User:Cormaggio/A small scale study of Wikipedia/Appendices
These are the appendices of the essay A small scale study of Wikipedia, Cormac Lawler, January 2005
Appendix 1(A)
[edit]Questions for Wikipedians:
When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
I first became aware of them in any detail after I was pointed to them after creating an article about Buddhism on Kuro5hin (see comments at www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/31/35824/4408)
When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
I made a few anonymous edits then decided to log in. I first started editing in June-July 2004.
Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
Basically, I first just mucked around. Then I realised that I could write some really cool articles, and in a much better and more cooperative manner than I could at my then favourite site, Kuro5hin. I soon created the exploding whale article just to see what would happen, and when I realised how excellent totally unrestricted collaborative editing could be I was hooked.
I like Wikipedia because of its guiding principles: it is first and foremost and encyclopedia but with a twist. Where a normal encyclopedia would only allow the input of a committee of experts, all writing about core topics and vetting each others work, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the site. This seems counter-intuitive, and when I first saw the site I thought that it would never work!
The main reason I see worth in Wikipedia is because it presents facts in a neutral manner, never shying from problem articles (see the Holocaust denial article for example). Because anyone can contribute to articles on Wikipedia one of the most important principles are that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). This allows maximum fairness to all sides, it allows all points of view to be represented fairly, and allows maximum accuracy and complete articles. It also is the most controversial and challenging policy to adhere to. However, when it is done properly we have some absolutely fantastic articles that we can rightly feel proud of. For instance, see the Hitler article.
So the challenge of writing for Wikipedia is the primary reason I contribute to the site. The politics can get involved and the editing and discussion can get heated. However at the end of the day we get great articles. My goal on the site is to get my favourite articles to Featured Article status. These are articles that have reached a point where they are pretty good, then they go to a Featured article candidates page, has lots of actionable objections thrown at them and if they get resolved then they become featured. Note that this doesn’t mean they go to the front page. It just means they are recognised that they are the best of the best articles. The process is addictive J I should know: we managed to get an Australian article to the front page (see Cyclone Tracy) and one of my favourite articles I started (exploding whale) also got there.
Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
Yes. I used to contribute to Kuro5hin.org. I found that addictive, and had several of my articles published to the front page or to the section page. The different between K5 and Wikipedia is marked however. Once a comment, diary or story has been submitted you can’t edit your work. Kuro5hin story publishing works on a queue based mechanism: you submit a story to the queue, put it into peer review mode (the edit queue) to solicit comment on problems with the story, then submit the story to a voting queue. If someone votes against the article, -1 is taken from the article vote score. If someone votes it to the front page or to a section then +1 vote is added to it. If the vote count gets to -20 then the article gets dumped. If it gets to +85 then the story either goes to a story section, or if enough people voted +1FP (front page) then the story will get to the front page. This process is addictive, and I used to spend a large amount of my time there.
Kuro5hin is also really primarily a discussion site. It has a better and more advanced method for comments. It allows people to rate comments. It makes comments read-only and once they are added they can’t be removed or changed. It promotes active discussion. Flaming and trolling, though discouraged, are just part of the site. Some people actually spend all day just trolling and flaming. I used to occasionally do this. See http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/27/101727/753 It was fun!
This would not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Wikipedians have fun, but in different ways. An important policy on Wikipedia is the “No personal attacks” policy. People have been blocked from editing for flaming. They’ve also been blocked from editing for trolling (though this is called vandalism). Wikipedia even goes so far as to say that it’s OK to remove personal attacks (though this is controversial). I’ve done this before as it doesn’t help with trying to gain consensus. Also the manner in which you edit in Wikipedia is different. All information anywhere on the site (with the exception of the front page and even that has stuff you can change) can be altered, unless the page in question is locked. This allows people to change and revert anything, including comments and discussion. However, this is kept in check because every change is logged and you can get a diff of the changes from the page history. Any sneaky edits or vandalism can be looked at and reverted to a previous page. Those editors who do this consistently can find themselves getting blocked from editing the site!
So basically the two sites have different goals, and different ways of editing. They are quite different.
How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
I find everything2 to be hard to navigate, but I haven’t spent any length of time there. I find it better than Slashdot, because Slashdot is troll infested, and the articles are often either slanted/biased. Opposing viewpoints are shouted down quickly. The moderation system is complicated and IMO flawed.
Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching…?
Quick answer: all of the above!
I am an administrator on the site. I enforce arbitration decisions on difficult users; I can more easily remove vandalism; I can block users from editing pages for periods of time if I see vandalism and if I need to I can lock pages to force discussion, stop revert wars or prevent vandalism.
