Contribute Ideas to the Film
From Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story
Contents |
[edit] Sanctuaries
Have you considered mentioning any of the pages out there that are preserving important articles that have fallen through the cracks? For example; docdroppers.org?
[edit] MyGads in plain English
Great use of minimalist technology for our convenience. Do I see Wiki technology? Yup - the edit, save and history buttons in disguise at http://www.mygads.com Watch the explanation video. Bernd in Japan 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki in plain English
A fun 4-minute explanation how a Wiki is a better way to plan a camping trip by Commoncraft Paperworks Bernd in Japan 09:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] interview
Perhaps get an interview with Wikinews? Thunderhead 11:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] helpful
Hey there. I just watched the trailer, and I'm very excited about this film. Here's a list (and some brief explanations) of what I consider to be aspects of Wikipedia that non-editors probably wouldn't be familiar with. You guys have probably already covered most of this, but here goes:
- The Manual of Style: A comprehensive user-built guide for writing aricles, covering everything from section headings to how to transliterate Kanji symbols.
- Copyright paranoia: Some users go to great lengths to insure that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons use only free images, such that all content on Wikipedia can truly be used for any purpose without fear of copyright issues.
- Wikiprojects: A simple means of getting users with common interests and talents to share their ideas, and to unify their efforts to insure consistency across related articles.
- Portals: If a user is interested in a particular topic, chemistry for example, they can go to the Chemistry Portal for all the information grouped together rather than reading the actual article on chemistry.
- Vandalism: A somewhat misunderstood problem on Wikipedia. The war on vandalism is fought by three superb armies:
- Bots: Scripted editing tools can detect and remove obvious vandalism (page blanking, random profanity, nonsense) within seconds.
- Watchlists: Users can add pages of interest to their Watchlist, where they'll be notified of any changes. If a page has 5 editors watching it, and it's vandalized, there will be 5 editors who know about it the next time they log in.
- Recent Changes Patrol: The Recent Changes page is a list of the most recent edits that have been made to all pages, and the RC Patrol is a group of delightfully insane editors who scan the list for destructive edits.
- Peer review: Articles can be added to the Peer Review queue, or even a specific category, such as Scientific Peer Review, where other editors can suggest improvements for the primary contributor(s).
- External peer review: Contributors often contact non-wikipedian experts to critique specific articles. For example, if Bob were working on the Mona Lisa article, he might contact a curator of the Louvre to examine the article.
- Translators: Part of the Wikipedia goal is to provide information to everyone in their own language. As of yet, the English version is by far the best Wiki. Many multilingual contributors put great effort into translating the English articles to languages that don't have them, and vice versa.
- Featured Articles: Wikipedia's best work is exemplified by Featured Articles. An article becomes featured when users determine that it has satisfied all Featured Article Criteria, which are (briefly):
- Well-written prose
- Comprehensivity
- Factual accuracy
- Neutrality
- Stability
- Compliance with the Manual of Style
- Appropriate images with appropriate copyright status
- Appropriate length
- Consensus must be reached by those who vote on the article, and whether or not consensus is reached is determined by the neutral Featured Article Director, Raul654.
That's all I can squeeze out of my brain at the moment! --Cryptic C62 01:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There's also the fact that Wikmedia is a non-profit organisation.Κάρτμαν 14:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Probably Κάρτμαν meant to say that Wikimedia is a for profit organization. Cathbad 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I just went through the podcasts - amazing stuff. Not a content idea, but I would suggest putting a feed on http://en.planet.wikimedia.org and get the word out about the project to get people interested. I usually keep my ears to the tracks of the wikipedia world, and this is the first time I've seen all this; I literally stumbled several clicks until I came onto it. 71.139.21.133 08:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Try-it-yourself : Maybe it would be cool to try editing Wikipedia just like a normal editor for a week (i.e. four, five hours a day, preferrably in your spare time (lunch, evening) etc to feel how Wikipedians live :) Try to get really into the community, fighting vandalism, the boring stuff too. Maybe it would give a few really great insights. -- Effeietsanders 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Dirty Underside
I've only now discovered the film project and this website, so I have no idea how far along in your project you are nor of whether this suggestion will be worthwhile to you. But anyway ....
Wikipedia gets rocked from time to time by scandals, the most notable of which is probably the Siegenthaler defamation, which highlighted the dangers of the combination of anonymous contribution and inconsistent review. (Note, however, Jimbo Wales' claim that Wikipedia had no way of tracking down Siegenthaler's slanderer, who was later tracked down without much difficulty by Public Information Research, Inc., President and Wikipedia critic, Daniel Brandt.) Another scandal involved Wikipedian insider Ryan Jordan, who had made false claims of credentials on his Wikipedia user page as well as in an interview with New Yorker Magazine. In this scandal, Jimbo Wales, knowing the truth of the false claims, dismissed them with, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."
A current scandal, which has not yet made it to the mainstream media but which has become the central topic on the meta-Wikipedia mailing list, concerns the alleged "outing" of an anonymous Wikipedia editor and the efforts made apparently to conceal her personal information. The anonymous editor apparently wields a lot of power in Wikipedia, and has infuriated a lot of editors and formal editors through alleged abuses. The scandal came to a mini-head when it was reported in OhmyNews and then in SlashDot.
I don't think there is too much of a story, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, with the actual identity of the editor in question. But I do think there is something in how people become powerful within Wikipedia and what controls there are on miss-use of power: what prevents agents of influence, whether corporate PR representatives or government agents or political lobbyists, from effectively controlling information on Wikipedia? And what position has Jimbo Wales taken, who has appointed to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee an editor who is widely viewed as being among the most biased, when articles on a particularly controversial topic are concerned, on Wikipedia? (The editor in question is no longer on the Arbitration Committee after declining to seek re-appointment, but, after his original appointment with no community input expired, he was somewhat un-democratically re-appointed to a second term by Jimbo Wales. He does, however, maintain the ability to identify the IP addresses used by "anonymous" editors, and he has been accused of abusing this authority.)
And generally, there is the question of how Wikipedia deals, internally, with complaints about the powers-that-be there.
Anyway, just food for your thought.
Cathbad 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Get the news out
I've also just recently discovered this project. And it was only by accident. You should think about spreading information about the film. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about it. I tried to start one and I hope it gets published (AFC - I wasn't registered then). Anyway I think that a a link on the main page of wikipedia or something would really help.
rgds
U5K0
[edit] The Future
I want to see the last 10 or 15 minutes of this film composed of all commentators' predictions of WP's future, what it means for traditional encyclopedias, the future of wikis in general, how will Wikimedia handle the growth, how how could WP fall.--Wikiphilia
