Slashdot Mirror
The Petition to Classify Wikipedia a "World Wonder"
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that a global petition drive has started to add Wikipedia to one of UNESCO's world heritage lists joining such historic monuments and natural sites as the Great Barrier Reef, the Great Wall of China, and the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur. 'The basic idea is to recognize that Wikipedia is this amazing global cultural phenomena that has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people,' says Jimmy Wales. 'Too often, people think about us purely in terms of technology, when this is about culture, high tech and learning.' Getting Wikipedia listed will be an uphill battle although a petition drive has already started. It will have to negotiate a complicated approval process and overcome the skeptical regard of Unesco and heritage consultants to be considered for recognition. Susan Williams, the head of external media relations at Unesco in Paris, said a bid by a digital entity like Wikipedia would be unprecedented. 'Anyone can apply,' says Williams, who added that she was not aware of Wikipedia's plans. 'But it may have difficulty fulfilling the criteria.' The problem is that to be included on the World Heritage List alongside the Great Wall of China, Wikipedia must be found 'to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius,' which it's not says Adam Chen. 'We like dorking around on Wikipedia as much as the next person,' writes Chen. 'But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant.'"
That's a wonder indeed...
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The UN in general, and certainly UNESCO in specific, is not important to the real world in any way, shape or form.
Maybe if it is around and relevant at least a hundred years from now, then maybe. Sounds fanboy inspired. Or is Jimmy's hand in this?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Wikipedia is not a "World Wonder" any more than the Guinness Book of World Records is a "World Wonder".
" 'But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant.'""
As does the great wall of China.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I was almost ok with this until I read "says Jimmy Wales". That's like nominating yourself for a nobel peace prize.
A World Heritage site should be something that exists in the world; something we interact with and can learn from.
Wikipedia is a very fascinating project and I wouldn't mind having some sort of international intervention in its preservation, but it's inappropriate to put it in the same ranks as a 4000-year-old forest or a historical church. It's a website; there should be better channels than this for it.
It is the largest piss filled ocean in the world.
From what I hear of the editors, fixation of idiots is right. Wouldn't be too sure about the savant part.
For everyone that's had an article deleted for being non-notable, WP being deemed non-notable (next to the Great Wall of China) should be just deserts.
First of all, it's Adrian Chen, not Adam Chen.
Second, his remark is completely unfounded. It's not the contributions of the idiot savant contributers that matters; it's the project as a whole. Or were the pyramids just "the fixation of a manual-laboring slave" ? Sometimes a whole can be more than the sum of its parts.
Personally I think an introduction to almost every field of human knowledge that almost anyone can understand is more important than a big, pointy tomb.
Le français vous intéresse?
Where is the unlike vote for this?
You got the touch!
Instead of going through this complicated process, just add it to the Wikipedia page about World Wonders.
Well, Jimbo does embody _one_ of those adjectives..
Why bother with a petition?
It would be much simpler if someone simply edited wikipedia's article on world wonders to say that it is a world wonder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
will be deleted because it's not long enough to be a petition, and it lacks third party sources.
Don't start a petition until that petition is completed.
So it becomes a UNESCO heritage item; after that any changes to it would be damaging world heritage and overnight wikipedia dies.
Be very careful what you wish for people.
If it can't be a "real" wonder, it should at least be a Civ VI wonder
If this drive succeeds, don't the maintainers have to lock down the site, preventing any changes? That's how all the other "World Heritage Sites"(tm) are treated, as pretties to be seen and admired. (OTOH, the thought of a final end to the WikiEditWars makes me all warm & happy inside.)
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
And preserve it just the way it is?
This doesn't make much sense to me.
Im launching a petition to have *sswipes named a world wonder. You want to see how bad Wikipedia is? Just click on Random page, until you get to a page where you know something about the subject. i.e. Adobe Software. Article sucks... not enough time to fix.
Why not pick the internet as a whole?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
While wikipedia is impressive, it's just one small part of the internet. Why wouldn't the internet as a whole qualify as a world wonder?
> 'to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius,'
Ummm, like The Great Barrier Reef?
Jimmy Wales may be the founder, but what makes Wikipedia extraordinary is less like Orville and Wilber and more like a billion coral polyps. Just 'cuz humans were involved in the accretion does not preclude it from being a natural wonder. The amazing thing is not that Jimmy Wales founded it, or that some handful of people worked on it, it is that an enormous number of people worked on it -- simultaneously, independently, without pay or a central design. It is, by far, the broadest decentralized collaborative work in history. It puts termite mounds, beaver dams, and 1970s communes to shame.
