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...

Re:As world's largest collection of ego?

[T.E.D.]

Well, we are actually talking about UNESCO "World Heritage Sites", not Sid Meyer-esque "World Wonders". Since it is "sites", perhaps one has to nominate individual websites? Nominating the entire internet would be like nominating the entire earth as a "World Wonder".

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.

Re:GWoC

[GreatBunzinni]

I think the problem that many people have with Wikipedia is that the pedantic discussions on scientific information are undertaken by people who have zero qualifications or training in the subjects.

Do you actually have any basis to make that claim? More to the point, a contribution is either valid or invalid, and from my experience that doesn't have a strong relation with someone's aura of authority. If someone adds something which is true, valid and correct then you don't need to demand to see their resume to decide if you accept or object their contributions. You simply turn on your brain, think and evaluate the merit of their contribution.

Another problem is that expert opinions are disregarded in favor of the leading editors and/or the rigid and sometimes arcane rules.

Again, do you have any basis for that claim? I'm a structural engineer and I've created a hefty set of articles on my topic of expertise and contributed to countless more. During this time I've experienced zero cases similar to the one you've described. I've stumbled on stubs which shouldn't be stubs, I've stumbled on articles which were poorly edited and I've even stumbled on a hand full of blatant errors. Yet, I've never had anyone revert my contributions due to petty behaviour you've described.

Yet, what you are trying to attribute to a conspiracy by "leading editors" may as well be the result of you being a dick, and trying to strong-arm objectionable edits based on arrogant premises such as an attitude of "you have zero qualifications or training in the subject when compared to me". In that case, don't try to attribute to a conspiracy the problems that you bring onto yourself due to your lack of basic social skills.

Basically, many people see a dichotomy in how the editors act: they profess to be seeking truth or facts, but their actions often conflict with these stated aims.

You are bitching about "editors" as if they were some sort of external group, dividing them into a "them" group while you are kept in the "us" group. Yet, if you actually had any experience whatsoever contributing to wikipedia you would know by now that you are an editor, just as I am and countless others. There is no "us Vs them". Anyone can edit, anyone can create articles, anyone can contribute to articles, anyone can change articles. So, please don't try to come up with conspiracies and "us Vs them" excuses to try to justify your lame, baseless point of view.

Oh Wales...

[Xacid]

I was almost ok with this until I read "says Jimmy Wales". That's like nominating yourself for a nobel peace prize.

Just deserts

[Duradin]

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.

They shouldn't dismiss this out of hand.

[koreaman]

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.

Easier Way

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of going through this complicated process, just add it to the Wikipedia page about World Wonders.

Way to knife it in the back.

[random coward]

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.

Wikipedia vs. the internet?

[DriedClexler]

Why not pick the internet as a whole?

bah

[jollyreaper]

Not official until we can build it in Civ.

Re:You have *got* to be kidding.

[geekoid]

It's been shown many, many times now that it is, in fact, one of the MOST accurate sources of data.

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.