However, I am an editor first and foremost (though lately I’ve been getting extremely involved in administration work). I like researching articles from external sources, I like discussing controversial articles and helping come to consensus on contentious issues. I like adding new articles to the site. I like improving articles. And I love getting messages from users because I find them quite interesting in what they have to say to me J
I also extensively monitor quite a few articles using the Wikipedia watchlist. I think I have over 200 articles on there at the moment! I also monitor the recent changes list where the last 500 edits are shown and rollback vandalism.
What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
Voting sucks. It doesn’t work. There needs to be a way of validating users votes. Also, there is no real way of checking for “sock puppets”, users who have more than one account. This needs to be improved as it causes too much controversy. I’m currently dealing with a controversy over this very issue, and let me tell you it isn’t pretty.
What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
Some policies are essential: • The three revert rule (3RR): any more than three reversion to a previous version of an article is frowned upon, and in fact recently people are blocked for violating this policy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_revert_rule • Forced 24 hour block by admins of violaters of the 3RR. • No personal attacks. Without this policy, there would be no way of editing contentious issues. Discussion would quickly devolve into name calling. It already happens, but with this policy editors can get hauled into line pretty quickly. They can get blocked temporarily if things get very bad. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_personal_attacks • Neutral Point of View. I can’t explain this any better than the article on it at Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV • No original research We’re an encyclopedia, all information must already be referenced by someone else. We aren’t allowed to add our own research or our own opinion. We can only categorise others viewpoints or research. This is important or else anything could be added. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research • Weasel words this stops random statements being added that could be classed as original research. For instance its generally accepted that you can’t make statements like “some people say” or “critics say that”. These statements must be qualified. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Weasel_words • Dispute resolution measures don’t think I have to say much here! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution However, it also includes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAr • Deletion policy See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
Essential mechanisms: • Page history. Absolutely essential. Without it Wikipedia just wouldn’t work. • Separation of content and discussion pages • Anonymous editing. Seems doubtful, but this is essential. • Ability to revert and edit old copies of pages. • Administrator functions o Rollback (allows for easier reversions, this is essential to allow admins to fix vandalism, a unpreventable evil on our site) o Blocking from editing – essential to stop persistent vandals, POV pushers o Page protection mechanism. Makes the page read only, except for admins (who as a rule don’t make changes once its locked anyway). Absolutely essential for dealing with conflict, forces people to the discussion page. Also very helpful in dealing with distributed vandalism (you should see how persistent they have been in vandalising the Linux page. To the extent of changing all references from Linux to Pinux, and even moving the page to that article name!) o Page deletion mechanism, however this is only effective with clear deletion criteria. This is not always followed…
What’s your opinion of Wikipedia’s contribution to society?
It gives people a voice they might not otherwise have had. Also allows all viewpoints to be heard, gives facts, it’s a free source of information so it unlocks information for the masses.
What have you learnt from Wikipedia? Heaps! I’ve learned how to reference material, how to strike agreements and work towards consensus, how to question facts (my view of the media after being an active editor on Wikipedia: not impressed.), how to verify facts, how to present a neutral article, how to research.
On topics I’m now more informed about topics like Islam, human rights, history, Arab-Israeli conflicts and last but not least I know about exploding whales.
Appendix 1(B)
[edit]When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
Within the last one or two years I think (2002-2003). I discovered that when I was searching for information online, typically hard science related, that Google often pointed me towards Wikipedia. I was skeptical at first, as one should be of any online source, but I found that when I confirmed them against other websites that I thought were reliable that Wikipedia usually agreed with the other webpages, and often had more information in one place or better organized than the others.
When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
I think I was using Wikipedia for a more than a month but less than a year when I realized that there was the "edit page" function. The Wikipedia "User contributions" section says that my first contribution was 20 Oct 2003.
Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
After playing around for a while, I realized that the pages were editable, but I didn't think to edit until I noticed factual errors, or poor wording, or typos. Ah, looking at the history, it was "escape velocity," and there was a formula with no derivation (my background is in physics), so I provided it. After that, I was addicted and found myself talking to all my friends about how it was sucking up my time (instead of other things I enjoy doing, such as playing video games or reading science fiction books).
Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
The closest I've come is having a blog with Blogger. I feel that there everyone works in a vacuum, and there does not have to be any relation to reality.
