In the news
Wired Editor changed mind about Wikipedia
The World Question Center 2008 - Kevin Kelly, editor-at-large of Wired, initially believed that an encyclopedia that could be edited by anyone an impossibility, because it would be subject to a "propensity for mischief", which would exaggerate and falsify information. However, he admits that he was wrong, and that Wikipedia has surpassed his expectations. He states that the tools provided have helped allow the collaborative community to outpace the number of individuals "competing", and he makes a comparison with similar systems of collaboration in open-source systems. He believes that Wikipedia is an indication of something more fundamental that is happening - a new respect for sharing and collaboration, and a new obligation of the individual to the collective.
Analogy with traditional publishers
Wikipedia: A community of editors or a community of authors? The key idea from this article is that the model of production of content on Wikipedia is not that much different to that of traditional publishing houses, in the sense that the content is produced by a large number of authors, often with no interest in the editing process, while the content is edited and polished by a smaller core of editors. Valuing contributors in projects like Wikipedia, even when they are not in the committed core, is important, and the disdain for user-generated content from the traditional publishers is "so perplexing". The author believes that publishers should take note of what is going on, because it is "a different and better way of doing some tasks that publishers already perform".
Other mentions
Other mentions in the online press include:
- Five Things Wikipedia's Founder Has Learned About Online Collaboration - Jimmy Wales identifies five factors that lead to success with online collaboration, including speed.
- 10 people to watch in 2008 - Two of Veropedia's key people - Danny Wool and Terry Foote - have been involved with Wikipedia in the past.
- Wikipedia founder launches search engine - Jimmy Wales' recent foray into search engines invites numerous mentions of Wikipedia.
In the news
Wired Editor changed mind about Wikipedia
The World Question Center 2008 - Kevin Kelly, editor-at-large of Wired, initially believed that an encyclopedia that could be edited by anyone an impossibility, because it would be subject to a "propensity for mischief", which would exaggerate and falsify information. However, he admits that he was wrong, and that Wikipedia has surpassed his expectations. He states that the tools provided have helped allow the collaborative community to outpace the number of individuals "competing", and he makes a comparison with similar systems of collaboration in open-source systems. He believes that Wikipedia is an indication of something more fundamental that is happening - a new respect for sharing and collaboration, and a new obligation of the individual to the collective.
Analogy with traditional publishers
Wikipedia: A community of editors or a community of authors? The key idea from this article is that the model of production of content on Wikipedia is not that much different to that of traditional publishing houses, in the sense that the content is produced by a large number of authors, often with no interest in the editing process, while the content is edited and polished by a smaller core of editors. Valuing contributors in projects like Wikipedia, even when they are not in the committed core, is important, and the disdain for user-generated content from the traditional publishers is "so perplexing". The author believes that publishers should take note of what is going on, because it is "a different and better way of doing some tasks that publishers already perform".
Other mentions
Other mentions in the online press include:
- Five Things Wikipedia's Founder Has Learned About Online Collaboration - Jimmy Wales identifies five factors that lead to success with online collaboration, including speed.
- 10 people to watch in 2008 - Two of Veropedia's key people - Danny Wool and Terry Foote - have been involved with Wikipedia in the past.
- Wikipedia founder launches search engine - Jimmy Wales' recent foray into search engines invites numerous mentions of Wikipedia.
Discuss this story
Danny Wool
Danny Wool [was] involved with Wikipedia in the past - User:Danny is still a Wikipedia editor. Corvus cornix talk 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Case citation
Not exactly Wikipedia "in the news", but I recently came across the following in a case:
To begin with, it is not clear that internet sources in general, or the ones cited by Mr. Muravnik in particular, are inherently unreliable. Countless contemporary judicial opinions cite internet sources, and many specifically cite Wikipedia. See, e.g., Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc., 459 F.3d 128, 133 n.3 (1st Cir. 2006); Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409, 422 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (Winter, J. dissenting); Allegheny Defense Project, Inc. v. United States Forest Service, 423 F.3d 215, 218 n.5 (3d Cir. 2005); N'Diom v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 494, 496 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Krueger, 415 F.3d 766, 769 (7th Cir. 2005); Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1312 (11th Cir. 2004); Sacirbey v. Guccione, No. 05 Civ. 2949, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64577, 2006 WL 2585561, at *1 n.2 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 7, 2006); Applied Interact, LLC v. Vermont Teddy Bear Co., No. 04 Civ. 8713, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19070, 2005 WL 2133416, at *11 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 6, 2005). While citing a website in a judicial opinion is not analytically identical to basing an expert opinion on such a source... the frequent citation of Wikipedia at least suggests that many courts do not consider it to be inherently unreliable. In fact, a recent and highly-publicized analysis in the magazine Nature found that the error rate of Wikipedia entries was not significantly greater than in those of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Jim Giles, Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head (Dec. 14, 2005), http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html (finding that "the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.")) And, indeed, the defendants do not point to any actual errors in the entry cited by Mr. Muravnik. Thus, despite reasonable concerns about the ability of anonymous users to alter Wikipedia entries, the information provided there is not so inherently unreliable as to render inadmissible any opinion that references it.
Alfa Corp. v. Oao Alfa Bank, 475 F. Supp. 2d 357, 361-362 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Cheers! bd2412 T 08:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source and Reliability of Wikipedia. Regards, High on a tree ( talk) 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Discuss this story
Danny Wool
Danny Wool [was] involved with Wikipedia in the past - User:Danny is still a Wikipedia editor. Corvus cornix talk 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Case citation
Not exactly Wikipedia "in the news", but I recently came across the following in a case:
To begin with, it is not clear that internet sources in general, or the ones cited by Mr. Muravnik in particular, are inherently unreliable. Countless contemporary judicial opinions cite internet sources, and many specifically cite Wikipedia. See, e.g., Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc., 459 F.3d 128, 133 n.3 (1st Cir. 2006); Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409, 422 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (Winter, J. dissenting); Allegheny Defense Project, Inc. v. United States Forest Service, 423 F.3d 215, 218 n.5 (3d Cir. 2005); N'Diom v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 494, 496 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Krueger, 415 F.3d 766, 769 (7th Cir. 2005); Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1312 (11th Cir. 2004); Sacirbey v. Guccione, No. 05 Civ. 2949, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64577, 2006 WL 2585561, at *1 n.2 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 7, 2006); Applied Interact, LLC v. Vermont Teddy Bear Co., No. 04 Civ. 8713, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19070, 2005 WL 2133416, at *11 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 6, 2005). While citing a website in a judicial opinion is not analytically identical to basing an expert opinion on such a source... the frequent citation of Wikipedia at least suggests that many courts do not consider it to be inherently unreliable. In fact, a recent and highly-publicized analysis in the magazine Nature found that the error rate of Wikipedia entries was not significantly greater than in those of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Jim Giles, Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head (Dec. 14, 2005), http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html (finding that "the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.")) And, indeed, the defendants do not point to any actual errors in the entry cited by Mr. Muravnik. Thus, despite reasonable concerns about the ability of anonymous users to alter Wikipedia entries, the information provided there is not so inherently unreliable as to render inadmissible any opinion that references it.
Alfa Corp. v. Oao Alfa Bank, 475 F. Supp. 2d 357, 361-362 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Cheers! bd2412 T 08:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply