Full Version: New Scientist interviews Jimbo
Martians not allowed: Wikipedia
Computerworld New Zealand, New Zealand - 14 minutes ago
By Jo Bennett Auckland & Wellington | Monday, 12 March, 2007. Under the just passed Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act, the job of policing spam will fall ...
Jimbo was interviewed by New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1932...the-people.html
and readers then sent in supplementary questions:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20
I particularly liked this quote, which sums up the whole project:
I nominate this for the "Highlighted for Posterity" archive.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1932...the-people.html
and readers then sent in supplementary questions:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20
I particularly liked this quote, which sums up the whole project:
QUOTE
Among the best experiences is also MuppetWiki. We've got more than 12,000 articles about Kermit, Miss Piggy and the rest of them. You'd never get that kind of activity on Encyclopaedia Britannica.
I nominate this for the "Highlighted for Posterity" archive.
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 16th March 2007, 4:58pm) 
My jaw dropped when Wales managed to discuss the entire origin of Wikipedia (even bringing the "wiki" concept to Nupedia) without once mentioning Larry Sanger. And New Scientist just gobbled it up, feeding Jimbo's ego and his revisionist history of the actual events.
Sad.
Greg
REX NOSTER INSANIT.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 17th March 2007, 1:58am)
My jaw dropped when Wales managed to discuss the entire origin of Wikipedia (even bringing the "wiki" concept to Nupedia) without once mentioning Larry Sanger.
Why? What's surprising about that?
QUOTE(guy @ Sat 17th March 2007, 7:45am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 17th March 2007, 1:58am)
My jaw dropped when Wales managed to discuss the entire origin of Wikipedia (even bringing the "wiki" concept to Nupedia) without once mentioning Larry Sanger.
Why? What's surprising about that?
That's the really nice thing about a WikiPated Brain— you can freely edit your memory to please your narcissism.
Jonny
I'm rather partial to this one, myself:
Of course you'd never really want to know or care about who actually wrote what, what their real biases are, or their... credentials! Why, the whole idea is just silly!
QUOTE
Lin Foxhall writes:
Wikipedia is a great idea in principle, but the tragic flaw is that information cannot be attributed to a specific author. For academic writing, including student coursework, this is a huge problem since there is no way to track the source of any piece of information. This means I must constantly discourage students from using Wikipedia, and that seems a terrible pity. Why can't information be attributed to specific authors as they contribute to articles?
Jimmy Wales replies:
Why on earth would you have a rule that says information has to be attributed to a specific author? What you want is a rule which says that they should attribute information to a specific version of the article, which will remain unchanging forever, and we have that ability. Also, it is not so hard to track down who wrote what, if you really need to know, because we store the entire history of every article on the site. Just click on the "history" tab and there you have it!
Wikipedia is a great idea in principle, but the tragic flaw is that information cannot be attributed to a specific author. For academic writing, including student coursework, this is a huge problem since there is no way to track the source of any piece of information. This means I must constantly discourage students from using Wikipedia, and that seems a terrible pity. Why can't information be attributed to specific authors as they contribute to articles?
Jimmy Wales replies:
Why on earth would you have a rule that says information has to be attributed to a specific author? What you want is a rule which says that they should attribute information to a specific version of the article, which will remain unchanging forever, and we have that ability. Also, it is not so hard to track down who wrote what, if you really need to know, because we store the entire history of every article on the site. Just click on the "history" tab and there you have it!
Of course you'd never really want to know or care about who actually wrote what, what their real biases are, or their... credentials! Why, the whole idea is just silly!
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 17th March 2007, 11:39pm)
I'm rather partial to this one, myself:
QUOTE
Lin Foxhall writes:
Wikipedia is a great idea in principle, but the tragic flaw is that information cannot be attributed to a specific author. For academic writing, including student coursework, this is a huge problem since there is no way to track the source of any piece of information. This means I must constantly discourage students from using Wikipedia, and that seems a terrible pity. Why can't information be attributed to specific authors as they contribute to articles?
Jimmy Wales replies:
Why on earth would you have a rule that says information has to be attributed to a specific author? What you want is a rule which says that they should attribute information to a specific version of the article, which will remain unchanging forever, and we have that ability. Also, it is not so hard to track down who wrote what, if you really need to know, because we store the entire history of every article on the site. Just click on the "history" tab and there you have it!
Wikipedia is a great idea in principle, but the tragic flaw is that information cannot be attributed to a specific author. For academic writing, including student coursework, this is a huge problem since there is no way to track the source of any piece of information. This means I must constantly discourage students from using Wikipedia, and that seems a terrible pity. Why can't information be attributed to specific authors as they contribute to articles?
Jimmy Wales replies:
Why on earth would you have a rule that says information has to be attributed to a specific author? What you want is a rule which says that they should attribute information to a specific version of the article, which will remain unchanging forever, and we have that ability. Also, it is not so hard to track down who wrote what, if you really need to know, because we store the entire history of every article on the site. Just click on the "history" tab and there you have it!
Of course you'd never really want to know or care about who actually wrote what, what their real biases are, or their ... credentials! Why, the whole idea is just silly!
It is of course a matter of indifference that everything Jimbo Wales says in that paragraph is a lie. One day Jimbo will run out of news organizations whose reporters and readers are clueless as to how Wikipedia really operates, and then what will he do?
Jonny
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.