25 Responses to “Pilot #3: The Wikipedia”

1. dkesh Says:
   May 16th, 2005 at 4:11 pm

   Hi,

   I’m a long-time Wikipedian and really glad to see you doing a show about it.

   Quick correction, though: Jimmy Wales is not the only paid employee of Wikipedia. 1) I don’t know whether or not Jimbo takes any money; for sure, he’s sunk far more money in than he’s taken out. 2) The non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia as well as Wiktionary, WikiNews, WikiCommons, and a few other projects) has other paid employees, both of them hired to do technical work that they were already doing, and which was detracting from their other jobs.

   But you are correct, definitely, that the vast majority of people do work for Wikipedia entirely on a volunteer basis.

2. Angela Says:
   May 16th, 2005 at 7:49 pm

   Jimmy is not paid. The only people we pay are Brion Vibber (our lead developer) and Chad Perrin (for work in the Florida colo).

   Angela.

3. The National Debate Says:
   May 17th, 2005 at 9:29 am

   Flying the MBA Flag

   Today turned into MBA promotion day pretty quickly. This morning I was awakened by a producer from WUML 91.5 in Lowell, Mass. I had forgotten all about an interview I had agreed to the week before on the The Sunrise…

4. pfhyper Says:
   May 18th, 2005 at 11:26 am

   You might want to check Tim Bray’s writings on Wikipedia. He also has some good links to other Wikipedia articles especially concerning some of the controversy it’s inspired.

   Plug:

   wikipedia site:tbray.org

   into a Google search and you’ll get a list.

5. bft Says:
   May 20th, 2005 at 9:45 am

   There’s nothing “analog” about the OED. Definitions are discrete. The difference between “analog” and “digital” is something different from the difference between “pre-computer” and “post-computer” or the difference between “text” and “hyper-text”.

6. dkesh Says:
   May 21st, 2005 at 8:06 pm

   As a reply to Karen Schneider and Lydia Moland: most editors at Wikipedia are passionate about research, about knowledge, about presenting knowledge from different viewpoints, and learning to identify and understand biases. Towards that end, we have set up a page designed to help students and other researchers know how to use Wikipedia as a learning resource: Researching with Wikipedia. I encourage you to point your students toward that page, so that they understand the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of Wikipedia as a source.

7. dkesh Says:
   May 21st, 2005 at 8:19 pm

   As a reply to Chris’ opening question to Jimbo: is Wikipedia a model for Radio Open Source? I think the answer is no. There are many aspects of Wikipedia that are irreproducible in ROS’ format and media. For example, one of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia is that it is a collaborative, not aggregative work. When I contribute to an article, I am editing a previous revision, not merely appending a new fact. But editing audio is a significantly harder task than editing text, and you will get many fewer people able to contribute.

   WP is very self-consciously an encyclopedia. As you point out in the show and Jimbo concurred, WP has even higher standards in some respects about disallowing articles to be written from a single perspective. This makes it an extremely useful research and learning tool, but frankly, it would probably be a bit boring as a radio show.

   There are many others aspects of WP that are irreproducible: WP does not have length restraints; you do. WP doesn’t allow original resource, but original research is the most exciting thing to listen to, etc. I think you would do much better to take lessons from the blog world.

8. the future is yesterday Says:
   May 22nd, 2005 at 12:43 pm

   Open Source Radio Show

   A new radio program called, “Open Source“, hosted by Christopher Lydon is about to be syndicated by Public Radio International. They’ve posted pilot shows on the show website. I just finished listening to Pilot #3 about Wikipedia….

9. David Gerard Says:
   May 22nd, 2005 at 5:18 pm

   Thanks very much for the chance to participate in this. I haven’t played it back yet, so as to preserve my illusions

10. David Gerard Says:
    May 22nd, 2005 at 5:36 pm

    Oh, I’ve put a LiveJournal entry about my current hot interest in Wikipedia: the article rating system, which will be going into testing in a few weeks.

11. revolver Says:
    May 23rd, 2005 at 12:09 am

    “…I actually find it charming in a quaint, old-fashined throwback sort of way. … We’ve spent decades showing people that there there can be multiple points of view on an issue, that something like Wikpedia could be developed, where the idea is that there can be a single point of view on any one issue…”

    I think Schneider is confusing the concepts of “single point of view” and “neutral point of view”. The purpose of the NPOV policy is not to say that there can only be a “single point of view on any one issue”. Rather, it is intended to _expose_ and reveal multiple points of view _as POVs_. NPOV does not mean “we have to choose a single point of view”, it means “we have to reveal POV”. If any kind of encyclopedia article is more susceptible to suffering from a “single point of view”, it is a traditional encyclopedia-type article, written and vetted by a very small number of people.

12. revolver Says:
    May 23rd, 2005 at 12:32 am

    Karen Schneider says

    ” …Wikipedia is fun for its creators, but …there’s very little emphasis on the end user.”

    Actually, when I mention Wikipedia to others, the ones who are familiar with it are mostly end users, not primarily contributors, and I assume they wouldn’t continue to use it if it didn’t have them in mind as end users in some sense. Schneider also makes use of an unstated false dichotomy (between creators and end users). Most creators began as end users and continue as end users after they start contributing.