How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
I've read some of the stuff on slashdot, but never participated, so I don't really have anything to compare. For the most part I like the collaborative atmosphere, but sometimes if a certain subgroup has reached a consensus, it is impossible for an outsider to contribute. For example, "surrealism"--I feel that most people think of surreal art when they hear the term, so the article should focus on that, but the people who feel (unofficial) "ownership" for the page disagree and instead focus on some existential stuff that I'd never heard of. Similarly, a lot of the math pages are not accessible to (understandable by) the lay person, which I do not like, but that's how the Wikipedia math community wants it. I occasionally read the Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy.com) bulletin boards, and one of my friends participates a lot there. The bulletin boards are a discussion group about astronomy topics, mostly involved in debunking pseudoscience such as astrology, and the Moon Hoax allegations. I would say that some of the arguments on the discussion pages of Wikipedia are very similar to what goes on on the Bad Astronomy bulletin boards.
Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching…?
Most of my contributions have comparatively been minor, but some things I've enjoyed working on are starting "graduate student," putting an information box on pages about telescopes, and organizing "Rock, Paper, Scissors." I think lots of my work has been fixing typos, or rephrasing sentences to be more clear. But in the fields I know more about I have contributed more content, or even started pages ("Nancay telescope"). Fields that are perhaps too large for me to grasp by myself, I've done organizational work ("Wikiproject:Telescopes") and others have added details.
What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
The biggest strength and weakness to Wikipedia is that ANYONE can edit any page. (More below.)
What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
The history feature is essential--this allows us to preserve work that vandals have attempted to destroy. Sometimes the banning feature is important too, for repeat vandals--and of course that means that being able to track who contributes what is also essential. And I like the discussion parts, so you can come to a consensus before adding info, or you can ask a question if you think somethign should be changed but don't know the right stuff.
What’s your opinion of Wikipedia’s contribution to society?
The biggest "contribution to society" would be its role as a free repository of all human information. If you've ever read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, Wikipedia is very similar to the characters' concept of the Encyclopedia Project. Everyone who wants to can put in their bit of information about the world. I think another role it plays is to empower people. Everyday computer users realize that their information is valuable, and that they personally can make a valid contribution to society, whether they have a doctorate, or an elementary school diploma.
What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
That sometimes it's impossible to convince people, I instead have to take a step back and go somewhere else. (Debate on the talk page of the Moon about the orgin of its craters.) Right doesn't make might--just because 99% of scientists and the general society agree with me, doesn't mean I'm going to win an argument against the other 1%. Sometimes I can't finish a whole project by myself. Then I have to let it go, and hope that others step in to fill the gaps, or cringe while it falls apart.
Appendix 1(C)
[edit]When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
Late July 2004
When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
Late July 2004
Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
For some years I’ve maintained the Intranet at my workplace (a 11-18 school) – I saw Wikipedia as a new teaching tool and looked (initially) at adding details directly related to the courses I teach. I then got sucked into other articles.
Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
Only a forum (for Half-Life players)
How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
I don’t like the structure or, in the most part, content of Slashdot nor some of the trolls that play there. H2G2 is quite interesting but too non-serious for me.
Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching…?
I’m a sysop there and monitor my (rather large) watchlist regularly. I create new articles in the areas I find interesting and enjoy researching for them. I’ve usually got an opinion on most things and participate on VFD and polls regularly and am quite active on the VP (especially the assistance section). I stay away from requested articles because, to be honest, most of them don’t interest me.
What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
The article history is excellent, allowing a long line of changes to be monitored and compared. I would prefer to see the discussion pages a little more like a forum with a little more structure to them.
What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
History, watchlist, what links here, contributions and anonymous posting.
What’s your opinion of Wikipedia’s contribution to society?
Having used it as a teaching aid I’ve found it to contain a vast array of information and to be very useful. I think the wide range of content allows it to appeal to a large number of people and its collaborative approach has enabled it to be more versatile than most other resources.
What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
That a wiki approach can work even with a large number of people and numerous other bits and bobs from the articles themselves.
Appendix 1(D)
[edit]When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
Shortly before creating an account.
When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
My first logged edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=December_16&diff=550732&oldid=527445 was on 2002-12-20; before that I may have done some editing sans account.
Why did you become involved in Wikipedia? The anarchism of wiki and the audacity of creating an encyclopedia with it appealed.
Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
I use to work on a few categories at the Open Directory Project, which focused on links, not content.
How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
I've had an account at Slashdot since at least 2000, and its lack of "memory" bothered me, with arguments and questions repeated and very little constructive coming from it. k5's edit queue was better. I contributed some articles to the original h2g2; and I created an e2 account, but never contributed anything there. Wikipedia is what I was looking for all along.
Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching?
Mostly copy-editing, and I also closely monitor the articles on my watchlists. I used to translate for the Afrikaans wikipedia http://af.wikipedia.org/, and am now working on some of the English sister projects.
What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
The article version comparison is good, but needs more fine tuning.
What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
Page history, the number of editors, and the future "sources" namespace.
What's your opinion of Wikipedia's contribution to society?
