I recently did a speaking engagement about the evolution of contemporary media. When I mentioned Wikipedia, the audience burst into laughter -- even though I wasn't trying to be funny.

In assorted conversations with people in the real world, any mention of Wikipedia gets people laughing.

Do other folks have that kind of result when mentioning the W word?

Every once in a while, in an interview segment on NPR, there is a mention of a tidbit found in Wikipedia. The interviewer always laughs about mentioning anything found in WP, and the guest usually laughs too.

Oh that is amusing. Does that same thing happen on British or Canadian radio, too?

Even from people who never heard of Will Rogers, I always get a laugh with "All I know is what I read on Wikipedia."

Usually followed with: "And if I don't like that, I just change it to something I like better..."

The BBC, at any rate, treats Wikipedia with ludicrous levels of exaggerated respect. (To demonstrate the high level of contributors to this particular program, I twice received requests to be interviewed for it. I turned them down so in the end they got these characters instead. This interview in particular would probably make Greg choke on his Coco Pops.)

I find that anecdote quite comforting, actually. More proof that Lincoln was right all along about fooling people.

As I understand it, David Gerard works for BBC's Internet publishing division in some capacity.

What an excellent thread. Yes. People both use it seriously and yet laugh about using it. Why?



This link begins "The web is a levelling ground, founded on libertarian ideals of openness, freedom and a democratisation of information and knowledge. " (Laugh).

Because it's such a shocking juxtaposition of good and bad information. With almost no way to tell the difference. Like the news services, we all know we shouldn't trust it, and yet we do. So it's a guilty pleasure.

Talk about eating double cheeseburgers, and you'll get much the same reaction.

A defence mechanism against the subconscious recognition of the inherent unperfectability of social structures; wry recognition of one's own role in consciously perpetuating flaws in an ideological superstructure when one knows one is theoretically capable of improving it but unlikely to do so, and is confident in the knowledge that one's audience shares the predicament; the unease of dealing with anything one which people rely to any extent which is inherently unpredictable.

Or it could just be Jimbo's 1970s beard, Larry's permanent "I swallowed a live frog" expression, and Sue Gardner's stary eyes.


Whoever wrote this transcript has a unique transcription style, too:

AND anime haircut. The power of manga cannot be overestimated in net culture.

Wikipedia has a dual nature: it's a source of useful information that just about everybody uses, but it's also a source of humor, amusement, and drama.

No, you're thinking of Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids.

It's actually quite a good source of material on popular culture.

And it's a good source of raw material upon which cyberspace sociologists construct models of Internet culture.

Wikipedia may not be a reliable source of information about general subjects, but it's a reliable source of information about itself -- its legendary dysfunctionality and dramajerks.

(Quote of the day: "The producers wanted NBC to bring Fat Albert to Saturday mornings, but they refused because the series was too educational.")

Doctoral students have to take a "Comprehensive Examination" (or similar title) before finishing a doctorate. Many of those I knew would laugh when I mentioned that I reworked many of the pages that would be important to study for such because it is Wikipedia. Then, when they are finished, they usually admit that some of mine were involved.



The best part is hearing about how many of their students use it/copy from it without attributing.

Wow, you're so awesome.

Stephen Fry <3333333333333333333333333333!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can something that tastes so good be so bad for me!

That genuinely surprises me -- the country that gave the world Oxford and Cambridge looks at our shabby web site with respect?

Does that say more about the dumbing down of the BBC or how the UK media views the American online media?

I always think of Wikipedia as an American thing, even though contributors come from everywhere.

Most of the people I speak to in the real world have never heard of Wikipedia.

They prefer to laugh at one of the fuckwits on X-Factor.

At least even the BBC doesn't talk 100% happy-time about WP. They have to admit, it has serious problems.

From my personal experience, I can say this: the average person really doesn't have much opinion about Wikipedia's "accuracy" or "usefulness", one way or the other. The only time WP comes up is when a student uses it--and his friends and relatives warn him or her that it's not reliable information. And of course, when I tell average folks about WP's massive internal problems and stupid management, they usually go "yeah, that's nice", then change the subject.

If there was only a way to communicate to the Jimbo-Juicers the profound unimportance their wanko-project actually has in the real, quotidian world. Public relations is the one area where the WMF are really, profoundly dropping the lead brick. On their own feet. It's been four years since Colbert used Wikipedia as the butt of many jokes--dunno, wouldn't most organizations that were mocked on a popular TV show try to do something about it? I get the feeling that the Juicers are coasting on momentum, and expecting Google to paper over all their peccadilloes with raw traffic figures. But they're still the butt of jokes, and still not very important.

Are the people you speak to in the "real world" members of isolated tribes that have not had prior contact with the outside world until you spoke to them, or people who have been in a coma for the last decade, or alien abductees who have only recently been returned to Earth?

In the past two years, I've personally encountered one dental hygienist, three office receptionists, two grocery-store cashiers, and a hairstylist who had all either never heard of Wikipedia at all, or had no clear idea of what it was, other than "something on the internet."

