Noam Cohen, the author of the Link by Link column, is at Wikimania 2007, the annual gathering of people involved with Wikipedia, in Taipei. This is the first of his dispatches.
The lobby of Wikimania 2007, during a break between presentations. (Photo: Noam Cohen)My how the Wikipedia world has changed in a year. At Wikimania 2006 last year in Cambridge, Mass., Jimmy Wales, the project’s guru and co-founder, took center stage. He challenged the attendees to help improve the site’s quality and reduce the vandalism of entries.
This year, Mr. Wales was on the sidelines, briefly addressing the crowd before introducing Florence Devouard his successor as board chairman. (He later gave a talk on his for-profit Wikia venture.)
Money was also top of mind for Ms. Devouard, a 38-year old French agronomist. She barely addressed quality issues, saying that it was something the community had to focus on and could not be corrected from “the top down.” Instead, she spoke at length about how the Wikimedia Foundation would raise the $3 million a year it needs for servers and its small staff.
The site plans an online fundraiser in the fall, she said. (The appeal for money last December brought in $900,000 from users.) She said she wanted to avoid advertising on the site. But she was open to deals that put Wikipedia in other advertisements, such as a recent telecom advertisement in Portugal. It may explore a version of Wikipedia on, of all things, paper.
Ms. Devouard took pains to detail the extensive influence Wikipedia has already had across the world. The six year old site has nearly two million articles in English and another five million in more than 250 other languages. Users have written or edited articles a staggering 275 million times so far. And the site attracts 200 million unique visitors a month.
The conference has attracted about 440 attendees, a little more than half from Taiwan, who want to immerse themselves for three days in the ideas and issues that come up making an entirely volunteer written encyclopedia. The workshops cover practical topics like how to collaborate peacefully; what importance to give “expertise” in a project that is celebrated for allowing anyone to contribute, including anonymous editors; and helpful hints on how to combat “wiki fatigue,” the inevitable boredom that can lead to “wikiwars,” such as endless arguments about the year Alexander Hamilton was born.
Taipai was chosen as the site after an Olympics-style bidding process. The city brought lots of sponsors. Yet Taipei is a manifestly odd choice for Wikimania: it is a destination hard to reach for the majority of Wikipedians, who are either in the United States or Europe. The largest potential base of computer users nearby – in mainland China – are largely blocked from reading Chinese Wikipedia, let alone contributing articles to it. And yes the climate can fairly be described as tropical.
Taipei makes up for these deficiencies with enthusiastic volunteers, and the conviction of Wikipedia’s organizers that the project’s growth and evangelical mission is increasingly directed outside the United States and Europe.
The home for the conference–The Chien-Tan Overseas Youth Activity Center–sits next to the Keelung River and in the shadows of the Grand Hotel, which looks down on it from a hill. It is one of those old-school grandiosities each country was obliged to build in case the president of Portugal made an unexpected visit and needed a place to stay.
The Youth Center lobby is abuzz with gadgetry. One prominent display shows off five green laptops from the One Laptop Per Child program. I played around with one and found it easy enough for a child, with abstract symbols denoting various tasks: writing, browsing the Internet or calculating.
One of the most interesting features of the laptop, as it was explained to me, was its “mesh networking,” which allows computers to link to each other individually rather than through a central server. It’s walkie-talkie-style connections, but with files shared within the infinite combinations of a “meshed” group, especially suited for rural areas.
“Just like Al Qaeda,” I said, finally getting it. My guide’s dry response: “I’ll have to work that into my presentation.”
From 1 to 25 of 31 Comments
Wikipedia is one of the most socially beneficial results of the internet and person to person networking. I had read months ago in the times that about how Jimmy Wales had sold the website conditionally that it may not become a publicly traded company, and should remain non-profit. Similar to public brodcasting on television and radio in that respect, I find it troubling that the “wiki-staff” would find it necessary to elicit the aid of advertisements for public donation outside the bounds of its own site and company. Three million dollars is chump change these days for a company’s overhead, and I doubt that scrounging that up from philanthropic donations made by our ever-present mega corporations should be that difficult. It’s time they gave something (I mean really give) back for the perpetual raping of our senses by advertisements.
