Wikimedia to Hold First International Conference

teslatug writes "The Wikimedia Foundation will be holding its first international conference, Wikimania, in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from August 4, 2005 to August 8, 2005. Featured speakers will include Jimmy Wales, Ross Mayfield, Ward Cunningham, and Richard Stallman. It will be the largest gathering of Wiki[pm]edians to date."

Comments

Old.

[GaryWK]

I recall this being old news. Don't know why it is being posted now, although probably due to the fact that it is still held in the future.

Re:Old.

[teslatug]

I submitted it now so it's not too far ahead, and yet still give time for interested parties to register and/or submit research papers.

Re:Old.

[machx0r]

Why the Wiki[pms]?

call the fbi

[truckaxle]

I think it is about time the fbi or homeland security start monitoring this potentially subversive group.

Re:The neutrality of this conference is disputed.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Would their credibility stay high if they all stayed at home?

Agenda

[thijsa]

I guess we can all freely change the agenda and speakers order in a collaborative effort?

Re: Agenda

[Black Parrot]

> I guess we can all freely change the agenda and speakers order in a collaborative effort?

Think how much more fun Slashdot would be if we could edit each others' posts.

Re: Agenda

[thijsa]

And think about how much more computing power the servers would need. The wikipedia site, with a relatively low write / read ratio (so static caching is improving performance a lot) already needs a huge number of machines!

Re:Agenda

[Seumas]

Damn. Does EVERYTHING need a "conference" these days?

Re:Agenda

[fm6]

Of course! But as with Wikipedia, all deletions must be by consensus. Which means that hundreds of new speakers will be suggested, and only the most obviously demented or offtopic speakers will not make the cut. The converence is expected to last several years.

Re: Agenda

[MvD_Moscow]

Could anyone give a basic introduction to static cachin, wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this topic. :)

Re: Agenda

[danila]

I guess we can all freely change the agenda and speakers order in a collaborative effort?

Just think how much more exciting and novel Slashdot would become if only we could edit each others' posts. Editing stories instead of reposting them would be another amazing improvement.

Re: Agenda

[jacksonj04]

Write one then ;)

Basically, the chances are that not everybody looking at a page needs it dynamically generating. Therefore the first time someone looks at a new version of a page, the cache server generates a static version and serves that up. Future requests for the page recieve this cached version, until a change is made to the page which forces a cache refresh.

It means popular, rarely changing pages don't keep hammering the database.

Re: Agenda

[petermgreen]

i'd imagine the main reason wikipedia doesn't have an article is because its very much a case by case thing and it would be quite hard to be general in such an article.

the basic idea is to avoid re-generating stuff unnessacerally and in wikipedia there are multiple levels to this.

the level of caching closest to the users is the squids. theese only deal in complete pages and so thier main job is handling readers who aren't logged in. pages are purged from theese when they are edited so there is no need for them to hit the database when a page is viewed. iirc theese do something like 75% of regular traffic plus the vast majority of traffic surges from news sites etc.

the next level is the parser cache. This prevents having to re-parse the page so often whilst still allowing for customisations to how its rendered for logged in users.

there are also caches of some heavy queries for special pages and a seperate search engine with its own search indexes seperate from the main database.

basically it all comes down to analysing your logs and working out what is worth caching and in what state.

An upcoming media conflict?

[CyricZ]

I fear we may witness a major media conflict within the next few years. As organizations like Wikimedia gain strength, power and momentum, the existing corporate media will start to worry.

I see two things happening:

1) Discredition
The corporate mass media will try their best to discredit Wikimedia. They will have their pundits (ie. Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Kudlow & Kramer, etc.) make some outrageous lies about Wikimedia. I wouldn't be surprised if Wikimedia was labelled as "unpatriotic" and declared to be "supporters of terrorism".

2) Financial Cloutery
The corporate mass media may instead use their massive financial wealth to purchase Wikimedia out of the picture. They may start by purchasing hosting companies that host Wikimedia servers. Then using their financial clout, they may persuade the backbones and ISPs to limit access to Wikimedia sites.

