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.)
One of the more unique aspects of the Wikipedia (aside from the entire concept of a community edited reference) is its license. The current license for content seems to fit rather well with the goals of the project, but seems to cause a few hurdles as well (i.e. publishing a print version of the Wikipedia). So I guess my question is, what other license models did you consider when starting out with the project and what made you go with the current one? Also, looking back would you have done anything different with the licensing?
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Has there been any major academic co-operation from major universities or research groups to contribute wikipedia?
I know people contribute individually, but I am just curious to see if there has been any major institutional contributions that the project is aware of.
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
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?
How has the word about wikipedia been spread? Has wikipedia actually paid a dime for all it's publicity, I don't think I've seen any advertisement when I think about it.
What really motivates people to write extensive information about a subject? How reliable is the information the some John Doe submits?
Can you ping me now?... Good!
Was wondering if you view the Wikipedia as a competitor or an additional tool compared to a World Book or an Encyclopedia Britannica?
And do you see the future direction being more or less that way?
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.
Hi,
First of all, the concept of a community-built encyclopedia, open to submissions and revisions from users, is wonderful. It's much like open-source, in fact, and Wikipedia certainly exemplifies how to reapply the OS model to other contexts.
However, the contexts of encyclopedias and software are different. Significantly so. I'm interested specifically in quality control- you know when code doesn't work when it doesn't compile or results in unexpected behavior.
In what ways can a Wiki article be bad, and how can one tell? Do you think QC is a large issue for Wikipedia, and do you have any plans to further integrate the community in the QC process (perhaps akin to the slashdot moderation/metamoderation system)?
Best,
Raindance
Is there an effort to get articles written on specific missing topics? If one looks at a commercial encyclopedia, the full range of human knowledege is covered. On Wikipedia, OTOH, one finds several articles about slashdot trolls, for instance, while other (important) fields are still unwritten.
How is (and how will) the constant bickering between differing sides of the more controversial issues (abortion, religion, etc...) be addressed? Do you expect any changes to the current system, in which it seems the same pages get edited by the same people back and forth every day?
The systems in place to protect the database from "crapflooders" and "trolls" seems to work quite well. However, someone who is hell-bent on making it their business to turn a particular entry into an edit war unless they "win" seems to still be an issue. The lesser-read entries are more of a concern. For example, I went to look up some information on the Nintendo Mario character and found this user called Marcus2 who constantly kept making edits to other people entries based on his own point of view. Since these entries aren't as of a high profile as, say, Saddam Hussein, what kinds of safeguards can you think of to help ensure less popular topics become skewed?
What methods have you found that work best for getting people not only involved in contributing, but also keeping them contributing to the Wiki?
As Wikipedia grows, so grows the opportunity for misinformation to creep in. With a relatively small work, there is a lot of public scrutiny on each piece. What happens when the database becomes huge? What group would care for the integrity of the information?
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
I like the concept of a wiki, but I'm a bit concerned about the current implementation.
Right now, we are seeing several instances where crawlers are disrupting wikis, spammers are embedding wiki links to their sites to boost their Google rankings, and advertisers are placing ads in wikis until someone goes through and nukes them.
Do you have any thoughts as to how wikis can be modified to prevent things like this in the future?
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
wikipedia has everything, they even have a self-referential entry, are there plans as this grows to have any kind of trusted moderator system? how do you handle people who troll (input bad data, delete good data)?
steal this sig
How did you get so many contributors to Wikipedia?
Do you think your techniques could be used for other
projects as well?
(Specifically, as an open source author, I would love to have my users collaboratively developing the user manual - what do I need to get this going?)
Han-Wen
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
Is there a limit of how successful an open wiki system can be? Sooner or later, not only some simple minded lunatics will try to attack the wiki by breaking its content, but there may be distributed denial-of-service attacks from hacked systems (which makes banning-by-IP impossible) and more intelligent automated vandalism (e.g. inserting semi-random words or sentences in the texts).
Do you think that a volunteer force can defeat this forever manually, or do you expect that wikipedia will be more restricted at one point?
For instance, an Advogato-like trust network could be used to make sure that people are real, and a voting system for entries from unknown contributors.
How do you think Wikipedia helps humans overcome their tendency to hoard knowledge? In capitalist societies, those with specialized knowledge can reap tremendous profits if market demand warrants. Even in non-capitalist societies, those with specialized knowledge may receive elevated status or other powers. Given that Wikipedia follows a not-for-profit model of anonymous submissions, what drivers lead people to contribute? Do you think status-oriented, rent-seeking individuals contribute to Wikipedia?
-- SYS 64738 --
Ofcourse, these projects go dead against the brick and mortar corporations (Microsoft, Britannica), which, for years have based their business around selling content that is now available for free due to the effort put in by organizers and volunteers of these open-source projects.
Needless to say, these corporations have been openly attacking these volunteer activities as anti-constitutional, anti-capitalistic, etc. Do you think, that collaborative, volunteer-based societies are the thing of the future? Do you think that someday people/organizations doing things for the good_of_society rather than for profit (hate that term) will become a rule rather than an exception?