Wikipedia is not a work of singular genius, it is a natural wonder of a global organic system. A global organic system that happens to be comprised of human organisms.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Pardon my ignorance, but how does the Great Barrier Reef qualify as a "represent[ative of] a masterpiece of human creative genius?" I didn't think that human influences of any sort were a contributing factor in its formation (unless perhaps its deterioration is the 'wonder').
The world's least accurate encyclopedia?
The world's biggest internet cult?
There are lots of things WikiPedia is, but a World Wonder...
Which "Wonders" list should it be added to?
Maybe a new Wonders list is needed...the Seven Wonders of the Digital World? ;o)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
In some respects they are right: the Wikipedia is an amazing phenomena that is both a contribution to and a contribution of modern culture. Yet it isn't the only thing out there that is built upon similar premesises and contributes in similar ways. Most of all, you do you recognise a living part of culture? Let's face it, most UNESCO heritage items seek to preserve the past. Projects like Wikipedia are very much a part of the present.
You mean Fork Wikipedia?
Wikipedia ain't one. Yet, anyway.
The list of things of truly world-wide/cross-cultural significance is pretty special and doesn't include anything on the Internet that I know of. The list includes things such as major archaeological monuments, modern-day towns that typify an architectural style (e.g., functioning towns with centuries-old architecture), fossil sites, biological sites, and all sorts of other things. It *is* pretty diverse, but a web site?? To use Wikipedia's own standards for article inclusion, is that "notable" enough on a global scale? UNESCO specifies the criteria pretty carefully for their World Heritage sites. I don't see how Wikipedia could possibly qualify unless the standard of "notability" and world significance was pretty lax. If it did qualify, I don't see why other culturally significant websites as snopes.com and 4chan wouldn't qualify on similar "notability" grounds.
The process for nominating and having a UNESCO World Heritage Site inscribed in the list is also pretty drawn out and takes a lot of work. I was only peripherally involved in the process for one site, but I contributed a tiny bit to the application (a few pictures). It takes *years* and a significant amount of money to put together the case.
Here's my attitude, in case it isn't clear already: 1) I won't be signing the petition, and 2) I would question making a donation to Wikipedia if some of the money would go to a World Heritage application, which I would consider a waste of effort. When Wikipedia has been around for 50 years and makes a great impact on the world, then maybe it might be worth considering.
If Wikipedia becomes a wonder its location will be revealed to all who seek to destroy it. I would hate to see a contingent of war elephantâ(TM)s step on Jimmy Wales while evil priests turn Wikimedia into an advertising agency.
" (ii) "exhibits an important interchange of human values, over a span of time, or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning, or landscape design"
(vi) "is directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance"
Nominated sites must be of "outstanding universal value" and meet at least ONE of the ten criteria. "
Sure seems to qualify to me.
Disclaimer: Text is quoted from Wikipedia
Mod parent up. Wikipedia has become a primary vector of misinformation. Or rather, commission of information the maintainers don't want published. And who are the maintainers of these articles? Who has vetted them?
I'm talking to you, the slashdotter that contributes to Wikipedia. I'm talking about the maintainers of the articles that you aren't allowed to edit.
There are 10 possible criteria from which to pick one that a nominated site satisfies, including the "masterpiece" criterion (i). 4 of them apply specifically to natural sites, such as the reef, while the other 6 are culturally-oriented.
The "masterpiece" criterion is criterion (i), although you could arguably make a case for Wikipedia under criteria (iv) or (vi) as well (emphasis mine):
(iv) "is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural, or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage in human history"
(as a global-scale collaborative project with millions of participants in the information age)
(vi) "is directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance"
(free and open dissemination of information)
Get over your frustrations about the process and consider the broad picture and the implications.
Wikipedia continues into the 21st century what the Encyclopedists first started in the 18th.
It needs to be recognized so the collaboration on which it stands is not hampered by corporations wanting to cash on the Internet while having done nothing for its development. We need to point out where real value resides on the Web, when they insist on protecting their narrow economic interests.
I am not sure how much help will come from a recognition by the UNESCO, but I will back any kind of effort without a second thought.
On that subject, here's some primers on "zionist wikipedia editing": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY
Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
What articles? Please enlighten me to what the wikipedia haters are all butthurt about.
It DOES rival the index of the great library of Alexandria.
