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.
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.
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?
Instead of going through this complicated process, just add it to the Wikipedia page about World Wonders.
A lot of local economies would beg to differ. All kinds of communities around the globe have wanted their local sites to be recognized by UNESCO, because it increases tourism remarkably. Also, UNESCO has done good work empowering some indigenous communities and helping them challenge exploitation and discrimination, especially in the Americas.
Wikipedia exists and I interact with it all the time. I learn much more from Wikipedia than from some old stone building in an isolated location that conveys nothing other than people did stuff here along time ago. Also Wikipedia's servers are very real things and in real locations for those who want to gawk at the computer chips.
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
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.
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?
They can archive copies. Wikipedia already facilitates this.
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.
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.
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
Civilization actually got it right: the Internet is a wonder. Wikipedia is merely an interesting project piggy-backing on the wonder that is the Internet.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It's been shown many, many times now that it is, in fact, one of the MOST accurate sources of data.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Maybe a new Wonders list is needed...the Seven Wonders of the Digital World? ;o)
I nominate Debian
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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)
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?
"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
A World Heritage site should be something that exists in the world; something we interact with and can learn from.
Well, that *certainly* disqualifies wikipedia. It's not in this world (I strongly suspect it lives in a demon dimension, byeond the singularity, in hyperspace or possible outside of the luminiferous aether). And there is no way at all of learning from it, let alone interacting with it.
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.
The forest is just a collection of trees. The pyramids are just a bunch of neatly arranged rocks.
I don't get why it's inappropriate, and all you've done is simply assert that.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
>> Pile of rocks = creative genius
>> How the hell does wikipedia not represent a work of creative genius while the great wall of china does?
So says a bag of water.
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story