Wikipedia Unrecoverable, Alternative Created

[luchog]

It appears that one of Wikipedia's original founders agrees with it's detractors that, in its current model, it has too many problems and is not the utopian information resource that he intended. He has created an "alternative" to Wikipedia that relies more on experts, and far less on "common wisdom". Though anyone can contribute, control -- including final edits and publishing -- will be retained by the expert panel; making it far more like a traditional encyclopedia than the failed experiment he originally created.

So rather than try to fix the problem that has resulted in Wikipedia being a massive font of trivia and marginally useful information; he is forking the project.

Wikipedia founder forks Wikipedia

Excerpt:

Sanger set up Wikipedia six years ago with former bond trader Jimmy Wales, with money from Wales' titty portal Bomis underwriting the project. Sanger left in 2001, and in January this year announced a new project called Digital Universe, a web-based resource that employs domain experts, with $10m backing. (Wales has subsequently edited his own Wikipedia bio to diminish Sanger's contribution, anointing himself sole founder). Explaining the need for a companion project, Sanger said he thought that "humanity can do better" than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's shortcomings today were probably unsolvable.

"Wikipedia has already driven off no doubt thousands of would-be contributors, and there are thousands, if not millions, of people who never would think about contributing to Wikipedia in the first place. We want to set up, not a replacement, but an alternative to Wikipedia, a responsible constitutional republic that makes a special place for experts and invites the general public to work shoulder-to-shoulder with them," he wrote.

 

[Morrigan]

Interesting. When Wikipedia has a detailed article on w00t (and a talk page twice as long), you know it's about damn time something like that happened, because Wikipedia is indeed an unrecoverable cesspool for the über-nerds.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I remember hearing a discussion about this(I think it was this) on NPR. They where saying that the problem is that he created wikipedia with out a way to generate money from it and was starting a new thing with enough differences and a plan to be able to generate money from it.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

What's wrong with a massive database of the mundane and trivial?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hansard you mean?

 

[calebprime]

hansard--parliamentary debates?

I've observed the wiki to be completely unreliable for obscure subjects like advanced music theory--there are simply too few good people who care about some subjects; and stuff like cold fusion where the cranks can take over.

i think this would be a good thing. but probably much slower in the making.

 

[geni]

It appears that one of Wikipedia's original founders agrees with it's detractors that, in its current model, it has too many problems and is not the utopian information resource that he intended.

Wikipedia wasn't what he intened in a number of respects he left quite a while ago after he stoped being paid and had a run in with a few comunity memebers (which is fair enough those community members are a bit of a pain).

He has created an "alternative" to Wikipedia that relies more on experts, and far less on "common wisdom".

This is probably his thrid project to do that. Of the previous two the only one that has got anywhere is digital universe and that is still pretty small (although it has produced an impressive amount of bureaucracy).

Though anyone can contribute, control -- including final edits and publishing -- will be retained by the expert panel; making it far more like a traditional encyclopedia

Very much so. In fact a dead on description of a system Encarta is already useing.

than the failed experiment he originally created.

That would be nupedia. It wasn't very sucessful you can see what it produced here:

http://nupedia.8media.org/

So rather than try to fix the problem that has resulted in Wikipedia being a massive font of trivia and marginally useful information; he is forking the project.

Who are you to define what is and is not triva?

 

[geni]

Interesting. When Wikipedia has a detailed article on w00t (and a talk page twice as long), you know it's about damn time something like that happened, because Wikipedia is indeed an unrecoverable cesspool for the über-nerds.

What is wrong with haveing an article on "w00t"? The encycopedia britanicia has rather a lot of articles on mildy notable 19th century people. I haven't seen anyone complaining about that.

 

[geni]

hansard--parliamentary debates?

I've observed the wiki to be completely unreliable for obscure subjects like advanced music theory

Not so much obscure (Biaxial nematic is a fairly decent article) but more areas geeks are not interested in such as the history of fashion or places outside western english speaking countries.

--there are simply too few good people who care about some subjects; and stuff like cold fusion where the cranks can take over.

Cold fusion has the problem that there are a number of non cranks who haven't given up on it.

i think this would be a good thing. but probably much slower in the making.

If it works it would be good but I tend to feel that it will be unlikely to get very far.

 

[geni]

I remember hearing a discussion about this(I think it was this) on NPR. They where saying that the problem is that he created wikipedia with out a way to generate money from it and was starting a new thing with enough differences and a plan to be able to generate money from it.

It was never planned that wikipedia would be for profit.