Just today, i was reading innumerable passages and articles while researching the decline of the roman army and decline of roman empire, and their correlation. (whether there was, or wasnt).
in the process, i learned a lot about immediate post-roman britain, post-roman gaul, and what transpired there - from how gallo-roman gauls had preserved a lot of gallic cultural traits well into the fall of roman empire to the return of the romans one last time to britain in order to give bretons blueprints and tools to teach them how to build roman arms and armor because from that point on they would have to defend themselves. (roman emperor apparently told britons they would have to defend themselves circa 406 ad or so).
yeah, i have a habit of reading history. as a hobby to learn stuff. back before wikipedia, researching history was VERY hard, and what you could find was rather impossible to gauge in regard to bias. there may be bias in wikipedia, but at least, you have the references to judge it yourself, instead of having to swallow what rare piece you found like before wikipedia. if we compare my last 4-5 years' of online history reading to ALL the effort i spent in the 15 years preceding it - well, lets not. they are incomparable to the point that i am not even able to scale the difference in a meaningful fashion.
im grateful. thanks to all who contributed.
Read radical news here
Not official until we can build it in Civ.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Well, okay, I understand "to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius", but lets look at that standard applied to the Great Wall of China, as mentioned in the article. It is a great feat of construction for its age, but I don't see a lot of creative genius there -- ultimately it's just a big obstacle to keep people out. Furthermore, it was not a single construction project, but consisted of a number of building projects over something like ten centuries. There is also some question as to how effective it was.
Come to think of it, based on the latter two aspects I just mentioned, Wikipedia compares quite well to the Great Wall of China.
Proverbs 21:19
Then we would have to freeze it as is. :-)
But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant.
As a developer I know how hard it can be to use technology to get groups of people to accomplish even simple tasks.
Look at how useful Wikipedia is. And the SHEER SCALE. It is un-f***ing-believeable.
Coming from an engineer, I can say that there is absolutely no question - Wikipedia is a modern masterpiece.
Does it contain creative genius? Yes. The creative genius was the creator's decision to allow anyone to contribute, when everyone said it wouldn't work.
They're butthurt that they can't edit articles about Judaism and insert a bunch of racist terms and unfounded conspiracy theories. They're from 4chan, just here to troll around.
This is important in so many ways - including recognizing a genuine, but virtual, "cyber" entity as worthy of being named a "world heritage site". I'd think that Slashdot, as one of the pioneering forums would welcome this.
I've often said - when the civilization collapses, we will remember Wikipedia the same as we now remember the Library of Alexandria.
-- Sig down
Just put that on the home page and be done with it.....
The Internet is way more wonderful, and one could even say that It created Wikipedia. Give credit where credit's due.
Changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people? Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me.
if it was a world wonder you could use it as a point of reference in a college essay without invalidating the work.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
From the linked article - "Founder Jimmy Page tells the New York Times"
The next sentence therefore should read “The basic idea is to recognise that Led Zepplin is this amazing global cultural phenomena that has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.”
Who is going to start it? I'll sign..
While wikipedia is interesting, it's got far too many issues to try and put it in that category.
I dunno about it being a wonder, but it will add +5 Research points for every laboratory you build.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
http://xkcd.com/903/#
The question posed in the link at the bottom of the summary is "Is Wikipedia As Important As The Great Pyramids?"
Arguably, yes. Much More Important, in fact. Self-important, no doubt, but so were the pyramids. I mean, what has that pimpled teenager king Tut ever done to deserve such a monument? (And if you're tempted to look it up, where would you go to find out?)
I think a bigger problem is the definition of "world wonder". As with many other things (like deleting/keeping articles in Wikipedia itself), we should have ratings to indicate importance/notability, not a false dichotomy of "in" or "out".
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Marco Polo: "Wow, great wall!"
Kublai Khan: "It was built to keep the barbarians out."
Marco Pole: "What barbarians?"
Kublai Khan: "Well... us."
The Great Pyramidal Pile of Shit on Giza
The Hanging Dingleberries of Babylon
The Statue of Zeus at Olympia that Looks Just Like Jimbo Wales
The Temple of Artlessness at Ephesus
The Mausoleum at Holicrapassus
The Shithouse of Alexandria
That's the list that Wikipedia fits onto.
what a crock of shit
We need a petition to have it classed as a reliable source of random values.
It's one of the most commonly used words in the English language. It is the very first word of the summary. It is missing the very first letter. What The Fuck?
"he NY Times reports"
Come on everyone, Sing along!
He Jock it Made of Steel
Eats Sushi from a Pail
Jet Jaguar? Jet Jaguar!