Regardless of what happens, the upcoming battle between the Old Media and the New Media will be spectacular. But I fear the only victims will be the individuals, who no longer have access to the open-minded, and truly free content that Wikimedia offers.

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of bollocks. Do you have any idea what your talking about?

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I think you're a troll. Here's why:

Wikipedia isn't a "media", it's a collaborative encyclopedia. Therefore, the only corporations directly threatened by it are encyclopedia manufacturers.

Wikipedia may come under PR attack by any corporation it cites, provided said corporation doesn't like the way it's treated. But that's not particular to what you call "old media" corporations.

In short, I think you've taken a run-of-the-mill post about media consolidation and replaced whatever organization it was originally talking about with "wikipedia", in order to gain karma.

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[CyricZ]

Indeed, I do. Do you?

The fact of the matter is that the public trust in Old Media is weakening daily. People everywhere are seeing how they were mislead by the Old Media over Iraq. And that causes most intelligent people to think, "If they lied to us about that, then maybe the lied to us about Afghanistan, and Sept. 11."

Wikimedia has shown that they strive for the truth, even if it is a tumultuous path getting there. People will disagree, but in the end there is true debate on the subject available. That is something that Old Media cannot and will not offer. Massive, widespread debate and discussion will expose their lies. That is why they will need to strike against Wikimedia.

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely this should be modded 'funny' not 'interesting'?

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[kalleguld]

In regards to 2), I find it unbelievable, as it would require buying out every ISP in the world (more or less).

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[CyricZ]

That's not necessary by any means. Remember, while worldwide in scope, the majority of Wikimedia's resources are based in the US. The US has very few major ISPs. Some, such as AOL, are already owned by the Old Media. A lot of the smaller ISPs purchase their bandwidth from the larger ones. With their combined financial resources, it would not be difficult at all to purchase the large ISPs which the Old Media does not already own.

Even then, the blockage does not have to be complete. Even reducing Wikimedia's availability by 50% would be devastating.

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really now, what controls are in place to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an agenda-driven complex just like old media?

Wikipedia works because a concerted, "neutral" group of people tend to it. Couldn't an even more concerted group of people slowly and subtly execute some revionist agenda just as easily?

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[John Seminal]

In regards to 2), I find it unbelievable, as it would require buying out every ISP in the world (more or less).

Not really...

Look at TvTOME.com, the guy who started it wanted a place to keep information about tv shows. It was the best place if you wanted information on any television show, to learn the cast, the have a description of every episode, and to have details. What happened to TVTOME? A commercial website that was competing with them wanted their subscriber base. So the offered the dude who started TvTOME 5 million dollars.

As for routers and ISP's, money talks. I can see a "new" model where newer routers give priority to transmissions from preffered provioders. For example, a major series of routers now will let all data pass at 5 kbps, but if you are a pressered provider, you get to pass at 500 kbps. After all, the internet is growing and the amount of data that can be transmitted is finite. I am sure they will tell us something like that. Plus, who knows what new kinds of HDTV over the IP is comming. How large is that stream for 720p? Now imagine 50 million homes subscribing to it (trust me, even if you don't want it, the cable companies will find some way to force you to buy it, maybe bumping the price of cable modems up by $20 if you don't buy their other service).

So, the point is, companies are greedy and they will fuck the people every chance they can.

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[fm6]

I think you're a troll because you're full of shit!

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[Anonymous Coward]

The corporate mass media will try their best to discredit Wikimedia.

I *work* for corporate mass media and we will run a large and enthusiastic story on wiki phenomenon on that day. Written by Yours Truly (not anonymously).

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[daniil]

I find your enthusiasm over the New Media disturbing. Being a cynic (some might also call me an elitist), i fear that in the upcoming battle, the only victims will be the individuals, who will be forced to surrender to the prevailing groupthink.

Re:An upcoming media conflict?

[anthony_dipierro]

Really now, what controls are in place to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an agenda-driven complex just like old media?