    “…most users out there, take your mom with three kids and two jobs, she’s going to look up something and what she sees right then is the information that she gets. At that point it needs to be the most reliable information on the subject…”

    It seems that a lot of the most common complaints about Wikipedia boil down to something like this: “people are inherently lazy and can’t be trusted to think critically for themselves, consult multiple sources, and be active in the process of information gathering and verifying”. I fail to see how this is an indictment of Wikipedia, though. If someone is taking information on Wikipedia and using it to make personal medical or legal decisions, rather than taking the time and effort to consult authoritative sources or professionals, then that’s a lack of judgment (and a sign of laziness), not an indictment of Wikipedia itself.

    Lydia Moland says

    “So my students go online and their reaction is not ‘Oh, here’s this article on categorical imperatives, it’s interesting but not complete, I know, I’ll do some research and contribute to it.’ Their impulse is to take it as truth…”

    And this is Wikipedia’s fault?!? I’m sorry, to me this is a more damning indictment of the educational system itself than of Wikipedia.

    “The people who come to the site and simply cut and paste, the problem there is that the education they’re receiving is not telling them how to properly cite sources, how to properly engage in a dialogue with their sources.”

    Exactly. The problem is with the _education they’re receiving_. Who’s fault is that?!?

13. revolver Says:
    May 23rd, 2005 at 12:51 am

    “And so I worry that Wikipedia’s claim of ‘no authors’ subverts this process, so the student thinks ‘Well, if no one owns this article, no one owns this thought, then I guess I don’t have to say that I didn’t write it, since I own it just as much or just as little as anyone else.”

    Moland confuses the concepts of “no authors” and “no single author”. If anyone thinks Wikipedia articles have “no authors”, they obviously haven’t visited the “history” page of an article. Here, the history of WHO has edited an article and when are plain for anyone to see, and although it is true that anonymous edited are allowed, this does make clear which edits _were_ anonymous.

    Moland’s comment is interesting, because it highlights the question, “What is the purpose of supplying authorship?” Moland gives the impression that to her students, the purpose is not so much a matter of verification of knowledge, authority, or truth, so much as it is a Napster-type issue: all knowledge is “owned” by someone, and so shouldn’t be used without their permission. Citing sources isn’t a way of getting at truth; it’s a way of covering your ass. Again, I wonder why students think this.

14. lgu Says:
    May 23rd, 2005 at 10:59 am

    slightly off-topic question: last week prior to the recording of the show, the blog had interview notes and suggested questions from the interviewers for Mr. Lydon to ask. What happened to those?

    As a long-time Connection listener, I am excited about watching the conversation unfold before it hits the airwaves. The Connection clearly had an uber-talented staff and I often found myself wondering how much of the insightful questions were initiated by Lydon. The pre-show blog format allows the staff to shine (as it their right!) and also serves as a “score” for Chris. The “musicians” in the audience know when he is coasting and playing by rote. Conversely, we can appreciate him that much more as he (so often, it appears) verbally jams with his guests.

15. dwarlick Says:
    May 23rd, 2005 at 11:09 am

    A very important topic, Chris, not just about Wikipedia but also about the evolving nature of information. The librarians who spoke on the program made valid and potent points. However, what many librarians and educators fail to understand, and for lots of very good reasons, is that the nature of information has changed. We (born before the Internet) are comfortable with an authority-based information environment, a notion of the Internet as a huge library. Increasingly, though, the Internet, as to an increasing extent our entire information environment, is becoming much less a library, and more an ongoing, evolving, and valuable conversation. this is an important shift, because we will be able to grow ideas much more quickly, adapting to a rapidly changing world.

    This shift in the information environment is forcing us to change our definition of literacy. For my generation, if you could read the text that someone (authority) handed to you, then you were literate. But in this day of networked digital content, being able to find appropriate information, decode it, critically evaluate the information, and organize it into personal digital libraries, are skills that are just as crucial to literacy as being able to read and understand the text.

    The literacy that we were taught and that many would prefer to continue teaching, is based on a literacy where we assume the authority of the information that we encounter. Instead, we should be teaching children not to assume the authority, but to prove the authority. Accepting this shift in how we learn and teach, Wikipedia becomes an invaluable tool as we send students to look up various topics, and then require them to find evidence that proves its accuracy.

    There is a great deal of pressure in schools to integrate technology into the classroom. It makes more sense to me to redefine literacy, so that it more appropriately reflects the contemporary information environment, and then integrate that.

16. beland Says:
    May 25th, 2005 at 11:49 pm

    It’s always interesting to hear Wikipedia discussed in non-Wikipedia forums, especially by people not familiar with it. And this was certainly an interesting discussion with some interesting guests. (As were many Connection episodes I heard back when I lived in Boston.)

