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.'"

Comments

As world's largest collection of ego?

[Alex Belits]

That's a wonder indeed...

Latest is the best???

[theshowmecanuck]

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?

GWoC

[geekoid]

" 'But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant.'""

As does the great wall of China.

Re:GWoC

[GreatBunzinni]

The counterclaim is a bit more idiotic than that. From the article:

But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant. You know: grinding out articles through endless pedantic debate. Wikipedia’s strength lies in thousands volunteers who care desperately about things most people have never even heard of.

This description, which was given as criticism directed towards wikipedia and intentionally done so with the intent of making it look bad, has the strange problem of also describing how the scientific process unrolls in the scientific community. Well, with the single difference of the majority of scientists not being volunteers, at least in the sense of wikipedia.

But even when ignoring this blatant mishap, I don't see how pedantic discussions on factual and scientific information can be seen as bad, particularly when the point of those pedantic discussions is to meticulously log information, free of bias and independent of any point of view. That is, it seems that those who make this sort of criticism simply don't know what they are talking about.

But hey, you have to avenge that time someone deleted your pet article on some irrelevant subject.

Wikipedia vs. the internet?

[DriedClexler]

Why not pick the internet as a whole?

Why not nominate the internet instead?

[wannabe-retiree]

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?

That old saw about egos...

[openfrog]

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.

Re:Just deserts

[vlm]

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.

It amuses me how this statement carries the direct implication that some pet article being declared non-notable on Wikipedia is somehow a personal offense that justifies bitterness and spite.

Yes, yes it does, because it disrespects both the victims labor and denigrates the victims worldview as being inferior, all for a small, brief feeling of superiority, and a savings of about a billionth of a cent of disk space and network traffic.

I think the funniest part is this would annihilate the deletionist position by using the force of govt.... You wouldn't allow some random dude in his mom's basement to delete a brick from the Great Pyramid, so I guess the deletionist philosophy would finally be purged from wiki using force of law. And, in my opinion, good riddance. Some antisocial worldviews deserve extinction.

but it is genius

[PJ6]

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.