 

[Kaarjuus]

It appears that one of Wikipedia's original founders agrees with it's detractors that, in its current model, it has too many problems and is not the utopian information resource that he intended.
/../
Though anyone can contribute, control -- including final edits and publishing -- will be retained by the expert panel; making it far more like a traditional encyclopedia than the failed experiment he originally created.

Well, good luck to Sanger. He has tried to create a better wiki before, and failed. The main problem: finding enough willing AND qualified people to participate in controlling the quality of the articles.

If he can create a sustainable free encyclopedia that does not have the problems wikipedia has, then what can I say but w00t!

If I need an in-depth analysis of the characters in the Matrix trilogy, I can always return to wikipedia.

 

[Morrigan]

What is wrong with haveing an article on "w00t"? The encycopedia britanicia has rather a lot of articles on mildy notable 19th century people. I haven't seen anyone complaining about that.

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope (with, mind you, a tribal African mask as "possible origin" of the word... riiiight) and a huge debate about it, is a stupid and undesirable aspect of a so-called compendium of human knowledge, then I don't think I can say anything to explain it.

 

[politas]

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope (with, mind you, a tribal African mask as "possible origin" of the word... riiiight) and a huge debate about it, is a stupid and undesirable aspect of a so-called compendium of human knowledge, then I don't think I can say anything to explain it.

Well, surely part of the point of Wikipedia is that there's so little filtering. Put everything in, and then anyone can find what they're interested in. If you aren't interested in discussions and debate and definition of "w00t", why do you care that other people are? Do you seriously think those people would be likely to put a similar level of interest and involvement in the sort of subjects you think should be in an encyclopedia? Do you think it would be helpful if they did?

I certainly find Wikipedia to be a very useful resource. Not for everything, perhaps, and I don't rely on it being completely accurate. Wikipedia's biggest problem as I see it is hotly debated topics, such as religion and alternative medicine. And even with those, you can generally get the impression that there is active debate.

 

[a_unique_person]

Does that mean I have to type in the article on "w00t" again? I don't know if I could be bothered.

 

[Kaarjuus]

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope

So is it ok to have articles on onomatopes of grown-ups?

Millions of teenagers and young grown-ups use this slang word daily. Abundantly.

How is having an article on an obscure 19th century writer more important?

It's a cultural phenomenon. Like this one.

Childish? Yes.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I completely disagree about his claims concerning wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a 'cesspool for mundane common facts'. Wikipedia's science articles are among the most extensive and detailed and factual on the net. Wikipedia has a database THOUSANDS of times larger than any other encyclopedia.

This monkey's new project will ultimately fail because of the fact that the end result relies on a few experts rather than hundreds of independent people with all sorts of points of view. Where the number of people controlling the final outcome is smaller then the bias is larger. That's simply how it works.

What will end up happening is these 'experts' will get many contributions and will likely not be able to shift through 10% of then and then will end up putting up what they in their points of view believe should be up.
When put in a place of authority most experts will use their point of view to squash other points of views of non-experts. However on wikipedia there are no authorities and experts must argue their case with everyone else objecting. (And it works) Just look at any scientific article on wikipedia and you will see how comprehensive and accurate they are.

For instance this article..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

No doubt composed almost exclusively by experts in the field or those with massive amounts of knowledge. Try to find an error in that article. Just one...


Found one?



Ok Great! Fix it!

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So is it ok to have articles on onomatopes of grown-ups?

Millions of teenagers and young grown-ups use this slang word daily. Abundantly.

How is having an article on an obscure 19th century writer more important?

It's a cultural phenomenon. Like this one.

Childish? Yes.

But still something many people would like to know. (Like myself who read the article in the past). Therefore it belongs in an encyclopedia.

 

[geni]

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope (with, mind you, a tribal African mask as "possible origin" of the word... riiiight) and a huge debate about it, is a stupid and undesirable aspect of a so-called compendium of human knowledge, then I don't think I can say anything to explain it.

7.6 million hits on google looks like something quite a lot of people would like to know.

 

[Ian Osborne]

If you can't see why having a detailed article on a teenager onomatope (with, mind you, a tribal African mask as "possible origin" of the word... riiiight) and a huge debate about it, is a stupid and undesirable aspect of a so-called compendium of human knowledge, then I don't think I can say anything to explain it.

Sorry, but that's just elitist. Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the article on w00t! isn't going to displace a scholarly treatise on the breeding habits of the Lord Howe Island stick insect. And is there any place more appropriate for a definition of internet slang than a populist internet encyclopedia?

 

[geni]

Sorry, but that's just elitist. Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the article on w00t! isn't going to displace a scholarly treatise on the Lord Howe Island stick insect. And is there any place more appropriate for a definition of internet slang than a populist internet encyclopedia?

Normaly urban dictionary.