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Ever thought of offering alternative data access services other than HTML ?
examples of other successful community driven sites such as IMDB can be queried via email (in a structured way) and a huge number of applications are now built upon these capabilities alone, ever thought of offering up the data in alternative formats (XML/SOAP/TELNET/TXT etc etc) so clever programmers can create applications that could utilise the data in new and interesting ways ?
How do you feel about China's blocking of Wiki, and what effect, if any, do you think it'll have on the service that Wikipedia can and cannot provide to both the Chinese and the world community?
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Have there been any attempts by corporations to purchase and/or secure rights to the WikiWiki technology?
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
I would like to be able to have a copy of Wikipedia for offline use. When will we see the first Wikipedia "distribution"? (SuSE/Redhat etc. Wikipedia anyone?)
What are you currently involved in as far as legal pressure to modify the current system of copyright and/or patent law that restricts the public domain and the availability and distribution of information? Where have we gone from Eldred v. Ashcroft?
What can we do to help in the current efforts?
Do you have frequent legal issues brought against you by others with regards to your material, or has this been the exception rather than the rule?
How are these issues dealt with, are there any cases that are particulary indicative of the problems with today's copyright laws?
Thanks for your time, keep up the good work.
online for 48 hours,
One great source--if you can trust it, contains the familiar criticism that "it lacks one vital feature of the traditional encyclopedia: accountability."
How do you respond to this comment?
Does you feel that the Wikipedia community has group standards that are comparable to, say, the group standards of people who have graduated from journalism schools?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I understand the concept of free as in freedom, and not as in free beer. I recognize that they are not always the same thing. And I am an advocate of free software, quite frankly.
But one night when I was driving home with my father, I explained to him the concept behind wikipedia. He thought it was fascinating, and yet it dumbfounded him. How can such a thing afford to exist? What about the massive server costs?
I did the usual explaining of donations and such. However, he raised a valid point: It would be difficult for us to have many successful projects donation-wise.
How do you think free as in freedom content can continue to exist in the future, and where do you see it going... financially?
http://mediagoblin.org/
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.
Proverbs 21:19
Speaking about application of the wiki approach in other fields: What about using the wiki approach for the formulation of laws? Imagine if you would be able to co-author your own laws!
Of course there would have to be the normal off-wiki voting by the usual legal bodies, also probably some law experts would do a finish before that, but a "pre-final" version of the law could be developed the Wiki way.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
What is the incidence of well-meaning but misinformed people introducing incorrect information? Do you make any attempt to track this?
Related, what is the incidence of what appears to be intentional sabotage by introducing incorrect information? Can you distinguish?
... this isn't the right place to ask, but how about integrating Project Gutenberg with Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be great to have hyperlinked online books? :-))
Today, to write into a wikipedia article, you find a page, make a few changes in wiki syntax, and talk about the changes in the talk page. You also send notes in your personal user page.
I'm wondering: Is that process going to remain the same?
What process do you see people using in the year 2015 to collaboratively build articles in the future?
What about organizing groups of related pages- what kind of process do you think will develop there?
How do we keep the entries honest?
I was able to alter a current entry with no questions asked. The change was an attempt to add information according to my point of view.
It seems to me that someone could do this with an agenda and repeat daily. Is there anything to stop someone from leaning entries in favor of political or (anti)corporate positions.
Once an entry is considered historically correct, can the entry be locked? Would we want to?
I realize there is a way to point out disputes once found. I'm concerned with bent truth, finalizing a dispute and keeping it from recurring.
KenWood
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Considering the fact that wikipedia has gotten bigger than ever, are there any real potential fears that the lack of a steady cash flow may cause the whole project to collapse? Has any (and what kind of) unfavorable contingency plans been considered (like ads) and outright rejected, only to be reconsidered again at a later time?
Besides, everyone knows that there is no Cabal.
For those not in the know, and are interested enough to type shortcuts of the form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/shortcutgoeshere- WP:VFD is Votes for Deletion, where pages are sent to be voted on for deletion, WP:RFA is Requests for Adminship (now featuring at least one completely ludicous candidate), and you can look up the WP:RULES which this user finds so oppressive.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
After all, slashdot and kuroshin show that voting works to weed out incorrect content!
As 'Replies to Common Objections' explains, it's impossible to damage the information stored (short of an unpatched OS/MySQL/CVS vulnerability), easy to clean up the damage done, easy to monitor changes collaboratively (anyone can see the list of recent changes), etc. Defacements tend to be reverted in minutes. There's also a frank admission of wiki*'s flaws. Future possible countermeasures are discussed here, including authentication, peer-review, etc.
The same wikipedia response to common objections talks about bots, automated attacks, marginal quality, etc.
It's even possible to prevent defacing of a link you plan to 'publish': in July 7, 2004's wikipedia story, someone mentioned wikipedia and needing to link to a specific version of a wikipedia entry to prevent slashdot-referenced articles from being doctored. Turned out that this, too, was trivial to implement. In other words, I could create a set of URL's to unalterable articles simply by using the
'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=
Pretty cool, huh?
Do you see any way in which readers of a future version of the Wikipedia could choose for themselves on an individual basis who they trust, and be presented with an edited view of the data based on that preference?
This might require third order mediated trust