Interview: Ask Jimmy Wales What You Will

The last time we talked to Jimmy Wales Wikipedia had just reached the 300,000 article mark, and there was some question about whether it would be a viable competitor to World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. Things have changed a little since then. Wikipedia now includes over 26 million articles in 285 languages, and Wales is advising the UK government on making taxpayer-funded academic research available for free online. Jimmy has agreed to answer your questions about internet freedom and the enormous growth of Wikipedia. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one question per post.

Comments

Deletionists

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you feel they are a problem? If so, what should be done?

http://milowent.blogspot.com/2011/03/wikipedia-deletionists-delete-article.html

Flamebait?

[Frosty Piss]

On a more serious note, I'd like to ask Mr. Wales why most Wikipedia "editors" are "Class A" douchbags. Especially the "Admins".

This will be modded "flamebait" but it's a serious question.

Re:SPOF

[spintriae]

You can download and host it if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download. Keeping it in sync is a different story, but I think enough people fetch it that there's no risk of an Alexandria Library senario.

Re:Game of Articles

[evilviper]

It's a war of attrition and it seems like the bad guys mostly win. A lot of good editors have given up. I gave up, tried it again a few years later and gave up again. Many previously good articles are now full of industry shill references and obviously biased rubbish. The quality of Wikipedia is degrading steadily over time.

As one of my favorite ongoing examples, check out Fractal Antennas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_antenna

See the Talk page for all the back and forth about the corporate involvement, meat puppets being used, links to competitors being removed (fractus.com), and all other manner of wonderful stuff. There's a history temporary protection when the occasional admin wanders by, but then that expires, and the paid shills come back, and continue.

It's a very important subject, and yet there's not a bunch of editors willing to sit on the article and continue to revert the info for years and years, as Nathan Cohen continues to corrupt it into fluffy advertising for his (and ONLY his) company.