Slashdot Mirror
Ask Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales About Online Collaboration
Back in 2001 we did a "double" Slashdot Interview with Michael Hart of Project Gutenberg and Jimmy Wales of the then-brand-new Nupedia, which has since become the amazingly useful Wikipedia. This is a perfect time to catch up with Jimbo (as friends call him), and learn not only how he managed to make Wikipedia work and grow so well, but what we can do to help -- and what future plans he has for this outstanding Web resource. (10 of your highest-moderated questions will be sent to Jimbo by email. We'll post his answers as soon as we get them back.)
What's the current state of donations and what is the future of Wikipedia if fund raising without advertisements does not increase?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
When is wikipedia going to get google ads or some other form of text ads?
Hopefully, never.
Do you foresee having to add more complexity to your user system? Some kind of rating/karma system to discourage people who have a tendency to write libel?
.sig error: carrier signal lost.
how about making the ads optional, in the way that you would have to enable them?
sometimes there could be some intresting stuff from google ads on some weird pages.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Good post.
"How do they know it's accurate?" Ross asks.
I would answer Mr. Ross's question with a question: "Has the Encyclopedia Britannica ever had to correct an article?" The answer, of course, is yes. So you can't trust the EB to be entirely accurate either.
I've been contributing for a short time now, and it's clear there are a lot of eyes on the work. As time goes on, the articles become more correct. There is no way the EB can put the same number of people on any given topic. Ultimately, Wikipedia may become more accurate than the EB. It is certainly more detailed.
Oh yeah. He's watching it all right.
Proverbs 21:19
Other encyclopedias cite sources for their work. Wikipedia does not seem to have a facility for this, and I have yet to see sources cited in any of the articles. Am I correct in my assumptions? Why aren't sources cited? It would add credibility to the project.
I have seen sources cited in some articles. But it seems inconsistent, true.
Anyway, citations only mean that some other schmuck said it too ;) OK, it may help somtimes...
I think that Wikipedia and similar efforts highlight how we should question all media. The mere fact that something appears in video or dead tree does not necessarily make it more likely to be true. Nor are expert reviewers infallible or free of bias.
It's an interesting idea, but as you suggested, all votes would HAVE to tied to a specific revision of each page. Besides, if someone votes "Inaccurate", others have no way of knowing exactly what the voter had a problem with.
For this, every Wikipedia article has a Talk page where anyone (anonymous and logged-in) can write whatever they want about the article: inaccuracies, suggested additions, etc., without directly affecting the article itself.
In my opinion, openly and specifically discussing inaccuracy is much more effective than seeing a vague "Inaccurate" rating.