    What I did not like were Chris’ attempts to frame the discussion in philosophical or obscure terms. Semiotic Democracy? Universal Mind? Huh? Wikipedia may give philosophers lots of new and interesting things to blather on about, but what I care about is how Wikipedia affects the world that I live in, whether that be culturally, economically, politically, or otherwise. I wonder if this show’s guests would have had interesting answers if they had been asked how Wikipedia and its kind might affect the marketplace of ideas – not to mention the market for encyclopedias. (What with all this talk about publishing on DVD and in print.) Given that this show is all about “Open Source”, in retrospect, it seems a little surprising that no one really asked what the rapid growth of Wikipedia might say about this type of open-collaboration model. How does it relate to Open Source software collaboration? Did you know, for instance, that many open-source software projects are starting to use wikis as a programming, documentation, and user-assistance collaboration tool? What else might wikis be good for? Perhaps these questions will be fodder for future shows.

    I also found it a little out of place that Chris was cheerleading a little for Wikipedia, by way of praising it. It’s not like I don’t agree that Wikipedia is a great idea; it’s just that it’s off-putting for the referee of a conversation to also be a participant in that way.

17. kgs Says:
    May 29th, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    I posted a response over on this entry: http://www.radioopensource.org/2005/05/20/mary-liked-lydia-moland-and-karen-schneider-so-much/#comments but I’m writing a much longer response today, clarifying my points (on which I am not at all confused, however poorly I may articulate myself at times) about Neutral Point of View, the Wiki approach, and other issues.

    I am intrigued by the comment that “the nature of information has changed,” and will address that head-on in my post on Free Range Librarian, due out early this evening. I may also bring up the preoccupation with who does or does not earn income tending information resources.

    I would prefer it if people responding to critics of Wikipedia would not devolve our points into assessments that people are inherently lazy, assume we are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, etc., but perhaps that’s hoping for too much… I don’t take it personally. Go ahead, call me a jackbooted gatekeeper, I can take it!

    (By the way, anyone notice the gender imbalance in this debate? But please–don’t take that personally!)

18. revolver Says:
    May 31st, 2005 at 6:38 am

    For the record, I am a guy, but…unless you went to my user page at Wikipedia, you wouldn’t know that, so it’s interesting you assume “revolver” is a name a female would not take on. (?)

    “I would prefer it if people responding to critics of Wikipedia would not devolve our points into assessments that people are inherently lazy, assume we are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, etc., but perhaps that’s hoping for too much… I don’t take it personally.”

    First of all, I don’t assume you’re unfamiliar with Wikipedia. (Although, saying that the wiki has little to offer the “end-user” makes me wonder…) I was only saying that you _expect_ other people to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia, or rather, you _expect_ them not to be able or willing to take the small amount of time it takes to actually visit the site and discover what it is, how to use it, etc. This really only takes a few hours of time and the ability to read. Yet one of the most common complaints I hear about Wikipedia is that people will _misuse_ it. (By taking everything written there are gospel truth, not finding out the process by which articles are written, etc.) Because almost all of these “misuses” of Wikipedia people complain about would be fine, provided the user take the time to learn about the site and become an active (not passive) consumer of information. Now, to me, someone who doesn’t have the inclination or isn’t willing to put forth the small amount of effort to do this is inherently lazy. I have no problem calling a spade a spade. I can only conclude one of 2 things: either many people think it’s perfectly acceptable to be lazy, or else many people have a different definition of lazy than I do.

19. mrbeef Says:
    June 1st, 2005 at 12:35 am

    Thanks Revolver – you pretty much covered what I wanted to say.

    I love the idea of Wikipidea. It doesn’t have to take the place of the enclopedia. They can coexist. There is no such thing as unbiased writing, so it is unwise to trust something unequivocally just because it is published. And “authorities” have been plenty wrong throughout history.

    People will or can misuse anything, as well as can plagiarize from any source.

    The wikipedia is just one more source of info. The more the better.

    By the way – i am a gal.

20. Blah blah blah » Holy infamy, Batman, you’re famous! Says:
    June 2nd, 2005 at 4:32 am

    [...] tarted a discussion about the merits of the Gentoo customisations to the linux kernel. The latest one, which was an telephone interview with an American syndicated radio s [...]

21. Pilot #3: The Wikipedia Says:
    June 9th, 2005 at 1:29 pm

    Pilot #3: The Wikipedia

    Pilot #3: The Wikipedia

22. cdurst Says:
    June 14th, 2005 at 4:15 pm

    I would love to hear this show, even though it wasn’t a REAL one, but all I’ve
    been able to get is the “victim of our own success” clip. Perhaps the traffic for
    the Pilot shows has died down enough to restore this one?

    If not, perhaps you could do a new show on the Wikipedia, it seems a shame
    to have “used up” the topic on a show that was never/will never be aired.

    Thanks.

23. Pekka Jauhiainen Says:
    July 22nd, 2005 at 9:24 am

    Pilot #3: The Wikipedia

    Pilot #3: The Wikipedia

24. Lenore Bremberg Says:
    August 1st, 2005 at 8:36 pm

    design your own poker chips
    

    Pilot #3: The Wikipedia

25. Raymond Says:
    February 24th, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    This is a test:

    manufacture more

Write a Reply