Ask me again in 20 years.
What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
Lots of trivia; that wikiwiki is pretty amazing; and, while doing research for astronomy articles, that science news reporting in popular media is quite poor. --
Appendix 1(E)
[edit]When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
January 2003
When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
February 2003 was my first edit. June 2003 was when I became an admin and more heavily involved.
Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
I think the surprise of being able to edit had me hooked from the start. I'd expected to have my edit reverted but it wasn't, and very soon I was welcomed and became aware of the community surrounding the site. Being able to contribute to something so useful was a large reason as well.
Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
Yes, the Open Directory Project. The major difference I found was that Wikipedia is far more collaborative. Anyone can work on any article, compared to the ODP where editors have responsibility for their own small category.
How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
I rate it far more highly, mainly because Wikipedia has a very focused goal and a strong community aiming to meet that goal, compared to, for example, comments on Slashdot which don't have any set purpose, and no long-term effects on anything.
Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching?
Currently, mostly monitoring and answering questions.
What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
I like the fact there are very set community standards about what is acceptable, compared to the flamewars that are allowed to exist on other sites. I dislike the way that it can be very difficult to get rid of problem users, and the attempts at over-bureaucratisation as a means of dealing with this.
What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
The shared goal.
What's your opinion of Wikipedia's contribution to society?
I think we haven't even begun to do what is possible yet. There is huge potential to reach out to people who currently have no contact with Wikipedia, and the time is right to start distributing Wikipedia more widely, rather than focusing inwardly on just the website.
What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
How do deal with a range of different people, how to communicate across cultural boundaries, etc. How to retain respect within an online community.
Appendix 1(F)
[edit]When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
September or October 2003
When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
Very shortly after that (within days), although my involvement was initially casual.
Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
A combination of a lot of things: I like it as an intellectual community and as an experiment in consensus methods, I like having an outlet for my writing, and I’m only semi-employed these days, which means that it’s a great time for me to be plunged into a project like this. A lot of friends have called my knowledge “encyclopaedic”: it’s been interesting to find the degree to which that is true and the degree to which it is not.
Have you participated in another collaborative online community and if so how is it different?
Never very seriously. The biggest difference is precisely the collaborative creation of articles. My closest experience to that before had been writing functional or technical specifications for software.
How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
Never dealt with them.
Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching…?
Oh, boy. I write a lot of articles; I do translations from Spanish, German, Romanian, and to a lesser extent French, Italian, Catalan, and occasionally Asturian, Galician, or Portuguese; I started our current approach for coordinating translations; I’m one of the “regulars” on Votes for Deletion (where I don’t’ fall particularly into the “deletionist” or the “inclusionist” camp; I occasionally work on strengthening source citations of other people’s articles; I watchlist over 1000 articles watching for vandalism; I’ve been involved in starting a few WikiProjects (most notably the one on Ethnic Groups) and in the Forum on Encyclopedic Standards. I’m sure that’s not comprehensive
What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
I like the ability to watchlist articles, to check their histories of articles, the fact that there is a discussion page connected to each article. I am not sure it is a good thing that people can edit without logging on (it has pluses and minuses). I wish there were a better way for people to prove they are who they say they are. I wish there were a better process to remove or restrain trolls and point-of-view warriors.
What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
Consensus process, watchlisting, discussion pages, the votes-for-deletion process, the ability to form “teams” of some sort to work cooperatively. I suspect some of the email and IRC conversations serve very important roles, but I never participate in them.
What’s your opinion of Wikipedia’s contribution to society?
So far? Not much, except maybe as an example of a rather successful consensus process. Potentially? I suspect it will be an extremely important reference work, especially in areas that have not been well covered by other reference works, or not in given languages. The most blatant examples are many aspects of popular culture that almost no one else has tried to approach from a “neutral point of view” rather than as a fan or a critic, but I think there are more interesting examples. Have a look at the two featured articles I’ve worked on heavily: • “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” is almost certainly a more thorough reference for this Borges story than any one source previously available in any language. • “Paragraph 175” (translated from German) certainly exceeds any previous English-language online article on its topic (though there may be something more thorough in print). It also strikes me as having potential to become the core of an intellectual community in a manner independent of formal academia.
What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
It’s been so tied into my intellectual life for the last year or so that I cannot separate it out from what else I’ve learned in the last year.
Appendix 1(G)
[edit]Note: copied from Wikipedia user page
- When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
- Spring of 2004
- When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
- Summer 2004
- Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
- At the time because I wanted to expand/improve articles relating to the Bloomsbury Group and to Erik Satie.
