April 14, 2008
Wikipedia Roundup
I was getting a little behind in my reading and blogging. In order to make a substantial dent, I will make several posts over the next few days (or weeks) that will bring in many thoughts around a specific topic.
Today's topic: Wikipedia
The battle for Wikipedia's soul
Mar 6th 2008
(From The Economist print edition)
IT IS the biggest encyclopedia in history and the most successful example of “user-generated content” on the internet, with over 9m articles in 250 languages contributed by volunteers collaborating online.The article discusses the challenges of trying to "encompass every aspect of human knowledge" versus including including everything no matter how "trivial".
Does anyone else think that the restrictions on Wikipedia are getting tighter and tighter than advertised and originally planned?
Interview of Niko Pfund, Vice President and Publisher of the Academic and Trade division of Oxford University Press in New York
Blog entry on the OUPblog (April 8, 2008)
He was asked if "he hated Wikipedia". He said he was a regular user and appears to think that Wikipedia is helping people to better understand appropriateness of information and its source. He suggested that the development of the Oxford English Dictionary was based on the same method of utilizing the collective knowledge of people.
He does suggest that as Wikipedia's popularity grows it will bring its own end as the "one-stop shopping model will likely fragment".
I do not know of this will happen. We see this in our own library collections that we are pushing more resources to a one-stop approach. Do people really think that we will revert back to having to find information from only a single appropriate source?
Categories
Blog: Are You 2.0 Yet Web 2.0 WikiTrackbacks
Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/mt-tb.cgi/17524Alternative Trackback Sources: | Google It! | Technorati | Bloglines
Comments
Posted on April 14, 2008 12:20 PM
You might be interested in what we have done with a Wikipedia chemical structure subset. Visit: http://www.wichempedia.org/
I have been curating the structure dataset with some colleagues from WP:Chem (see http://www.chemconnector.com/chemunicating/dedicating-christmas-time-to-the-cause-of-curating-wikipedia.html)
Now we have sub-setted WP:Chem out of ChemSpider (about 4800 tructures out of 20 million) we can complete our WIki'ing layer using Microsoft's technology and really get to work! (http://www.chemspider.com/blog/the-chemspider-team-chooses-our-future-platform-for-collaboration-microsoft-sharepoint.html)
Posted on April 18, 2008 07:09 PM
I think Wikipedia has to have very strict editorial regulations, for a number of reasons. Legally, as you grow to their size, you have to be careful that non-factual info gets removed. Also, it helps keep the integrity and prestige of the site high.
Posted on May 17, 2008 02:55 PM
Well, I think the regulations should be driven by the voice of the Wiki community. We could discuss here what should or shouldn't happen but this is Web 2.0.
So regulations tighter? Fine, if the community agrees and accepts it.
The Chem wiki is nice, another example from US I recently saw where the Dr. wiki's. Really cool and useful stuff!