— Erik PedersenWikipedia: Too super fantastic cerebral to corrupt it now. Keep to the original intent. Improve only and always within the original vision.
— Ken HumphreyRupert Murdoch now owns the Wall Street Journal – how long will it be “The Wall Street Journal?”
Wikipedia is routinely hijacked by people with political and commercial agendas. As such, it’s unreliable as a source of information. But, like the other products of the Internet bubble era, I have little doubt that, at some point in some guise, it will make a few people, their closest friends, and a handful of investment bankers very, very rich.
— Charles WilsonErik, at least we have Google.
— AaronThat they have kept their costs down to three million a year is amazing. They do already have some very generous sponsorships from companies (yahoo lends them around 200 servers), and it would be good for them if they didn’t have to focus too much of their resources on fundraising like public radio does, as that gets annoying after a while. The effectiveness of the wiki model, and ’soft security’ has also had a profound effect on people’s trust of user generated content. I have started a wiki based site, http://www.scryve.com, and I think many other people have started other wiki’s with either inspiration or at least validation attributable to wikipedia. I, for one, am grateful for that.
— ArthurWkipedia is God’s gift to the poor in the age of electronic communication. Overall, it is the best source of information on anything, owing to the diversity of contributors. To the reader who suggested that Wikipedia is “routinely hijacked by people with political and commercial agendas:” please show me the media that have not been so hijacked, including the NYT. Or better, point to the media that have not been designed to deliver a diet of views approved by owners and/or managers of said media.
— SallyI know all about so-called “wiki fatigue.” As a hobbyist Wikipedia author/editor, I resorted to multiple login identities purely to introduce some variety into my various contributions to a number of articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=An+unattributed+source
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Office+of+independent+counsel
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Apparent+public+relationship
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Sixth+degree+of+separation
— Joel RennieWow, Wikipedia is only six years old? I can’t even remember what life was like before it.
— Lucas WestmaasAny word on Wiki sites other than Wikipedia? Would love to know how Wikipedia is influencing new businesses and if there is any profit to be found in the wiki world.
— JeffWikipedia is “unreliable as a source of information”. Unreliable is too strong of a word. It’s common knowledge that Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, it is a fantastic start for anyone searching for answers to the most random inquiries.
I do agree that, eventually, a select group of people will get very fat by transforming Wikipedia into a cash cow.
— CitizenSpehI would never go to Wikipedia for authorative information. Get thee to a public library, a research university, a phonebook (call an expert or the original source and find out!) – however many 10’s of thousands of “authors” (many in their teens, according to the New Yorker magazine) can definitely be wrong. Don’t trust the populace, and keep in my all media ain’t the same as real life study, interaction and fact checking – of your own! In short – fun for amateurs, but lacks professional standards, authors, and experts. And fun to look up subjects at random – but not usefulin real life!
— DeanThis is a response to Charles Wilson’s comment:
Charles, everything on the internet has an agenda, from a blog to a news website.
What makes Wikipedia unique is that anyone can edit and if the article is well sourced with references an article can be very reliable-even more reliable than the news sites, because you find out things you would have never known or a investiagatory journalist wouldn’t print. So Wikipedia is very reliable, given what is out there now in the world posing as information.
— Tony LongLike anything you have to do your research.
Wikipedia is one of the best sites around, informing people all over the world on subjects well known and some unique.
Well, Cheers and Good Day.
The mass media is a hype machine. Just look at the mess that the iPhone made.
— AaronWhile I wouldn’t go around citing Wikipedia as an sort of authority, it’s frequently a great way to get an introductory look at a topic I don’t know. I think that far too many Wikipedia editors invest their time and effort into current events stuff, whether it be news events, the latest thing a politician is up to, etc., but for relatively non-controversial topics Wikipedia is a great resource.
(Full disclosure: I’m a sysop (admin) at another Wikimedia project, Wikiquote.)
— Phil G.Wik like most of the internet is like chinese food, you’re hungry after one hour. IF YOU WANT
— PietroAt present, Wikipedia is more nearly a Massively Multiple On-Line Role-Playing Game than an encyclopedia. Anything found on Wikipedia should be viewed with skepticism, and anyone who wants to use it should get used to looking at the histories and discussions behind articles rather than just the articles themselves. At their best, Wikipedia articles’ most important contribution is in collecting web links on a particular subject, but ofttimes these will have been heavily biased in order to assure that one side of the story is promoted over any other.
