Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MediaCulture

Wiki-mania

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted August 9, 2005.


The latest 'Big Bang' in information-sharing is free, and its flagship already gets more traffic than the New York Times and USA Today combined: Meet the 'wiki.'
Advertisement

"I've seen things like this happen once or twice before," observed Mitch Kapor, software pioneer and head of the Open Source Foundation. "We're at the Big Bang of the next information revolution."

Ground Zero, at least last week, was Frankfurt, Germany, site of Wikimania, the first global gathering of the self-styled 'wikipedians' who collectively are well on their way to the goal of providing free online encyclopedias in every language on earth.

Created at virtually no cost by citizen-volunteers working collectively and using an innovative new tool called a wiki, which enables anyone to write and edit on a web page, the wikipedia site has experienced explosive growth in the past two years and now ranks among the top 50 most-visited websites in the world, according to alexa.com.

If it were a commercial venture, that means the valuation of the site would now be in excess of half a billion dollars, according to some estimates. But commerce doesn't enter into the wikipedia equation--in fact it's almost universally considered anathema among this crowd, whose most commonly articulated statement of ethos is "Free as in speech--not as in beer!"

Kapor was joined by hundreds of other enthusiasts from fifty-two countries at Wikimania, including such legends and luminaries as the Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman (of GNU fame) and Ward Cunningham, the brilliant developer who created the first "writeable web page" program a decade ago and named it after Hawaii's Wiki-Wiki quick transports. "I was going to call it Quickweb," Cunningham explained in an interview. "And then I remembered these buses I took during a trip to Hawaii and I thought, 'That's cooler!'"

For years, Cunningham ran his own, semi-private closed wiki as a communications tool for a small community of software developers. Then he received a query from an Internet entrepreneur he didn't know named Jimbo Wales, asking if his tool could be used to create a free online encyclopedia.

"Yes," Cunningham responded. "But then it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki."

It turned out to be both. Somewhat unwittingly, Cunningham had created one of the greatest social networking tools ever invented. But it took the vision of Wales -- and what rapidly turned into an online, global volunteer army -- to take the wiki phenomenon to the next level.

Offered the chance to create their own "content," and handed a tool that made doing so easy and fun, a community began to coalesce around the wikipedia site. In rapid order, thousands ... then tens of thousands ... then literally hundreds of thousands of articles, photographs, illustrations, maps and other means of knowledge transfer were contributed, corrected, improved and posted online. The English and the German wikipedias were the first to take off, followed by French, Italian, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Arab, Esperanto ... even Klingon (to the dismay of many!)

If wikis could be used to create a high-quality reference work like an encyclopedia, might the next step be to make an online dictionary and thesaurus? Enter the Wiktionary. How about a better Bartlett's? Enter Wikiquote. Want a repository of source text in any language? Wikisource ... All are now available via the parent organization, the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, whose stated goals are to promote the creation of free educational content -- and to make it available to the public free of charge.

Soon, other uses of the wiki began to suggest themselves. Perhaps wikis could help solve the crisis in journalism by enabling citizens to report their own news? Bingo -- wikinews. Need a way to engage readers and reverse the alarming decline in newspaper circulation? Let your readers write wikitorials. Need a better constitution for Europe than the one the Euro-crats produced? How about a Wikitution next time?

Although the wikipedians continued to ignore commerce and filthy lucre, commercial entities couldn't help but notice that something was going on. After all, the wikipedia site was drawing more traffic than that of the New York Times and USA Today combined ... and Google searches were sending more and more people to the wiki site every day, creating a virtuous circle of newbies, all in search of answers, some of whom inevitably became enamored, and seeing how easy it was to create rather than simply consume, began writing and editing on the wiki themselves.

Since anyone is free not only to create and modify content on the wiki pages, but also to redistribute the content in any way, hundreds of other web sites -- many of them commercial enterprises -- began using wikipedia in a variety of ways. Answers.com, for example, offers a direct link to wiki content among its potpourri of information services. Robert Rosenschein, who runs the company, also attended Wikimania, and pronounced himself a huge supporter of the entire enterprise -- something he demonstrated by having his company help sponsor the conference (along with Sun Microsystems and others) as a means of "giving back to the community."


Digg!

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from MediaCulture! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wiki Wide Open World - Been Here
Posted by: dancerkc on Aug 9, 2005 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have been through all this before. Innocent, naive, charming, idealistic concept which works in a limited setting finds its way to the world where predators lurk just for the "fun" or wrecking a good thing.

I like wikis too but the darn things are still mainly utopian. The only reason wikipedia and other wikis like it have been so superbly good is the community of dedicated people who have come and gone who keep the thing working and who weed out the abuse.

Like the innocence of the web and the internet before it (preceeded by various WANs) spoilers are lurking in the wings, as the LA Times recently found out.

I suspect the LA Times went into wikis not realizing what it would take to keep the venture on a level keel. I also have my suspicions they might have run into page editing they either couldn't manage, didn't want to manage, didn't have the resources for or expected wiki to work out of the box without growing a community or just disagreed with the community edits. In any case, they sounded shell shocked to me.

Basically it is much the same wonderfully naive viewpoint that if you put up something terrific all the other players are just as well-intended as yourself. As long as the whole thing remained a largely geek thing it was pretty safe. Out in the open it can run into a rough neighborhood where tougher management is needed.

So wikis will change in nature if they start getting wider recognition (as did blogs). They will have to institute structures which are somewhat opposed to the basic idea of wikis. No matter, wikis will change as they encounter a new lever of attention from vandals and corporate shills. Right now spamming is the most common problem - additions of lists of links to pages. The various wiki communities (multi-admins) have been up to and willing to do the task of cleaning out the kudzu.

