Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
Scientia Potentia est wrote: > Sounds a lot like Simple English Wikipedia. > > bibliomaniac15 > > --- On Fri, 4/3/09, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview > To: "English Wikipedia" > Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 6:13 PM > > David Gerard wrote: > > http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/ > >> >> > > A very nice and reflective interview, waxing philosophical. > > The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo > missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis > citizendium. > > Citizendiums "narrative" and "engaging the reader" style > does in fact sound good in theory, and it could work, if the > people writing citizendium were actually good at narratives; > but in fact they are not. Mostly it falls flat in a stupendously > comic fashion. Witness for instance the citizendium article > on imaginary numbers. The narrative voice there grates as > if there was a Sunday school supervisor reading text to wee > bairns and smiling every three words, to emphasize that we > so love this stuff, ain't it cute and cuddly, these imaginary > numbers, stuff and golly-winks. > > > Yours, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > > > __ Just by the by, the article of course on imaginary numbers is a bare stub on citizendium. The article I was thinking about is of course "Complex numbers". Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo > missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis > citizendium. I don't. Citizendium can't harm Wikipedia, but Wikipedia could harm Citizendium. And that would be bad. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > >> The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo >> missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis >> citizendium. > > > I don't. Citizendium can't harm Wikipedia, but Wikipedia could harm > Citizendium. And that would be bad. On that note, is there a good summary anywhere of the forks and "similar" projects (i.e. encyclopedias) anywhere? Not so much a summary in a Wikipedia article, but more a critical look at the timescales, size, and quality of various spinter projects or attempts to do something different. The only ones I can remember at the moment are Citizendium, Veropedia, and Epistemia. Is Wikinfo something separate or a fork? "Various other projects have since forked from Wikipedia for editorial reasons. Wikinfo does not require a neutral point of view and allows original research. New Wikipedia-inspired projects — such as Citizendium, Scholarpedia, Conservapedia, and Google's Knol — have been started to address perceived limitations of Wikipedia, such as its policies on peer review, original research, and commercial advertising." OK, so the list is: Citizendium (article) Veropedia (article) Epistemia (no article) Wikinfo (article deleted) Scholarpedia (article) Conservapedia (article) Knol (article) See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_encyclopedias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_encyclopedias Wow, a really fascinating category here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Knowledge_markets "Knowledge markets provide means and venue for discovering and sharing knowledge resources among individuals and organizations." Article is interesting as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_market Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > > >> The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo >> missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis >> citizendium. >> > > > I don't. Citizendium can't harm Wikipedia, but Wikipedia could harm > Citizendium. And that would be bad. > > I think you vastly over-rate the influence wikipedia has on anything. Specifically what influence words by Jimbo have. If pressed I would say that wikipedia does not gain from diminution of citizendium, even though it unfortunately won't even gain from having an effective loyal opposition in the form of citizendium. My judgment is that citizendium is vastly more dysfunctional than wikipedia, and as such largely irrelevant, even as a check and balance. I do however in the larger scheme of things think that having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive, ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I have very little hope of that happening in a form that is genuine, and not just a mocker. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Earth Deletion Discussion
Carcharoth wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > >> Doesn't work. Any rule which says to use common sense will lose out >> against >> a more conventional rule. The reason is that rules really become necessary >> when you need to force someone else to follow them. If the rule gives a >> specific, detailed, description of what is and isn't allowed, with no room >> for human judgment, you can force someone else to follow it. If the rule is >> based on human judgment, you can't. >> >> "If everyone agrees, this is what you can do" always loses to "if everyone >> doesn't agree, this is what you must do". After all, having a dispute means >> that not everyone agrees. >> > Not quite. If someone disagrees with you, you can explain why they are > wrong, and at the end of the argument, you can appeal to common sense. > Sometimes, if that person steps back and considers things with that > mention of common sense in mind, they will be persuaded. > > I see appeals to common sense as a way to jolt people out of > rules-lawyering. But sometimes in a more successful way than saying > something like "Ignore all rules". Explaining why someone is wrong presupposes that he is in fact wrong, and that you are right. More often than not he feels the same way from the opposite perspective, and we have a POV battle. It is unfortunate that some people aren't smart enough to live without rules to the point that mere guidelines become inviolable rules. This creates a culture of winners and losers. Keeping rules to an absolute minimum promotes innovation, and establishes more fertile ground for new ways of doing things. Most new ideas get nowhere for their own reasons. It's important to allow them a natural death through disuse; killing off these humble ideas quickly just gives something for people to argue about. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > I do however in the larger scheme of things think that > having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this > stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive, > ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I > have very little hope of that happening in a form that is > genuine, and not just a mocker. > Agreed. At least in theory it counter-balance the rule-oriented and corporatist tendencies that have developed. The difficulty is that it would take a lot of resources and tenacity to pull this off. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> I do however in the larger scheme of things think that
>> having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this
>> stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive,
>> ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I
>> have very little hope of that happening in a form that is
>> genuine, and not just a mocker.