There's the GFDL, which allows people to fork the project if it gets too agenda-driven. And there are also federal laws which restrict charities from benefitting private individuals or engaging in politics.

It could still happen, to some extent, but there are some controls in place to make it less likely and less severe.

Change in date and venue

[flyingsquid]

In keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, I have decided that the Wikimania conference will now be held September 17th-23rd in Ulaan Bator, Mongolia. Featured speakers will include Mikhail Gorbachev and Pamela Anderson.

Re:Change in date and venue

[Anonymous Coward]

For all intents and purposes, it might as well be Ulaan Bator than Frankfurt-am-Main, which is in the middle of nowhere.

Re:Change in date and venue

[T-Ranger]

The question is, will Mikhail and Pamela be presenting consecutively, or concurrently ?

Re:Change in date and venue

[Anonymous Coward]

Also in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, I decided to restore the event date to be from August 4, 2005 to August 8, 2005 with featured speakers Jimmy Wales, Ross Mayfield, Ward Cunningham, and Richard Stallman.

Re:Change in date and venue

[identity0]

For all intents and purposes, it might as well be Ulaan Bator than Frankfurt-am-Main, which is in the middle of nowhere.

I know we all hate Europe here, but we should not refer to it as 'nowhere'.

Please try to maintain a NPOV.

Re:The neutrality of this conference is disputed.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Please engage in pointless banter while your credibility as a factual source goes out the window.

What???
From TFA:
Featured speakers will include Jimmy Wales, Ross Mayfield, Ward Cunningham, and Richard Stallman.

WikiMEDIA.

[CyricZ]

Pardon me, Mr. Coltrane. I believe that you are partaking in trollery. This conference covers Wikimedia, not just Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yes.

But then there is Wikinews that directly challenges the Old Media.

Wikimedia covers all of the new wiki-based, individualistic, non-corproate media.

Re:WikiMEDIA.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Indeed I misread your post. My apologies then, as it now makes much more sense :-)

Re:WikiMEDIA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not like you ever troll or anything.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154577&cid=129 62786

Whoops!

Re:WikiMEDIA.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

That wasn't a troll Mister courageous AC. It's a post moderators didn't like.

Re:WikiMEDIA.

[njyoder]

And practically no one has heard of and no one cares about Wikinews. Please, by all means, show me a single media outlet that sees Wikinews as any kind of threat. That's *laughable*. I hope you also realize that Wikinews uses major news outlets as their primary sources, so to suggest that they pose competition to the very ones that they steal from is absurd.

This also disregards the fact that 99% of Wikimedia traffic goes to Wikipedia, which the news meda would have no vested interest in.

Now to address your insane conspiracy claim: They may start by purchasing hosting companies that host Wikimedia servers. Then using their financial clout, they may persuade the backbones and ISPs to limit access to Wikimedia sites.

When has this EVER happened? Why hasn't microsoft done this with linux publications if its possible?

Assuming they did purchase CogentCo, what are they going to do exactly? It would be impossible to keep a purchase like that secret and since Wikipedia hasn't violated the ToS of CogentCo, they couldn't kick them off.

And since when do you think having money means that they can influence the backbones to start filtering Wikimeda? Examples of where this has happened, please. Are you suggesting they would bribe those in control of the backbones? Give me a break. This would take a rather large scale conspiracy to silence a rather benign site that isn't actually seen as a threat.

Plus, much, much bigger companies have had bigger enemies and they haven't done jack shit along the lines that you've suggested.

Take your tinfoil hat elsewhere, I can't even believe that post got moderated up.

No harm done.

[CyricZ]

No harm done, my good fellow. They are very similar terms.

Indeed, the LA Times recent experiment with wiki-ized editorials shows the true nature of their fear. They realized quite quickly the true power of the wiki, realizing that it was introducing true debate and discussion. It was making people think, and that is something that the Old Media cannot have. Thinking people question what they hear, and that does not benefit the Old Media in any way.

References:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/18/214321 2&from=rss
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/21/16 17217&from=rss

Re:No harm done.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

the true power of the wiki, realizing that it was introducing true debate and discussion. It was making people think, and that is something that the Old Media cannot have.