Some people just don't surf the web much, if at all, and don't care to - even if they can be said to "have internet access." For some people, just looking at a computer is basically a busman's holiday, quite frankly. Admittedly, the town I live in is in the Midwest and isn't as sophisticated as a lot of places, but IMO it's still not as rare as you might think.

They blocked that account forever. Then lied about the details.

No, really, they did! They couldn't say "Colbert embarassed so badly that on of our admins indef blocked him, and then on further consideration we banned that account." They said instead that the indef was because the account was "impersonnating Colbert." Like the username was a famous person's! Perish the thought. And whoever it was, it had an ESP link to Colbert's brain or show script, so that's doubly dangerous. It was too fast to have been just some guy watching the TV.

Then WP said it was a vandal-only SPA. Okay it had made a couple of comical edits. Where is the "welcome to WP" template? Where is the "please use the sandbox"?

Where are the required warnings before an indef block??

What was there about all this deserved to be oversighted?

There was some stuff about how Jimbo's people were talking to Colbert's people. One presumes that didn't go well. Not enough chapstick in use. But the "communiteh" of WP were never told the real goings-on that resulted in that block being kept forever. We just don't rate, one presumes. But what's new?

Me (and Horsey) likey Gina Bianchini.

But, she's one of those "So..." people! Gotta post the link to that other thread.

Well done. The transcriber has gone beyond a mere literal record of the interview, and managed to capture the real poetry of Jimmy's utterances.


I rest my case.

And the rest prefer watching at anything at all "with breasts" ...

I was thinking perhaps we should set up a website where Wikipedians can edit war against webcam girls in real time (and bikinis) and make a fortune?

Taking that further ... perhaps if we can incorporate a video feed option from Wikipedian contributors into the site it would appeal to a wider audience? Oppositional parties could actually get to watch their nemeses respond as they revert and revert again, and experience pleasure when they see them suffer being indef banned yet again.

And RichieX and David Shankbone could become even more REALLY famous for putting on extended Penis Shows.

I mean ... let's see the Wiki-pisspool for what it really it. Nude editing, man boobs, aging pervs interacting with nubile teenage boys, qualified lawyers using drugs as they edit, fappers uploading porn ... the lot.

The responses I usually get involve rolling eyes and yawning noises.


Most of those I know, who know what WP is, find it a boring, untrustworthy, heavily politicized mess.
It is also possible that my mind control ray™ has prejudiced them against it.
In which case I've done my job well.

The people who get laughs when I mention WP just find it stupid. They know nothing about the politics, the rancid personalities at WMF or Arbcom, or the protocol of the various discussions and debates.

A few people I know that are not negative to WP only use it to look up some sort of trivia, like who starred in what movie -- and for nothing more.

Genius. And think of how many 12-step programs that would spawn.

Despite the fact the woman presenting this one is incredibly attractive:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevoluti...-bianchin.shtml

I am compelled to say that it is also utter bollocks.



:puke

[edit] Thought for today: the web is really like the cheaper kind of used bookshop, brimming with the contents of house clearances and stuff that even the charity shops wouldn't accept. Bound editions of reader's digest, cheap paperbacks, 1970s cooking, carpenters albums on vinyl, theological treatises, alien abduction theories, 1970's sex such as 'dr alex comfort', all kinds of marvels. With the occasional gem, but you have to look very hard. It is not at all like helping achieve world peace dressed in your pyjamas.

When they begin their talk with "So...", you know bollocks are highly likely to follow.

So? She is awesome. Not surprised that Horsey wants to give her a wet slobbery kiss.

[edit]

Wow she got onto one of those 'hottest women in business' pages

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http...%26tbs%3Disch:1

And, she's been discussed here on WR since 2008. I only wish that I could contribute interesting items once in while, like that other guy who graduated years ago from high school.

'SO, Ning got started ....'

My money is on the webcam girls!



Stick with me, Petey...I'll get you hooked up with the best babes in business.

"Oh baby, baby ... you have been such a bad editor ... such a bad, bad POV newbie ... I am going to ban you so hard ... ban you for ever ... come on, crawl in front of Arbcom for me ... go on, roll over for Jimbo ... "

Actually, come to think about it, some of you bad boys puppeteers ought to log on to some of the cheapo webcam sites and get them hussies to do some stocking sockpuppet editing for you. They have PC online ... some kind of chat software ... a different ISP in another state/country ... I am sure they will be glad of some intellectual stimulation for a change instead of their usual bread and butter work.

It would certainly be a laugh ... just record it so we can see their reaction please.

"You want me to do what, darling, vandalise the Wikipedia page on St Bernard of Cluny!?! Would not you rather I covered myself in baby oil and .... OK, OK have it your way, you're the paying customer. Yes, I can do both at the same time ..."

My guess you will probably even find a few undergrads or even MAs amongst them to sock for you in their specialism.