>>
>
> Agreed. At least in theory it counter-balance the rule-oriented and
> corporatist tendencies that have developed. The difficulty is that it
> would take a lot of resources and tenacity to pull this off.
>
> Ec
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
At this stage, I'd say that the odds of a successful fork are roughly
nil. The problem for a fork is that it is immediately competes with
wikipedia, and is offering a product that the average reader or
contributor will probably not differentiate much from wikipedia. If it
takes the whole database, it won't have enough initial users to maintain
it. If it doesn't, then why would anyone use it when they have wikipedia?
The only real hope for a competitor would be one that offered something
substantially different to both reader and writer. Only then can it
overcome the "motivation problem" of getting people interested in an
initially small project, when there's the giant wikipedia available.
The ingredients of a "different product" are there:
Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of
ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally
take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV
etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV.
Readers could be offered things like: 1) useful commercial links
("people interested in this topic might like to buy the following
books") 2) a more reliable - stable product 3) a more "child friendly"
product. 4) ability to know the qualifications - or even online
reputation - of the author. 5) ability to read articles written from a
POV you share.
Now, some of those attributes were offered by veropedia, some by
Citenzium, or Conservapedia, and some by others. Some are obviously
incompatible, or possibly infeasible, and so far no one has found a
recipe to combine any of them successfully. (I'd class all current
offerings as failed or failing). However given that the rewards for
success here could be remarkably high, I'd suggest that there will be
more attempts in coming years, and possibly by very well-resourced
players (Wikipedia is vulnerable in that the WMF is underfunded - what
happens if a competitor goes for advertising with a massive publicity
budget could be interesting). It is not beyond possibility that someday
someone will stumble on a formula that works, and will either complement
or overshadow wikipedia.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
2009/4/4 doc : > Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of > ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally > take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV > etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV. If we look at the more successful wikis however the only successful ones appear to be allowing original research, Some level of POV and totaly non wikipedia style. TVTropes is probably the best example. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
geni wrote: > 2009/4/4 doc : >> Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of >> ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally >> take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV >> etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV. > > If we look at the more successful wikis however the only successful > ones appear to be allowing original research, Some level of POV and > totaly non wikipedia style. TVTropes is probably the best example. > > I do not assume that a future competitor to wikipedia will be a wiki. Indeed I doubt anyone could compete on that basis. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
On the subject of what comes after wikipedia, or what successful forks there are. My experience in this regard with knol is interesting. Knol allows of course POV, and OR, the idea being that the best ones will percolate to the top by getting lots of ratings. This doesn't exactly seem to be what's occurring. I would say that the best ones are percolating to the top by getting lots of VIEWS which is quite a different thing. Very few of my knols, even the most read ones, get any sort of editing, even though they are marked "moderated editing". Does this mean that most people would rather just write their own from scratch? Or does this mean people don't want to add edits if I'm getting the revenue share? (which is pennies a month) Or does it just mean that Knol hasn't yet gotten the critical weight ? Or maybe my knols are so perfect nobody can think of any edits. Will Johnson ** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/4/1 doc : >> Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a >> pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? > > Without commenting on this specific proposal, I thought it interesting > that the de.wikipedia.org community implemented a fairly simple way to > drive more sourcing on all articles: They made the edit summary field > mandatory for new users, and have renamed it to "Summary and Sources", > making it clear in lots of places that edits without sources aren't > acceptable. If you look at anon recent-changes on de.wp, you'll notice > that this has led to lots of people including URLs, etc., directly in > their edit summaries. [1] This makes it at least a bit easier for > other users to decide on whether the edit was legitimate. > > [1] > http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Letzte_%C3%84nderungen&hideliu=1 > - As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't > seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently > unexplained. This is pretty great, and could be an easy, painless way to up sourcing across the board. Certainly, footnote syntax is so confusing that many people just don't bother; and this would probably help with identifying copyvios as well. A while (years?) ago the idea came up of using some sort of semantic form for new articles that included, explicitly, a box for sources; and I think that is a great idea as well. In the meantime, what about a link at the top of the create an article box to the code for a basic article that could be pasted in, including a refs section? Or a link to a step by step article creation tutorial, like on Articles for creation? I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix blp's. -- phoebe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
