Wikipedia Reinvents

May 31, 2004 8:36 AM

Wikipedia has reinvented itself. It now supports discussions about any article, and provices an easy way for users to look at previous article versions. Maybe it could do this before -- but my memory and the Google cache lead me to think not. To the jaded eye, this looks like just a software upgrade. But the implications are greater than that. Wikipedia is the great white hope for free (as in freedom) information on the web, and this ups the ante. My big questions: Can they handle the load? And how long before anyone notices?
posted by lodurr (18 comments total)

This doesn't seem to be true for every article (example) Are they in the process of converting over or just testing this out? (the elements look nice)

Regardless, Wikipedia rocks pretty hard.
posted by vacapinta at 9:05 AM on May 31, 2004

Nope, both talk: pages and reviewing all past changes are an integral part of Wikipedia, and have been for a long time. Still, Wikipedia can always use a bit of extra attention, although as vacapinta noted, the servers aren't entirely 100% happy at the moment. I have high hopes that once all the upgrade stuff settles down things will be much better though.
posted by fvw at 9:22 AM on May 31, 2004

San Dimas Highschool football rules!

So does Wikipedia. I wish people would stop putting the word "fuck" into the lyrics on the Straight Edge entry.
posted by xpermanentx at 10:27 AM on May 31, 2004

As fvw says, talk: and page history are nothing new. It may be that the new skin ("monobook") makes them more obvious, though. With a new skin, a new software version and new hardware being set up, there may be a few bugs to shake out over the next few days...
posted by rbrwr at 10:27 AM on May 31, 2004

It's sad that some use it not as a database of facts but as yet another arena for propagandeering. The Norwegian wikipedia, for instance, contains all sorts of info about how Saddam Hussein was the "legal/legitimate" ruler of Iraq, "a million dead children" are haphazardly blamed on "western countries' boycott", claims that Wolfowitz has "admitted" that the war was all about oil (of course that misquote has been retracted by all reputable sources, but when you try to correct it on the Norwegian wikipedia, you are promptly labeled a troublemaker and banned).

I could go on and on with examples, and I think the reason is that it's controlled by the same people who run Indymedia and similar sites in Norway.

I hope it's not the same way around the world...
posted by dagny at 10:29 AM on May 31, 2004

People on the American left might want to submit entries to dKosopedia instead. I don't know of any alternative for the right.
posted by donth at 10:43 AM on May 31, 2004

dagny -- It seems to be much better in English, probably because there's a much larger userbase.

lodurr -- It's been this way for as long as I've used it, which has been at least several months. The new look, on the other hand, is quite exciting.
posted by mote at 10:44 AM on May 31, 2004

Wow, my example has changed since I linked to it! I swear it was old-style (and no, it wasnt cached)
posted by vacapinta at 11:07 AM on May 31, 2004

I stand corrected; I previously couldn't see the elements that let you access discussion and versioning. The new skin certainly does bring those more to the forefront. (And it's still more proof that the top-tab metaphor is not inherently bad, as some people used to maintain.)

Still, though, bringing those elements into stronger focus is likely to make them more heavily used. What's that likely to do do their servers?
posted by lodurr at 11:12 AM on May 31, 2004

"It's sad that some use it not as a database of facts but as yet another arena for propagandeering."

Oh, like there's no bias in typical printed encyclopedias? Someone has to decide what's important enough to warrant an entry. Whether to call it Magellan's Journey or Enrique's...

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia exactly because it is constantly evolving and every page has the attached discussion section for arguing about what needs to be presented.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:16 PM on May 31, 2004

And at least with Wikipedia you have a chance to submit your own version of the facts, potentially correcting bias or "progandeering."

You don't have that option with any print media, like Grolier or Encyclopedia Britannica. (And if you don't think they're biased, you need to go hunt down turn-of-the-century versions, to read about Africa or Japan.)
posted by five fresh fish at 1:33 PM on May 31, 2004

do you think a turn of the century wikipedia would have done any better? wouldn't the people then have typed something similar to what encyclopedias of the time contained?

i'm not saying bias doesn't exist, rather i don't think the internet is bias-free either; more strongly, it's not obvious to me that a dozen opinionated internet users - for any particular article - are better than a single "expert". there's some vague hope they may "average out" i guess, but it's also likely that they are less well informed.
posted by andrew cooke at 4:31 PM on May 31, 2004

Ooh, purty. I like the updated look.

Wikipedia does indeed rock.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:45 PM on May 31, 2004

do you think a turn of the century wikipedia would have done any better?
Presumably a 1900 Wikipedia would have posters that had actually been to the continent or country in question, and could correct errors.
posted by darukaru at 8:02 PM on May 31, 2004

Wow, much nicer. I'm especially enjoying the "Selected Anniversary" feature. Very cool.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:17 PM on May 31, 2004

You'd probably be surprised how many experts participate in the Wikipedia; read a few of the discussion pages, and you'll quickly run into some academic smack-fu callouts...
posted by kaibutsu at 8:56 PM on May 31, 2004

Presumably a 1900 Wikipedia would have posters that had actually been to the continent or country in question, and could correct errors.

Don't bet on it. Travel was slow, expensive, and difficult, and communications bandwidth slow and narrow. Much more likely, the expert accounts would be re-written from accounts by a missionary or two with some juicy anecdotes tossed in from a colonial officer or a former merchant marine seaman.

Not that we live in the best of all possible worlds. But it would be silly for us to not recognize that there are things we can do better than could be done in 1900. This couldn't have worked, then. It could work (I'd say, is working) now.
posted by lodurr at 10:16 PM on May 31, 2004

And at least with Wikipedia you have a chance to submit your own version of the facts, potentially correcting bias or "progandeering."

True, but people are free to edit those too. That kind of political bickering is the downside to the system. I've just given up trying to add information to the section on Chornobyl. Despite my view that it's highly pertinent, it's about Russian language equivalents, and some of the editors there (i'd guess pro-Ukrainians) keep removing it and deleting links to it elsewhere.
posted by raygirvan at 9:16 AM on June 1, 2004