- With retrosprect: because of so many other reasons, ranging from addiction to getting interested in this sociologically completely new format, from mere interest in knowledge of any kind to the combination of diverse knowledge in a unified format, etc... (Really, if you asked me the most dominant of these reasons, I couldn't tell...)
- Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
- Although I helped mount an on-line forum at a certain point and was involved in a wiki before getting to know wikipedia, my participation in other collaborative online communities was low, until wikipedia happened. As for differences:
- Wikipedia differs from forum applications in having a less pyramidal power structure. Everybody can edit prior edits.
- Differs, in my view, from most other type of wikis in the combination of all the following: the NPOV concept, the thorough copyleft approach, the low threshold, the fact that everyone can help build the policies, the general application of consensus in all decision-making processes, the goal of writing an Encyclopedia.
- Although I helped mount an on-line forum at a certain point and was involved in a wiki before getting to know wikipedia, my participation in other collaborative online communities was low, until wikipedia happened. As for differences:
- How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
- Don't know everything2. Compared to slashdot: I don't think of forum software like slashdot as less, but different. Every type of on-line interactive system should be used where it is most suitable (and I think slashdot very suitable for what it aims at). There's also a difference in what one feels the most at ease with: personally I feel much at ease with copyleft and with wiki (more at ease than with forum). The NPOV idea is what made it all possible, in my eyes, to trigger collaboration for an encyclopedia - in that persective wikipedia rates the highest as far as I know.
- Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching…?
- Over 2000 edits, of which:
- about 50% editing of encyclopedia articles - including some more than average involvement in categorisation.
- about 50% talk-page edits ("discussing" if you like), voting (e.g. en:wikipedia:categories for deletion), writing policy, and other indirect contributions to encyclopedia content. I try not to do more indirect contributions, than direct encyclopedia content, but am sometimes challenged in this respect.
- Made a choice not to become a sysop (partly irrational choice), so any monitoring I'd be doing is rather informal. I.e. I do monitor some articles (e.g. some of those to which I collaborated), but have, until know, never gotten caught in a revert war.
- Over 2000 edits, of which:
- What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
- like: see above. Also "history" feature, etc...
- dislike: having to subscribe separately for every language/wikimedia project. I heard this is going to change in one of the next releases of the software.
- What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
- What’s your opinion of Wikipedia’s contribution to society?
- making Encyclopedia content available in a very spread-out way.
- Maybe not yet so "visible", but to me at least not less important: a new form of making society.
- What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
- Well, a lot, I suppose, e.g. where the word "caisson disease" comes from, etc... (but I suppose you're not just asking what encyclopedical knowledge I learnt) - I also learnt a lot of other things, e.g. that a wikipedia policy or guideline tends not to work if it is not self-regulating in one way or another, that wikipedia defies (succesfully!) some web-usability rules, etc...
Appendix 1(H)
[edit]1. When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
June 2003.
2. When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
Also June 2003.
3. Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
I liked the concept, and I found that some information was missing. I started to add it, and consequently some people welcomed me and my information.
4. Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
Only some other Wikis. The difference is that none of them is as large and rewarding as Wikipedia.
5. How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
Slashdot is for a selected audience only, and nothing durable comes out. Slashdot is about news and comments that will be forgotten the next year. Wikipedia is persistent. (By the way, I do like the Slashdot rating system.)
I don't know E2 very well, but I feel it is not as coherent as Wikipedia. There is no 'common goal'.
6. Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching.?
Editing is what I, and most other Wikipedians, like to do most. Researching is part of the editing fun: creating an article with quality.
Monitoring and discussing are necessary evils. I like to do it because it improves Wikipedia, but it has no intrinsic fun.
(However, they do have nice side-effects. Monitoring helps to discover new articles. And discussing helps to know and understand your fellow-wikipedians.)
7. What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
Like:
- Collaborative work: a joint end product.
- No formal division of roles: everyone can do whatever they like to do, without dividing the labour beforehand.
- The strange fact that anarchy can sometimes create beautiful results.
Dislike:
- The inability of many people to function in an environment without authority.
- The fact that it is still unreliable.
8. What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
- Free editing.
- Discussion pages.
9. What's your opinion of Wikipedia.s contribution to society?
It is a nice encyclopedia, full of free knowledge. However, this knowledge is unreliable, so it merely serves as a nice and elaborate starting point for further research.
Also, Wikipedia is nice because it has shown the success of Wikis.
10. What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
Too much to mention. Facts, grammar and spelling errors I used to make, improved my writing skills, etc.
Appendix 1(I)
[edit]1. At the 29th of September, after a broadcast of Radio 1, a non-commercial radio station in the Netherlands.
