|
Don’t know how we missed this one yesterday. Wiki-mania has reached
the mainstream, or at least the comics pages of the Boston
Globe. What
is a Wiki? Simply one
of the most fascinating experiments in communal knowledge ever attempted.
A Wiki is basically
a web page that ANY VIEWER can change, alter, add to or erase at any
time. Madness? Anarchy? Well, actually quite
useful for a variety of collaborative projects and information sharing. For
example, we are using a Wiki to develop a central source of "Getting
Started" materials (videos, manuals, walk-throughs, workshops) for people
who want to try blogging for the first time, called the "Blogging
101 Project". It has been working quite well for the small group
of participants, separated by geography and schedules, despite having
been defaced several
times by malicious outsiders.
(Actually, looking at it this morning while creating the above link,
we note it has been vandalized again. We may have to take the unfortunate
step of requiring visitors to sign in with a name and email address before
making changes to the page – the virtual equivalent of starting to lock
the doors when you leave the house. Gratuitous commentary on the stupidity
of vandalism would be redundant.)
Wikipedia is the flagship project
of the Wiki revolution – nothing less than an attempt to create a living
encyclopedia of the current state
of human knowledge. Anyone can add, alter, amend or correct any
entry. Despite predictions of infinite varieties of failure, the
actual effort is surprisingly complete and correct. It has captured enough
imaginations of trustworthy and knowledgeable people that a critical
mass has been reached which overwhelms isolated havoc wreckers. When
people put false or opinionated stuff up it is usually eliminated in
minutes.
A recent
article in the Los Angeles Times by Crispin Sartwell explores
the phenomena:
So is it to be trusted? Does it have the credibility of Britannica?
Well, I have monitored over a decent period a number of entries on matters
about which I know something and have found them almost invariably accurate.
And I have watched some of them grow, becoming ever more elaborate and
interlinked.
In fact, open architecture is in some sense the only possible way to do what
an encyclopedia purports to do: represent the state of human knowledge in real
time. Such a project is by its nature so huge that it requires what Wikipedia
has: thousands of experts, editors, checkers and so on with expertise in different
fields working over a period of years. Also, Wikipedia,
unlike the World Book, for example, or even Encarta, is updated continuously.
When we use the term "public
property," we usually mean state property, but Wikipedia compromises the
concept of ownership without dispossessing anyone: It is truly public property.
What is perhaps most fascinating about Wikipedia is its demonstration in practical
anarchy. It is an ever-shifting, voluntary, collaborative enterprise. If it is
in the long run successful, it would show that people can make amazing things
together without being commanded, constrained, taxed, bribed or punished.
It is still an experiment, the outcome and ultimate utility of
which is still very much up in the air. The Dowbrigade has it permanently
on the menu bar of his browser, and checks it before Encarta or Britanica.
We encourage our readers to check it out. Look
up something you consider yourself an expert in. Evaluate the correctness
of what you find. If there is something you know more about than what
you find, add to the
collective
knowledge.
You never
know who might be needing it next.
LA Times Article
Wikipedia itself
|
