{"id":55,"date":"2005-02-17T14:48:31","date_gmt":"2005-02-17T18:48:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/metasj\/2005\/02\/17\/the-self-organizing-self-repairing-hyp"},"modified":"2005-02-17T14:48:31","modified_gmt":"2005-02-17T18:48:31","slug":"the-self-organizing-self-repairing-hyperaddictive-library-of-the-fu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/2005\/02\/17\/the-self-organizing-self-repairing-hyperaddictive-library-of-the-fu\/","title":{"rendered":"The self-organizing, self-repairing, hyperaddictive library of the future"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

In the March edition of WIRED, Daniel Pink<\/b> has managed to turn a few personal meetings, a bit of leg-work (including a trip to the sparse Foundation headquarters in Florida), the stray historical quote and a bit of prognostication, into a poetic piece on Wikipedia<\/a>. He refers to the project as the latest stage in mankind’s longstanding desire to “tame the jungle of knowledge”.<\/p>\n

Titled “The Book Stops Here<\/i>“, the piece’s layout runs to six pages, mimicing those of a gold-edged, leather-bound book. The frontispiece, showing Wales gazing levelly over a large stack of Britannica volumes and — are those the 2001 Florida Statues<\/i>? — is coupled with a set of beautiful sketches of six active wikipedians (Angela<\/a><\/b>, Bryan Derksen<\/a><\/b>, Carptrash<\/a><\/b>, Kingturtle<\/a><\/b>, Ram-Man<\/a><\/b>, and Raul654<\/a><\/b>), whose stories are woven into the article.<\/p>\n

Pink deals quite well with the nuances of community collaboration, good faith, administrators, stewards, and developers, and brilliantly captures vignettes of individual contributors and motivations.
\nPerhaps the one bit of internal culture he gets slightly off is the tone of the admiration community members show towards founder Jimmy Wales<\/b> — the cheerful irony that accompanies the term “God-King” in wiki circles, is unlikely to carry over to an audience used to hearing the term associated with infallible emperors of times long past. <\/p>\n

The one glaring omission in the article is an acknowledgement of the project’s unparallelled multilinguality. The only mention<\/b> of other languages is a single sentence discussing the size of the encyclopedia — “Tack on the editions in 75 other languages, including Esperanto and Kurdish, and the total Wikipedia article count tops 1.3 million.<\/i>” Surely that 60% of the project deserves more than a nod. Similarly, other Wikimedia projects go unremarked, though WikiCities<\/a> gets a few paragraphs. <\/p>\n

Charles Van Doren<\/b>‘s 1962 essay, “The Idea of an Encyclopedia<\/u>” in “The American Behavioral Scientist<\/i>” is called in to wrap the piece up (Van Doren<\/a> later became a senior Britannica editor):<\/p>\n

\n“[T]he ideal encyclopedia should be radical. It should stop being safe…. what will be respectable in 30 years seems avant-garde now. If an encyclopedia hopes to be respectable in 2000, it must appear daring in the year 1963.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pink’s conclusion? “You can’t evaluate Wikipedia by traditional encyclopedia standards.” Nevertheless, he feels the project is “about to become respectable.”<\/p>\n

Other great quotes from the article: <\/p>\n