2. The same day, the 29th of September. That day, I directly registered and edited pages.
3. I liked to try it and after trying, it became so much fun that I decided to stay longer.
4. Not before Wikipedia. After it, I became also involved in Wikibooks, which I like more than Wikipedia. It’s not much different, but that’s clear, it’s also a Wikimediaproject. There are a few things that are a bit different, for example: The books have mostly more text. After that, there are less people who work in this project, so it seems you are more important.
5. I never heard about those two projects you named. I think that Wikipedia is a useful project for all people in the world. When I should compare it with another open source project, I think it’s even better than http://www.dmoz.org
6. At Wikipedia mostly monitoring. But on Wikibooks, I’m busier with editing.
7. Like:
- It’s free for everyone to edit everything.
- You aren’t obliged to be always there. When you have a moment that you don’t like it anymore, you can leave the project for a while.
- An article can always become better, because it has more than one editor.
- There are so many editors that there is always someone who has knowledge about a special thing.
Dislike:
- It’s also for vandals easy to edit pages.
- With all the users, you can have cases where two (or more) users think they both are right and so, you can’t always have your opinion as the best opinion.
8. That it’s fully open. (Also for anonymous users) Often you see, with professional and exploratory open source projects that there are special editors. Two examples: http://www.dmoz.org and http://www.musiclinks.nl. On both projects, you have to ask for a moderator for an edit of a page OR you have to become a moderator yourself.
9. If wikipedia grows up, it can become an encyclopaedia equal, to professional encyclopaedias. For now, it’s already an internet page where you can find professional information for, for instance school reports.
10. That we, with co-operation can make a full professional, educational and informative project what can be used by whole the world.
Information about me: Age: 18 years Nationality: Dutch (Nederlands) Gender: Male
Appendix 1(J)
[edit]Questions for Wikipedians:
When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
About beginning 2004. Let's say January'04
When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
About April 2004.
Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
Because it gives me the feeling my work is instantly useful to somebody and becouse I belive educating ppl about stuff I know is useful for the entire society, especially since I specialize in Polish history and some materials I translate have never been available in English before.
Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
FreeOrion at www.freeorion.org. It is much harder (almost impossible) to become a senior member based on activity and abilities, thus it is much more irritating, as there is little recognition of one's efforts. Not to say it is a bad project or team, of course.
How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
Much higher
Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching…?
Writing new articles, editing various mistake, some researching. I don't participate much in the overall community, although I did founded one WikiProject and talk with its members on relevant discussin pages.
What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
I am not sure if you mean Wiki technology/software or Wikipedia community/idea. I like extensive use of hypertext tech in software and ease of editing. As for community I like seeing 'force for good' (as once The Economist wrote about Wiki) – i.e. That there are many people willing to spend their time on such voluntary projects.
What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
All of the above, I guess.
What’s your opinion of Wikipedia’s contribution to society?
Four years after its creation, Wiki is the biggest world encyclopedia. Quality varies, but from my research (I do some similar research involving Wiki impact on microeconomic markets) I see that it is at least as extensively used as professional encyclopedias (both print and online). I estimate that Wiki market share will rise, as will that of Wikitionary and similar projects. Wiki contribution to society now is big, and I think it will became as important as Google over the next few years, at the very least (i.e. giagantic).
What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
Many encyclopedia things (from various articles I read), for starters. But even more importantly that possibilities for online cooperation are at least as big as in real life, and that Wiki and similar techs will revolutionize our lives.
Appendix 1(K)
[edit]When did you become aware of Wikipedia?
Sometime in 2003, I believe.
When did you become involved in Wikipedia?
I didn't do much in the beginning, as I was working for a rival online encyclopedia project at the time. I believe I started editing regularly in about March 2004.
Why did you become involved in Wikipedia?
It's a fascinating project that provides an immense number of opportunities to learn things. I was also attracted because of its depth – because the basic coverage is so good, I'm able to work on covering some fairly obscure interests (e.g. Local railway history and Asian secessionist movements).
Have you participated in another collaborative online community and, if so, how is it different?
I've participated in a few – the Open Directory Project, its spinoff, the Open Encyclopedia Project, which I was basically the driving force behind for a good year or so, and Distributed Proofreaders.
Of those, the ODP was by far the most different – while its collaborative nature allowed it to become the web's leading directory, the extremely centralised control caused a whole set of problems that Wikipedia has managed to avoid (as an example, the ODP's administration was so secretive that no one really knew if the axe was about to fall on you), and I eventually quit.
Of the others, Distributed Proofreaders is very similar (albeit with a few more checks), and the OEP just maintains slightly tighter administrative direction than Wikipedia.
How do you rate Wikipedia as a collaborative project, as compared to, say, slashdot or everything2?