This reminds me a a droll skit on "Prairie Home Companion," where I guy invents the first combination GPS and social networking device, so he circulates in a cocktail party with a little bluetooth device that is whispering to him information about all the people within a ten-foot radius.

You think you won't see that? Yesterday's comedy skit is today's hot project and tomorrow's taken-for-granted reality.

Robert Goddard said something almost like that once.

I wrote an essay in 1989 saying that one day, every house would have a fiberoptic cable, and if you wanted a movie you could just dial up the movie company and they'd "squirt" you one in a few minutes. Well, they don't call it "squirting" (okay, maybe with porn they do) but that's here now. Except it never occured to me that you'd naturally be using your PC and internet connection to order the thing. And maybe even view it there also, if you're somewhere where the giant flat plasma TV thing on your wall is not visible.

Do what, exactly? Be specific.

Wikipedia is one of the top ten most-visited sites in the world. One of the central arguments of the Review has been that Wikipedia's content does have an impact. Those two statements in contrast to your comments make me wonder what the hell your train of thought is.

Stephen Colbert's basic approach has been that Wikipedia is "good" (i.e., bad) because it replaces "reality" with "Wikiality," i.e., it can be easily changed to reflect whatever anyone wants it to. So, presumably the answer to that would be preventative edit-review features, such as Flagged Revisions (or whatever they're calling it this week).

I suspect Colbert wouldn't be too impressed by an opt-out policy for BLP's, since there's little comedic potential in it. If anything, opt-out would probably get less attention in the mainstream media than the average WP scandal, but since it would also prevent so many future scandals from even happening, that would probably be another approach to improving the PR situation.


There's a difference between "importance" and "impact," though I'll admit it's a subtle one. There's also short-term and long-term for both of those things... As is often the case, the truth is somewhere in between, and it clearly seems to apply more in specific cases than it does as a general rule. Wikipedia has more impact when it makes mistakes than it does when it gets things right. The real problem is that the people who run it equate importance with participation levels, and maintaining high participation levels means having as many mistakes, flaws, and inadequacies as they can get away with, just short of operating something truly criminal in nature.

I understand that this all seems counter-intuitive, but if Wikipedia were perfect, fewer people would want to change it; indeed, the only people who would want to would be bad people. So, perfection is not only the enemy of the good, it's the enemy of Wikipedia as well.

Twitter has an impact. Paris Hilton has an impact. The number of Tiger Woods' mistresses has an impact.

However, none of them are important.

I was thinking that too, until I read this today:



Of course the bright, young thing who wrote that is a senior, meaning he was a freshman when Wikidum was in its hyped heyday circa 06.
Maybe the next batch, who have discovered it since its hype-bubble burst, will be wiser. Or maybe not...but one can hope (for educators that or retirement are the only options). Yet comments such as above feed my callused cynicism, and make me wonder why I fucking bother. Oh, that's right, paycheck! So I can continue to support my lavish, decadent lifestyle.

Monty Python had an impact.

But how important were they in terms of the Advance of Civilization?

Perhaps they gave the process a Bokononic shove in the right direction.

So are Ebay, Amazon, and YouTube.

I like Paris Hilton.



For all the wrong reasons. That's what keeps WR humming.

Well, you can come over to the hard sciences section and help me clean up the articles there. The more vicious admins usually stay away from it because they can't understand the math, or (failing that) the physical concepts the math describes.

It beats hell out of trying to explain a Hemingway story or some historical inference to some Aspie editor. By definition, these people cannot read between the lines, and in somebody like Hemingway, it's almost ALL between the lines. Certainly the emotions are. Hemingway is almost a litmus test for Asberger people and the socially retarded.

You know, this is also true for all of good poetry. Some of the debates there are on WP are rather... ah... Miltonian. Don Juan in Hell. Ottava in Hell, except that he has so many references he can even beat the Aspies at their own game.

The really odd thing is what the devil are the Aspies doing editing articles on literature and poetry which they'll never in this world understand on their own?? Inquiring minds want to know. At least the journalists KNOW they'll never understand tensor analysis. And mostly, people who don't play an instrument or are tone-deaf keep out of the classical music articles, except to fix the grammar. I don't want to make fun of autistics having a disorder, but if you have a problem, you should have at least have noticed it by now. I've even seen nasty editors use Asberger's as an excuse for why they're so nasty. It never occurs to them that they might have a problem with abstracting an emotion from a bit of literature which is clearly designed to evoke it.

In theory a blind person should be able to edit articles on art on WP just as well as anybody else, since WP doesn't allow you to look for yourself unless you can find confirmation for that which your own eyeballs report. In practice, that doesn't work so well. Here is an example.

Milton

On a vaguely related note - that comment reminds me of a colleague of mine who was morbidly obese and severely depressed. He once attempted to jump from a window, except he wound up getting stuck in the window and several people were needed to pry him out.

So, have the power players on Wikipedia noticed by now that they have a problem?