— Basho“Just like Al Qaeda”? How callous. Presumably if this blog wasn’t edgy “new media,” the benefit of NYT editorial oversight would have saved the author from such a pointless analogy. Good job proving the case for unfiltered content!
— GerardWikipedia has a dark side, too. Lots of “game players,” Nazis, lefties, bullying administrators, and outright vandals. Reminds me of Dodge City, before the U.S. Marshal arrived.
— Col. MosbyAlthough it is interesting to note the focus shifting to money and not quality, it seems pretty obvious that this is the most pressing issue for the project right now. Without money, there’s no Wikipedia, and the quality debate will be just a distant memory.
— SergioThis column appears at an appropriate time as I seem to find my students at the university level existing in a state of passive, abject “wikipediality.” After nearly-failing multiple exams this last spring, in part due to finding verbatum quotes from wikipedia on many(accurate information in most cases but having nothing to do with the context of the course or exam question whatsoever), I must admit that the site has definately emerged as a popular source of information for those to appear content not to attend courses. In fact, I find myself using it for a quick refresher if I just cannot remember which general appeared in what battle. For most educators, including many of my colleagues, wikipedia appears all to often as an annoyance which offers an additional hassle when grading exams and papers. However, I encourage my students to confront the material there, if only to show them some of the drawbacks and benefits of “create your own history.” Truthfully, political agendas can perhaps more easily enter into a so-called “unrestricted” or “community-policed” marketplace of ideas and postings, but is the situation really much different than what is already filtered out of government reports, high school history textbooks, and college courses (see Conservapedia.com for a humerous response to wikipedia’s alleged liberalism)? The site and its management are, of course, imperfect and subject to error, mistakes, and downright fraud (a colleage of mine spent too much time creating several postings which were complete forgeries and are still available on wikipedia because they are written quite professionally) but I find that the site is a useful exercise in forcing students to think critically about whether the sources of ANY of their information operate any differently. Populist internet postings may ruffle the feathers of we “so-called” experts in the universities, but, in my humble opinion, it should rather be our opportunity to prove the validity of our positions through confrontation and, if needed, correction of sites like wikipedia. I have had too many students use the site to pretend that they will not take an easier route if offered.
— chrisChris: Your colleague added deliberately false information to Wikipedia and hasn’t removed it? Would your colleague also spraypaint an outdoor sculpture to “prove that it’s not invincible” or forge research results to “prove research journals aren’t perfect”?
— Ben YatesWikipedia is a sinkhole of bad writing, poor grammar, misinformation, rumors and myths that is a magnet for factoid zealots, obscure hobby buffs, tagging tweakers and uninformed geeks that–when the planets are in rare alignment–provides an actual fact. Why Google weights Wiki so heavily in its search engine is beyond me.
I have given up contributing and confine myself to holding back the flood of persistent errors in one or two selected entries. Even this modest effort keeps me busy.
Wikipedia is nothing but truth by consensus–as if facts are a democracy and you can put them to a vote. Despite its noble ambitions, it is only as good as its weakest link: some imbecile with a computer, an ISP and lots of time.
(Oh my, I seem to have violated neutral POV!)
— LarryIf you want to see commercial wiki projects, check out Jimbo’s new site at http://www.wikia.com or http://www.wowwiki.com
— GPJeff-
We’re not a commercial site, but you may want to check out http://citizendium.org – we’re probably Wikipedia’s biggest competitor in the Wiki space, with a slightly different collaborative model involving real names and empowering experts.
— Mike JohnsonProfessors and teachers should give extra credit, if their students add/correct wikipedia information on what they have done their paper on (taking care to not submit their paper “as is” but rather in an encyclopaedic style – which is distinct from an essay style).
As for citizendium, it may be the competing project that can be taken most seriously, but in terms of size, there are wikipedia competitors that are larger. For instance metapedia (especially in Swedish) and Conservapedia.
— Jussi-Ville Heiskanen