I don't know how it managed to do this, and avoid the pitfalls of both of the above, but I think it's clearly shown – probably better than any other – just what collaborative editing can achieve in this way. It's managed to achieve a high level of quality, as shown by the blind experiments conducted by the German newspaper, as well as a depth that Britannica would never be able to match. While so many collaborative projects tend to either fail (like the OEP largely has, because it got in the market too late), or become troll-fests, like Slashdot, Wikipedia has largely managed to stay on track.
Comment on the nature of your involvement in Wikipedia, ie. is it mostly editing, monitoring, discussing, researching…?
A whole mix of things. I spend a fair bit of time discussing things – which I think is an inevitable consequence of becoming more involved in the community itself. When I get the chance, though, I prefer to write new articles, although I do less of this now than I used to.
What features do you like/dislike about Wikipedia?
The ability for anyone to edit, the ease of the interface, and the depth of the community are all helpful. If I want to write an article on some obscure topic, I'll most likely have at least one, but usually more, other editors interested in that, which makes filling out content in that area markedly easier. It's also a reasonably friendly community, as long as one stays out of the controversial areas, despite the anarchic nature of its setup.
At the same time, Wikipedia relies on editors being able to put their biases aside, and its very easy for some determined fool to come along and mess up whole areas of articles. It's far too difficult to boot out someone who's simply incapable of neutral editing, although this is slowly changing. There's also problems with quality – in the last year, there's been a movement of editors who view pages along the lines of “Joe DiMaggio played baseball.” as an acceptable article, and both defend and encourage the creation of such pages. This doesn't do much for our credibility, but there's not much that can be done about it under this system. It's a double edged sword.
What features do you think are essential to Wikipedia?
A simple interface, the ability for anyone to edit, a ban on original research (therefore keeping out most of the crackpots) and a functioning disciplinary system are all vital. The first two are inherent in the system, we achieved the third long ago, and the fourth is nearly there.
What’s your opinion of Wikipedia’s contribution to society?
It's probably too soon to tell. It provides a free, in-depth, neutral, current and easily accessible resource to the masses, and from my own experience, is slowly becoming one of the first points of call for students doing basic research. As well as that, it has the potential to have a major impact in educating people, as more and more people (like my own elderly father) crack on to its benefits, and turn to Wikipedia when they need to find out basic information about one topic or another.
What have you learnt from Wikipedia?
Too much to name. If I'm not writing or discussing articles, I'm reading them. It's done wonders for my knowledge in a lot of areas.
Appendix 2: Data coding
[edit]Open Everybody, anybody, anything, free, unlock, copyleft, wiki, unrestricted, accessible, strength+weakness, able to contribute, vandalism, can be used by (the whole) world
Collaboration Cooperative, fields too complex for one, contribute, discuss, can’t finish project by myself, fill the gaps, form teams, joint end product, beautiful results, unrestricted
Community Cross-culture, “our”, “them”, consensus +/-, messages, discussion (inevitable consequence), anonymous, login, strong community, welcomed, respect, many, less people (more important), depth, reasonably friendly,
Content Edit, add, improve, fix, rephrase, more clear, accessible, contribute, repository, source, put in their bit, wide range, versatile, useful, more thorough reference than any other source, unified format, available in a spread-out way, unreliable, starting point, informative, hypertext, obscure, current
Attitude Excellent, cool, proud, surprise, favourite, media, skeptical, wiki can work, audacity, great time/opportunity, fun, success, liked concept, liked to try it
Addiction/ motivation Hooked, addicted, sucked in, challenge, educate others
Activities Add, expand, improve, start, create, organise, translate, projects, sister projects, answering questions, coordinate, categorise, research, educating others about what you know, mucked around, playing, discover articles (side effect of monitoring)
WP Identity “Encyclopedia with a twist”, strong goal, shared goal, educational, biggest encyclopedia, more important that Google, Isaac Asimov, free source of info, resource for the masses, repository of all human knowledge
Other sites Hard to navigate, troll infested, no purpose/long term effect, nothing durable, not as organised, voting system, reliable, vacuum, no relation to reality, less info, non-serious, little constructive, “Wikipedia is what I was looking for all along”, not focused on content, no memory, flamewars, suitable for what it aims at (Slashdot), Wikipedia rates the highest, selected audience, will be forgotten, good voting/rating system (K5/Slashdot), harder to become a senior member (FreeOrion), cenralised control (ODP) little recognition, other activities (blog, intranet, forum, wiki)