He Mother Never Really Love Him
He Crimefighting Covers Up a
Basic Insecurity
He Dickey Covers Up an Adams Apple
The Size of a Toyota
He Basically Good-Hearted
But He'd Like to Smash that Kid
Against A Rock
Knock! Knock! Knock!
Who's There?
His Head Looks Like Jack Nicholson
Don't Smile Like That,
It Will Stay That Way
Yahmmmaahoohoaaaugh!
Choosing the internet would be too obvious. Here's the review process between the two. "So you build a global network of computers, all physically or wirelessly connected to each other? They allow people world wide to communicate with each other in milliseconds? Hrmmm... that's cute." "Oh wow, you build build a simple content management system with relaxed edit permissions. OMG, how the fuck did you do that? That's AMAZING!"
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
About 1/3 think Wikipedia should be added, 1/3 laughs it off as silly, and 1/3 are just saying "meh."
It's a cool project, sure. But until a can use Wikipedia as a reference in a grad-level class or a peer reviewed journal, no, it is not a 'wonder' or 'the best source of knowledge ever,' etc. etc. It's good for trivia, but for more science-y and techy stuff, I'm going to find something that has been vetted by experts.
My vote is no.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
...from Jimmy Whales. har har har, hilarious I know.
Currently petitioning for a preview button on slashdot that doesn't take 20 seconds to confirm 50 characters of text.
There are many other things I'd accept as wonders of the world long before Wikipedia. I'd like to sign a petition AGAINST this stupid idea.
How the hell does wikipedia not represent a work of creative genius while the great wall of china does? Building a wall like that doesn't take any genius; just a tremendous ego, piles of rock and a ton of disposable slaves. It also doesn't contribute a damn thing to the advancement or future of mankind. But it's big and you can touch it and people are impressed by big stupid things that they can understand.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
"World Wonders" in this sense are things that have stood the test of time and often-times represent the peak of a civilization's achievements (or at least, the known peak of what has lasted from that civilization.) Wikipedia is useful for some things, but I hardly think it belongs in the same category as the historical/natural sites UNESCO's world heritage efforts work to preserve.
If they want to pick something "modern" to protect, IMHO it should be what remains of the US and Soviet systems/sites that participated in the space race. Ultimately human beings stepped foot on the moon as a consequence of those efforts. THAT's something worth preserving/remembering. And could probably use some help in the preservation department.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
So preserve its past edits?
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Accuracy Disputes And those are just the ones which they'll even allow to be labelled as such.
Because (naming just a few that I can think of now):
a) it is the ultimate global recycling project - "your junk is my treasure"
b) saves citizens worldwide billions of dollars by offering second-hand stuff at dirt cheap prizes and new stuff without middle-men taxes
c) creates thousands of e-commerce related jobs worldwide for even untrained merchants in underdeveloped countries
d) saves the environment from tons of e-waste (used computers, peripherals, gadgets etc) that would otherwise end up in Asian and African landfills
e) similarly, saves the environment from tons of plastics (think vinyl records, CDs, DVDs, packaging materials etc) and other materials
f) serves the scientific community and promotes research by providing cheap laboratory equipment
g) saves millions of trees (used books, manuals, textbooks and all sorts of printed materials)
etc etc.
What does Wikipedia offer to humanity beyond non-authoritative encyclopedic and trivia information?
I know more than a bit about the world heritage process and the article is a confused mess, for a start the lists of physical and intangible heritage are separate so Wikipedia would never be put on the same list as the Reef or the Wall. You also need a state to nominate you, petitions are neither here nor there.
this means it's close to extinction.
"Wikipedia is this amazing global cultural phenomena"
I would say that Wikipedia is a phenomenon in collective low pass filtering.
It is essentially an opinion repository from which emerges a consensus delivered to the masses.
Truth is another more elusive story.
Gotta love the self-promotion Jimbo's doing.
Every time I hear about Wales, I think of that lunatic Rachel Marsden porking him in return for
editing favours.
He should be replaced as the head of Wikipedia - he taints the organization
If not, I may have to kill myself in sheer desperation at the stupidity of human kind.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Wikipedia is less worthy of this than Obama is of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I noticed recently that some editors subtly, but clearly represent commercial interests, while removing competing information from Wikipedia.
I am afraid that it will all end up in a giant spam website.
thumbsup
Bernard Finnigan ("Discussion")
What a colossal ego it takes to try to get your admittedly useful online resource listed as a world wonder. Wikipedia does not inspire wonder in me, just thanks for being occasionally handy - when I can't be bothered to look elsewhere. They might as well try to get mobile phones listed because that's what Wikipedia really is: quite useful but we can live without it.