But corporate re-editing will show up to reflect their owns views on the most influential wikis - as they now do with blogs in immitation of grassroots. As wiki success grows the existing pool of dedicated volunteers will be diluted. Once the new-puppy experience begins to die we will see who picks up the ball.

Maybe we've learned from the last time with invasions viruses, worms, spam, malware etcetera. But so far I don't see any wiki method which is ahead of the vandal/shill curve - once the numbers scale up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Checks The Facts?
Posted by: thirdmg on Aug 9, 2005 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article rhapsodizes about "free" content, but the only important statement is "the fact that anyone is free...to create and modify content on the wiki pages."

Just what I want - information that can't be trusted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who Checks The Facts? Posted by: brayingdonkey
» RE: Who Checks The Facts? Posted by: thirdmg
Edit wars
Posted by: pomes on Aug 9, 2005 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The thing is, this is not a unified community, and if you look at the discussion page behind any even remotely disputed issue, you'll find constant debate and "edit wars" where people continually change content back and forth to whichever world-view they possess. People have different viewpoints on what is a "neutral point of view." Just ask someone from Fox News.

Wikipedia is good for a first blush or basic exposure to an issue, but like any source of information, you cannot take it on face value by itself

A lot of this is not "a few really smart, dedicated people" vs a sea of vandals, it is just another arena for ideological conflict.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pzzp
Posted by: pzzp on Aug 9, 2005 3:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reminded of Hari Seldon and Encyclopedia Galactica.

Traditional print or other media is not necessarily authoritative judging by the volume of published / broadcast propaganda and commercial information masquerading as fact or news.

Despite "edit wars" Wikipedia may be the most democratic source of information, providing opinion and revisionism can be kept at bay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Panic
Posted by: turil on Aug 11, 2005 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wikipedia is Douglas Adams' dream come true: a realworld Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (a project he also tried to start back in the 90's, in the form of H2G2.com, which is currently hosted at the BBC's website).

Clearly allowing everyone an equal vote in such a democratic encyclopedia is potentially dangerous - due to the prevalence of confused folks who are convinced they know best - but this is cearly true in any media format. The benefits of the grassroots Wiki over "top down" information is that it offers the potential for combining the talents and knowledge of many brains rather than just a few. Plus, it encourages diversity, which plays a crucial role in the continued sustainability of the living world, not just biologically, but socially as well. We need people with different opinions and experiences! Wiki technology uses diversity to create a stronger, more solid pool of knowledge. Democratic collaboration is not perfect, but it's potentially the best way to go.

Oh, and don't believe everything you read. Not even this post!

Additionally, addressing the question about funding and money that was raised in the original article, I've been thinking about this issue as well. I've come to the conclusion that we need to create a new category of business that effectively is a "living" business - where the people who do the work can make a living wage, but where profits (anything gained above and beyond the value of what was expended in work/resources) are must be invested back into the company as a whole or it's community, not the investors' or owners' pockets. Sort of like a nonprofit, but without the "educational" requirement, without the restrictions on political involvement, and taxes would have to be paid on any net profit (before it was donated/returned to company). Money could be made either from selling products or services, or it could be made from "tips".

The "living business" designation still a fairly muddy idea in my mind, but I'm not alone in thinking about this kind of a non-greedy corporation. And, if you're interested, you might want to Google (or Wiki!) Grameen Bank and founder Muhammad Yunus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is really cool
Posted by: medeea on Nov 2, 2005 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is really cool :) There’s really nothing great than when someone is passionate about certain stuff. I also think Wiki are doing a great job. It’s nice to know that they have faith in people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wikipedia, Google Complicit with Gang Stalking
Posted by: Wyatt_Ehrenfels on Nov 15, 2005 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with Wikipedia and other global Internet communities (e.g. Google) is that they do not approach the problem of evil the same way we do in the civilized world. As regrettable as it is, we have evolved certain rules of conduct owing to what crimes have reared their ugly heads, and while we complain that a "few bad apples ruin life for the rest of us," we enjoy certain protections. There is even a greater burden on the Internet due to all the anonymity, the fact anonymity brings out our shadow personalities, and the fact that without the limits of geography, the potential for harm is even greater.

Wikipedia supports pranksters / vandals. I have brought stalkers and belligerents to the attention of Wikipedia without a response. Take for example the following entry:

Alt.Usenet.Kooks in Wikipedia

This is gang stalking, plain and simple, and Wikipedia is being used as a recruitment tool and faux source of legitimation. The people identified as kooks in this entry have had dossiers written about them, their private lives, and their activities on the Web (and these dossiers include their residential address and contact information). The stalkers use all sorts of tricks to flood the first few pages of results in a Google search of the kook's name with clones of these dossiers. How would you like your high school reunion committee, friends, family, and prospective employers finding these web-based dossiers and Usenet messages about you? And I haven't mentioned the hacking, harassment of the family members of kooks, identity theft, etc.

And even though Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of anything (my false edits to the birth date of Abraham Lincoln lingered for days uncorrected), it has partnered with the eoncylopedia associated with Dictionary.com (i.e. Reference.com) such that they are the same tool. Think Reference.com, sister of Dictionary.com, is a legitimate resource? I used to. Not any more. By the way, Reference.com is hosted by ICANN-skirting Domains by Proxy, allowing its administrators to submit false contact information to WHOIS databases.

Wikipedia Hijacked by Defamation Leagues

Google's Defamation Superhighway

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Books
Posted by: bokunos on Sep 28, 2006 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
324234234
Posted by: bokunos on Sep 28, 2006 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]