Argument/conflict 99/1%, bulletin boards, impossible to convince, right doesn’t make might, take a step back, leave, falls apart, revert war, controversy, isn’t pretty, own opinion
Vandalism Block, Lock, persistant, kept in check, sneaky, revert, troll(ing) infested, unpreventable evil, destroy, track, get rid of, problem users,
Policy/control Admin/sysop, monitor, watchlist, must, force, enforce, adhere, into line, contentious, frowned upon, stops random statements, anything could be added, clear criteria, over-bureaucratisation, community standards, encyclopedic, everyone can help, politics
Safeguards History, Neutral point of view (NPOV), recent changes, watchlists, disciplinary system, no original research,
NPOV Fair, accuracy, complete, controversial, Hitler/Holocaust denial, Pop-culture
Individual Gives voice, heard, empower, valid contribution, outlet, rewarding, recognition (front page), feel important, educating others about what I know
Society New form of creating society, revolution(ise), anarchy, all viewpoints, unlocks information, in 20 years, haven’t even begun, reach out, experiment, defies rules, no formal division of roles,
Usage Preserve work, teaching tool, time is right to distribute more widely, extensively used
Learning Many (encyclopedic) things, writing skills, research, reaching agreement, bound to intellectual life, more informed, changed attitude to media, work cooperatively,
Complaints/suggestions Discussion pages-better structures, voting, validate/prove users’ identity, history needs fine-tuning, sources (namespace), subscribe separately for different projects/languages
Appendix 3: Glossary of terms
[edit]Blog: A personal website, often like a journal, often with links to other blogs and sites
Copyleft: Open ownership of ideas, as opposed to copyright. The content in Wikipedia is copyleft.
Everything2 (or E2): A collaborative website, like wikipedia, but differing in the sense that information is owned by individual contributors and contributions, ie comments or discussion are posted in a list of entries, as opposed to being incorporated together.
Featured Article: An article which has normally been peer-reviewed on Wikipedia and which is recognised to be one of the best articles there
Flamewar: A dispute on an online discussion/forum/platform which has descended to the level of personal insults and apparently irreconcilable differences.
GFDL, Gnu Free Documentation License: Copyleft license, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
H2G2: A website devoted to free and varied information, under the BBC
History (also referred to in one questionnaire as “article version comparison”): A feature of Wikipedia whereby it is possible to see previous versions of any article, usually consulted after a page has been vandalised inorder to rectify the vandalism.
IRC: Chatroom for users of Wikipedia
K5 (Kuro5hin): A website with articles and comments, similar to Slashdot, E2
Neutral Point of View: NPOV – a core Wikipedia principle, where it is encouraged as much as possible to present an opinion, fact or idea in it’s widest context.
No original research: A policy on Wikipedia which bans original research, preferring instead to refer to other “primary sources” and reviews, ie. in journals, books etc.
Open Directory Project: A website devoted to building up an open database of knowledge, differing from Wikipedia in style and structure, also referred to as DMOZ.
Open source: Software where the sorce code is accessible and open to anyone to use for whatever purpose, like Linux, Apache or MediaWiki.
Revert: To change an article on Wikipedia back to what it was before some change in its recent history. To engage in a ralley of changes with someone who disagrees with you is called a “revert war”.
Rollback: A function for administrators on Wikipedia that enables them to revert vandalism quickly
Slashdot: A website which is similar to Wikipedia but more similar in structure to Everything2
Sources namespace: A proposal to promote and facilitate the specifying of sources to back up information on Wikipedia
Sock puppet: A separate account for a single user on Wikipedia
Sysop: System Operator on Wikipedia – a member who has the right to delete or lock pages and ban users
Three revert rule, 3RR: When someone reverts an article three times they are banned from Wikipedia for 24 hours
Trolls: People who vandalise sites, or who are an active nuisance.
VFD: “Votes for Deletion” – A Wikipedia page where users vote on articles or contributions that might violate Wikipedia’s principles, such as neutral point of view or whether it is ‘encyclopedic’.
VP: “Village Pump” – A page on Wikipedia for posting messages in an open forum for community discussion.
Watchlist: A feature of Wikipedia, where users can specify certain pages they want to monitor, and be notified when those pages have been edited.
Wiki: A type of website which is editable by anyone, of which Wikipedia is an example. Also the software that these types of websites use (sometimes referred to as WikiWiki).
Wikibooks: A collaborative book-writing venture. A Wikimedia project.
Wikimedia: The non-profit foundation which runs Wikipedia, alongside other sister projects, like Wikisource, Wikibooks, and Wiktionary, all of which are fully editable and follow the ‘wiki’ process.
Wikipedian: A user, generally a regular, on Wikipedia
Wikipediholic: A user who spends a great deal of their time on Wikipedia
Wikiproject: A project set up by a user of Wikimedia on a particular issue
Wikiquette: Set of guidelines to help smoothe, abate or avoid conflicts on Wikipedia.