Jump to content

Wikipedia:The future of Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
Larry_Sanger (talk)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
On this page we might speculate about the (glorious, of course) future of Wikipedia.
I think that we have grown a Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a volunteer


project that was made possible by Bomis. However, we have invested in our


favourite project a lot of enthusiasm, time and (in some cases) money.


See also:
It is quite natural that we <b>want</b> Wikipedia to prosper.<br>


* [[Wikipedia commentary/The future of Wikipedia]] (a discussion started by [[Kjpas]])
In my opinion it is a time to stop and discuss. Discuss the future of

Wikipedia.<br>

How does Bomis see it ?<br>

How does Nupedia see it ?<br>

How do <b>we</b> ?<br>



The future might be or might not as bright as our imagination whispers

into our ears.<br>

Wikipedia is a great idea combined with a new, revolutionary software and

it has a lot of brilliant committed authors. Her growth is explosive.

But there are also weaknesses (Wikinesses ?) brought to light by some

of us.



<h2>Reliability</h2>



The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite possible

lack of reliability.<br>

This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's credibility and

ultimately her success.<br>

This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree here with

[[Larry Sanger]] and his view &quot;self-healing&quot;. It is an example

of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.<br>

I'd rather agree with [[Piotr Wozniak]]. His ideal of reliability is EB and

he is anxious about the potential lack of it in Wikipedia.<br>

I am very interested in other people views. To start the creative process of

discussion I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea :

:Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one <b>public Wikipedia</b> that is almost frozen (apart from <i>Talk</i> pages, <i>Feature requests</i> pages and the like). And the <b>working Wikipedia</b> for contributors. Foreseeing your criticisms of the proposal that it would hamper netizen involvement - <i>Edit this page</i> could lead into the working Wikipedia.



<h2>Scalability</h2>



There are two ways of Wikipedia growth - global or niche.<br>

If we decide in favour of global growth - being slashdotted only first symptom

of a serious problem.<br>I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea :

:Nowadays distributed software solutions are the height of fashion. Why not devise a distributed Wikipedia ? Programmers ?



<h2>Multimedia</h2>



A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.<br>

It is rather trivial.<br>

I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a

real encyclopedia.<br>

I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :<br>

:AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and <i>Talk</i> pages.



<h2>Internal data format</h2>



This point is connected with <b>Software<b> issue below.<br>

Current data format is otherwise an example of excellent software solution.

But understandably the creator of it did not envision the scale of Wikipedia.

It poses numerous problems like searching through Wikipedia and others.<br>

:My ([[Kpjas]]) thoughts wander around [[XML]] data format in connection with a free [[database]] like [[MySQL]]. And your thoughts ?



<h2>Editorial process</h2>

Much has been said about it but not much done.<br>

We have an excellent and hard-working editor-in-chief - [[Larry Sanger]] but

I think Wikipedia in current form needs several such editors and when it

reaches 100,000 pages 1000 Larrys.<br>

My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :<br>

:Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.



<h2>Software</h2>



Like any other open software project the software behind it should be free and

open to all.<br>

The same applies to Wikipedia software. As I said above wikipedia software

(usemod wiki) is a revolutionary and of very good quality but

needs of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia of unrestrained growth go beyond

that kind of software. See also above Internal data format.<br>

On the Wikipedia mailing list [[BryceHarrington]] proposed making the Wikipedia

software publicly available on [[CVS]] for further collaboration on its

development.



<h2>Commercial and organizational issues</h2>



I'm no good at it. But to me it seems to be one the most important issues,

second to wide netizen involvement.<br>

Please, share your feelings and opinions here.

-----

[[MichaelTinkler|MichaelTinkler's]] comments



I certainly wish there were a way to have pictures and maps. I would like to be able to write about art and buildings that are viewable.



Who is going to choose the 'contributor' group as opposed to the 'reader' group. Do we know that there is a reader group anyway? I have a distinct feeling that those using wikipedia are those who are contributing.



The self-healing model is an incredibly optimistic one that depends on a civil society of the web to work. I am (so far) incredibly impressed with it, sleep/learning aside. I have had no trouble with my submissions; many of them have been improved by editing and additions (thanks rmhermen!). P.Wozniak's idea that the best writers are the least tolerant of others edits may mean that I am not a very good writer. Or that humility is a virtue that all of us, however good we think our writing or contributions are, have to cultivate if we're going to participate in a Wiki-format encyclopedia. If a contributor wants to feel pride in ownership as well as craftsmanship, that contributor should, at present, find another venue - Nupedia, for one.



There is in my field (Early Medieval Europe) an excellent peer-reviewed project, the Ecole Initiative (http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/). The peer-review editing process has slowed its growth to a C-R-A-W-L. One thing I like about wikipedia is that I can dash off a fairly stupid little biographical entry and then come back and flesh it out later. I'm building up a network of 8th and 9th century entries which are starting to satisfy me. Every now and then someone else takes a stab at 'em, and I'm grateful.

[[MichaelTinkler]]

----

For authors who want to take credit for their work (like myself, usually;), but don't want to get stuck in endless peer reviews, the [[Nupedia Chalkboard]] http://chalkboard.nupedia.com is the right place. It's the "controlled wikipedia" people seem to demand. See also [[Chalkboard candidates]].



For the image issue, I solved that one for myself on the chalkboard by using the space at my virtualave site. Some people at wikipedia could group together and start a tripod site or something for their corner of wikipedia. They'd have to maintain the images is the tripod account is closed, though.



[[Magnus Manske]]

----

I'll reply a bit to this on [[Wikipedia-L]]. (I think this should have been made a subpage of [[Wikipedia commentary]], but I don't think it's important enough to move it.) --[[LMS]]

-----

I'm sorry, but this drive for increased hierarchies, control, and rules is crap. Wikipedia doesn't need anal retentive people to chain and gag it. Read Hackers by Steven Levy to get some understanding of the difference between a free, open project driven by pride and quality, and the standard fear-driven system led by administrators, bureaucrats, and incompetents. Calling the "self-healing" theory "wishful thinking", without any evidence to back up your derision, is galling. I do support the distributed Wikipedia, and maybe trying to figure out multimedia, but that's rather ugly.

--[[The Cunctator]]


Revision as of 22:07, 16 August 2001

On this page we might speculate about the (glorious, of course) future of Wikipedia.


See also:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_future_of_Wikipedia&oldid=288205"