2009/4/4 phoebe ayers :
> This is pretty great, and could be an easy, painless way to up
> sourcing across the board. Certainly, footnote syntax is so confusing
> that many people just don't bother; and this would probably help with
> identifying copyvios as well.
I generally don't bother with the various {{cite}} templates. I don't
usually sort my {{stub}}s either. It's a wiki, someone who cares can.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:21 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: >> 2009/4/1 doc : >>> Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a >>> pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person? >> >> Without commenting on this specific proposal, I thought it interesting >> that the de.wikipedia.org community implemented a fairly simple way to >> drive more sourcing on all articles: They made the edit summary field >> mandatory for new users, and have renamed it to "Summary and Sources", >> making it clear in lots of places that edits without sources aren't >> acceptable. If you look at anon recent-changes on de.wp, you'll notice >> that this has led to lots of people including URLs, etc., directly in >> their edit summaries. [1] This makes it at least a bit easier for >> other users to decide on whether the edit was legitimate. >> >> [1] >> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Letzte_%C3%84nderungen&hideliu=1 >> - As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't >> seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently >> unexplained. > > This is pretty great, and could be an easy, painless way to up > sourcing across the board. p.s. I put this on the Village Pump for discussion as well -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#changing_text_of_edit_summary_field -- phoebe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
phoebe ayers wrote: > I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in > subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix > blp's. > > -- phoebe > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > A very simple and non-controversial start might be to ask New Page patrolers, when they see a new unsourced BLP (or indeed any unsourced article) to put a polite message on the creator's talk page saying "Thanks for your article [XYZ]. Wikipedia asks that all material be verifiable from reliable sources, it is important that readers and other users can check what's been writen. You don't seem to have told us the source you used for this article. Please can you edit the article to indicate what the source is? (Click here for help if you don't know how.) Unsourced material about living people may be removed if challenged." That doesn't bite or threaten any newbies, although if established editors keep getting these on their talk pages, threats might be warranted. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM, doc wrote: > phoebe ayers wrote: >> I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in >> subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix >> blp's. >> >> -- phoebe >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > A very simple and non-controversial start might be to ask New Page > patrolers, when they see a new unsourced BLP (or indeed any unsourced > article) to put a polite message on the creator's talk page saying > > "Thanks for your article [XYZ]. Wikipedia asks that all material be > verifiable from reliable sources, it is important that readers and other > users can check what's been writen. You don't seem to have told us the > source you used for this article. Please can you edit the article to > indicate what the source is? (Click here for help if you don't know > how.) Unsourced material about living people may be removed if challenged." > > That doesn't bite or threaten any newbies, although if established > editors keep getting these on their talk pages, threats might be warranted. Yes, definitely -- I try to do this whenever I dabble in new page patrolling, and it depresses me to no end that everyone doesn't do this. It's common politeness. The majority of new articles aren't suitable for wp, but they aren't spam or pure vandalism either -- and we need to do a much better job of interacting with these potential good contributors. For a template, I think you're looking for something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcomeunsourced, only less wordy and not only for reverted edits. p.s. per my previous msg, I guess I'm showing my age -- I think I was thinking of the new page template proposal from 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_article_template -- phoebe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Wikimania 2009: Call for Participation reminder
Just to remind you all that the Call for Participation for Wikimania 2009 closes soon. You can view the Call for Participation on the following page: http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Participation with many translations available. For more information about Wikimania 2009, see http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/ -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
doc wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>
>>> I do however in the larger scheme of things think that
>>> having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this
>>> stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive,
>>> ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I
>>> have very little hope of that happening in a form that is
>>> genuine, and not just a mocker.