You know, they're actually reinventing the wheel. Old-style, *independent* media of the past did exactly what you describe (i.e. keeping politicos in check, breaking stories, and giving a voice to dissenters) and they did make people who bothered reading them think. That has gone away the day big corporations started to own media outlets.

But it remains to be seen whether wikiMedia (got it right this time :-) stays impartial with those who host them (namely the big two, Yahoo and very soon, Google).

Re:No harm done.

[Donny Smith]

>It was making people think, and that is something that the Old Media cannot have.

Most people don't want to think and live the life of political activists.
They prefer to sit in their sofas or chairs, eat snacks and have the truth served from whatever source they feel comfortable with.

Rush Limbaugh already called it whacko leftist

[backslashdot]

On April 19, 2005, Limbaugh mentioned Wikipedia in the final minutes of his show, calling it "... some kind of left wing Internet encyclopedia," in response to the viewing of Pope Benedict XVI Wikipedia Article (most likely dated April 19, 2005 at 2:52 PM EST). During his radio program on April 22, 2005, Rush retracted the assertion after a Wikipedian called in and explained the site's mission and protocols, stating that he had received incorrect information from one of his staff members.

On June 21, 2005, while discussing the Los Angeles Times attempt to create Wiki-based editorials on their website, Rush tangentially claimed that Wikipedia was inaccurate about details of his life and career.

It's a legitimate complaint, but why didn't he correct it? Sheesh, why didn't he update it to make it accurate?

It's already proven that wikipedia has more accuracies than Brittanica. How often does the right wing or left wing (depending on point of view) media get things right?

Re:Rush Limbaugh already called it whacko leftist

[backslashdot]

Just wish to add that the italics text in the parent was quoted from wikipedia.

Free market forces, my friend.

[CyricZ]

Information is a resource, and reliable, valid information is a scare resource. As such, the laws of economics cover the dispersion of information. The forces of the free market will, if they work, prevent Wikimedia from becoming like the Old Media. The individualistic nature resembles economic perfect competition.

Old Media represents a failure of the free market. It is a monopoly over the dispersal of information. Indeed, had it not been for the Internet (and thus a recet decrease in the scarcity of information), then the Old Media's stranglehold on the print, radio and television media would have been more powerful. But now they face competition, and in this case it is from the combined forces of millions of individuals. A very formidable force, I may suggest!

Re:The neutrality of this conference is disputed.

[Anonymous Coward]

My point.

The wings are a myth.

[CyricZ]

The right and left wings are a myth created by the Old Media to limit thought. You're only given two options: right or left. You're expected to choose only one. And the vast majority of people fall for this. When an intellectual individual suggests that they are neither wing, then the vast majority of people cannot comprehend that. They have had their mental capacity so minimized by the Old Media that they can only comprehend the idea of two choices.

Now on the topic of accuracy, "getting it right" to the Old Media only means presenting information that will benefit their interests in some what, be it political or financial. Wikimedia, on the other hand, is more concerned with discussing the matters as they are. That leads to people considering all sides of an issue, without to define some predetermined "right win" or "left wing" set of views.

Re: The wings are a myth.

[gidds]

Indeed. If someone else hasn't done so already, probably a good idea to link to the Political Compass web site, which adds a whole new dimension (literally!) to the way you might think about politics.

I know that classifying, labelling, and pigeonholing is the way we humans think, but politics is a complex area and it deserves far more thought than just a simple red-blue choice.

Even an oversimplified left-right line, though, is worth examining more closely. For example, the 'centre' position seems to vary considerably; here in Europe, we tend to consider both US political parties to be quite right-wing. (I wonder if there's any correlation between that and our press, which in general seems a little more ready to criticise TPTB...)

Gorbachev

[mnemonic_]

Well, Gorbachev died in '91. Cool dude, he would have liked Wikipedia. In California you can always find a party, but in Soviet Russia, the Party can always find you.

