At that point, his content will fork off from the
Wiki content and be subject only to changes by his editor.

So when some anonymous 14 year old later that day goes to
study hall and inserts the usual "Sammy is *SO* gay!" or
"George W. Bush is the greatest American who ever lived!"
cruft into Wikipedia, Sanger's article will remain unmolested.

It sounds like a very good evolutionary idea. Wiki's been
*TALKING* about "stable versions"; Sanger's *DOING*
something about it!

Tesha

[Fierce]

24. What does it take to be an "editor"?

I knew we should have gotten ourselves licensed.

/professional editor

[Tesha]

25. An application process to Citizenpedia

Yet to be determined, I think.

Tesha

[Fierce]

27. It was a semi-rhetorical question.

nt

[Tesha]

28. So I only gave you a semi-infomative answer. ;-) (NT)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. I like that idea. BOTH things should exist.

And using one as the source (beta, if you will) of the other brings us the best of both worlds.

[hunter]

29. Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread...

Good luck, Larry!

An Essay on Criticism
by Alexander Pope

'Tis hard to say, if greater Want of Skill
Appear in Writing or in Judging ill,
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' Offence,
To tire our Patience, than mis-lead our Sense:
Some few in that, but Numbers err in this,
Ten Censure wrong for one who Writes amiss;
A Fool might once himself alone expose,
Now One in Verse makes many more in Prose.

'Tis with our Judgments as our Watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.
In Poets as true Genius is but rare,
True Taste as seldom is the Critick's Share;
Both must alike from Heav'n derive their Light,
These born to Judge, as well as those to Write.
Let such teach others who themselves excell,
And censure freely who have written well.
Authors are partial to their Wit, 'tis true,
But are not Criticks to their Judgment too?

Full text: http://poetry.eserver.org/essay-on-criticism.html

But, oh bother, it all tires our patience at some point. Expertise and authority are transient things.