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed. At least in theory it counter-balance the rule-oriented and
>> corporatist tendencies that have developed. The difficulty is that it
>> would take a lot of resources and tenacity to pull this off.
>>
>>
> At this stage, I'd say that the odds of a successful fork are roughly
> nil. The problem for a fork is that it is immediately competes with
> wikipedia, and is offering a product that the average reader or
> contributor will probably not differentiate much from wikipedia. If it
> takes the whole database, it won't have enough initial users to maintain
> it. If it doesn't, then why would anyone use it when they have wikipedia?
>
> The only real hope for a competitor would be one that offered something
> substantially different to both reader and writer. Only then can it
> overcome the "motivation problem" of getting people interested in an
> initially small project, when there's the giant wikipedia available.
>
> The ingredients of a "different product" are there:
>
> Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of
> ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally
> take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV
> etc.). 3) Ability to publish original research. 4) Ability to reflect a POV.
>
> Readers could be offered things like: 1) useful commercial links
> ("people interested in this topic might like to buy the following
> books") 2) a more reliable - stable product 3) a more "child friendly"
> product. 4) ability to know the qualifications - or even online
> reputation - of the author. 5) ability to read articles written from a
> POV you share.
>
> Now, some of those attributes were offered by veropedia, some by
> Citenzium, or Conservapedia, and some by others. Some are obviously
> incompatible, or possibly infeasible, and so far no one has found a
> recipe to combine any of them successfully. (I'd class all current
> offerings as failed or failing). However given that the rewards for
> success here could be remarkably high, I'd suggest that there will be
> more attempts in coming years, and possibly by very well-resourced
> players (Wikipedia is vulnerable in that the WMF is underfunded - what
> happens if a competitor goes for advertising with a massive publicity
> budget could be interesting). It is not beyond possibility that someday
> someone will stumble on a formula that works, and will either complement
> or overshadow wikipedia.
>
>
I think I agree with just about everything you posit, except
that I would limit it to the English wikipedia, or conceivably
to some of the larger language wikipedias. It seems clear to
me that minor languages just don't have enough mindshare
to split out to produce a viable fork without completely
decimating the original wikipedia, essentially rubbing it out
as a going concern.
However an intriguing possibility does peek at the extreme
other end of the spectrum. Should wikimedia ever stop the
expansion into the very tiniest of languages at some definite
level, an outside project that picked up on languages that
wikimedia had rejected, would have a form of opening at
doing something that would quite genuinely complement
wikimedia.
Essentially the most realistic scenario for the creation of
a viable fork of the English Wikipedia remains the
prospect that enwiki completely loses its way, and
precipitates an exodus. But we all know that at that
point many good people would kick in and try mightily
to right the ship of wikipedia on its keel. I would be in
there, working shoulder to shoulder, not jumping ship.
I have every faith that any such foundering would
prove a short lived experience, and the experience
would merely revitalize our community. And of course
I don't envision that scenario even as remotely likely.
I have always maintained as my personal belief that
wikipedia will still be going strong decades and
centuries from now.
I believe the comparison in terms of longevity of the
wiki model of encyclopaedia building is to that of
movable type. Printing with movable type is still
with us, even if the type is set electronically these
days.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