Re:Gorbachev

[pharwell]

Well, Gorbachev died in '91

actually, he didn't. I saw the guy give a speech in '98. and, uh, he's still alive now.

Re:Gorbachev

[dapyx]

He also made an ad for Pizza Hut since the end of Perestroyka. :-)

Re:Gorbachev

[Finuvir]

No, he was succeeded in 1991. He's still alive. I'd suggest somewhere for you to look this up, but doesn't that just seem superfluous in this thread?

CNET News.com's Indian Tech Wiki

[FleaPlus]

Indeed, the LA Times recent experiment with wiki-ized editorials shows the true nature of their fear. They realized quite quickly the true power of the wiki, realizing that it was introducing true debate and discussion.

Similarly, CNET News.com just launched a wiki where readers/contributors collaborate to predict the future of India's technology industry. It's quite an interesting read so far.

Link to CNET's Indian Tech Renaissance Wiki

Wikinews article on it

Travel plans

[edLin]

Add your travel plans to the wiki: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Transport

Re:They'll cry to Congress

[symbolic]

...just like always. Congress (asumming enough ahem, donations, are at stake, they'll make laws that favor the corporate interest.

With respect to wiki[pm]edia...I think this is quite an awesome development- the encapsulation of knowledge by people, for people. Nice. Now, what's to say some overpaid moron decides that they own the patent, or some other means that will make the dissemination, or use, or demonstration of this information increasingly difficult, if not impossible? I'm surprised this hasn't already happened.

I'll be there

[theendlessnow]

Unless somebody deletes me.

I will only attend

[denelson83]

If it's held in Vancouver. 'Nuff said.

Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond...

[Grendel Drago]

Given that the English Wikipedia is more than twice as big as the next largest, it seems a little silly to have it in the middle of Europe.

Bah, it's not like I could go to it if it were more than two hundred miles away, in any case.

--grendel drago

Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond...

[Elad Alon]

There are more English speakers in Europe than in the USA. Also, I'm willing to bet that most European wikipedians, as well as most wikipedians from the rest of the world, use the English Wikipedia. I know I do, excpet when I'm looking up something regional, like a local historic figure.

Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond...

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Given that the English Wikipedia is more than twice as big as the next largest, it seems a little silly to have it in the middle of Europe.

Yeah, since no Europeans speak English...

Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond...

[anthony_dipierro]

Well, both of the elected board members are from Europe, and there is somewhat of an anti-American culture within Wikipedia, even from many of the Americans.

Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond...

[Chuq]

there is somewhat of an anti-American culture within Wikipedia, even from many of the Americans.

So not being totally biased towards the US is "anti American"?

Example: Both International English and American English are valid languages for the english wikipedia (so long as each article is internally consistent). If Wikipedia was anti-American, wouldn't everything be expected to be in International English?

Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond...

[anthony_dipierro]

So not being totally biased towards the US is "anti American"?

That's not at all what I said.

If Wikipedia was anti-American, wouldn't everything be expected to be in International English?

If "Wikipedia was anti-American", maybe. But all I said was that "there is somewhat of an anti-American culture within Wikipedia".

Didn't think of that.

[Grendel Drago]

Huh. I figured everyone worked on the Wikipedia in their native language, and occasionally translated. Though I'm still not convinced that there are more Wikipedians in Europe than there are in the United States, given that server load is highest during US peak hours, not Europe peak hours.

--grendel drago

Re:Didn't think of that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I figured everyone worked on the Wikipedia in their native language, and occasionally translated.

That's not true, of course.

Though I'm still not convinced that there are more Wikipedians in Europe than there are in the United States, given that server load is highest during US peak hours, not Europe peak hours.

I don't see a clear pattern that would confirm this assertion. Also, what are "peak" hours for Wikipedia? People use it during office hourse, edit it during their spare time.

Frankfurt has a certain reputation...

[Goonie]

Frankfurt has a certain reputation amongst international travellers. It's the place you fly into when you're going to Germany, but it's also the place you fly, train, or drive straight out of once you get there. The exceptions are, of course, banking and going to conferences :)