[MLUG] Re: Wikipedia on /.

[EMAIL:PROTECTED]

EMAIL:PROTECTED wrote ..
> Send members mailing list submissions to
> 	EMAIL:PROTECTED
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	EMAIL:PROTECTED
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	EMAIL:PROTECTED
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of members digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> That's what I'd like to understand.  What is the phenomenon that some 
> see behind the concept of Wiki.

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks

> Anyways...   is there something really revolutionary about wiki?  Or is
> it hype, or pseudointellectualism, or something else entirely.

It is some, none, or all. Revolutionary? Some think so. In the way that the Internet democratized the ability to publish -- anyone can have a website, Wikis are a way to democratize the ability to _create content_ on a website, not just to the owners of the website.

It's an automated version of the "Letter to the editors" or "Town Talk" sections in your local newspapers. Except that because of the technology, everyone is published with equal footing, and equal veracity.

It's also a social phenomenon of interest to sociologists, since it is raw democratic speech, moderated by the people themselves. Every reader is (or can be) an author and editor.

> One topic I didn't see covered is link obsolescence.

Wiki is an eternal "now".

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiNow

> but what about links that link out to very useful information rather than 
> reproducing the content within the wiki....

This is called "LinkRot", and is not unique to Wiki. Google deals with it all of the time. That's why they have the GoogleCache. So does The Internet Wayback Machine (aka http://www.archive.org/).

Wiki is no different. However, if the community thinks that something might disappear, and is worth saving a copy of, then anyone is free to make that decision for the wiki. However, if the "owners" of that information believe that they should remain the sole source for such information (which is the entire basis for copyright law, but that's another discussion), and they then choose to stop distributing that information, then one should choose one's sources more carefully. Yes it's a shame that some are so selfish that they feel they must "hoard" information.When their poor planning eventually results in loss to the 
greater community, one can only point to a flawed legal system that got us into this mess in the first place. i.e. tell your congresscritter.

To protect the reader from such a loss, is exactly why the GNU Public License (GPL) exists.


> Now... that link explores different issues on Harry Potter and the 
> resulting phenomenon and impact it's made, but _DOES NOT_ provide 
> chronological evidence as to WHICH "recent HarryPotter" his daughter 
> made it through.  Was the most recent one when he wrote the post the 
> first, second, third, whatever book...  His post (or this point of it)
> has lost some significant because we don't know if he's referring to one
> of the early books which comprise 7 or 8 cds when read by the masterful
> Jim Dale (my preferred intake of Harry Potter), or one of the later ones
> that comprise 20 cds.  His daughter may have read "See dick run" book,
> or the "war and peace" book.  One is much more significant than the other.

If you are confused, then press "Edit" and ask the author of that note directly. You are perfectly free to ask such a question. The downside is that you might never get an answer. Or someone else might answer with how _they_ interpreted it. Or, you could go back through the revisions of that page to find out _when_ that comment was added (and perhaps by who, but no guarantee).

The other point is that questions of significance to the community tend to get answered. Ones that no-one cares about tend not to. Sort of a micro-grant system for scientific research expressed as text on web pages. i.e. interesting scientific questions with value to society for "knowing" the answer get funded, and uninteresting ones don't. Again, democracy at work here.

> That piece of critical information (well, ok, it's not critical), but 
> conceptually critical information is forever lost unless the most 
> unlikely occur and the original author, or one he shared the knowledge
> with comes back to reinsert that information.

That's true with any media, not just wiki. Care to ask Sir William Shakespeare what he meant in scene such and such of his play such and such? We can't. Or perhaps a more interesting proposition, care to ask Jesus of Nazareth anything?

Wiki is, in a sense, simply automated oral history/tradition. But with many, many more participants molding and retelling the stories (pages) than the tribal shaman.

> It's not like linking to published books with publishing 
> dates/versioning in the bibliography of a work...  yes, the benefits are
> that incorrect or un updated information is made current, but one looses
> the ability to look back on the whole thing and watch the line of 
> reasoning develop.  Sometimes dependencies exist, like linking a library
> into a piece of code w/o being informed that the library has since been
> completely reworked and your API usage deprecated...

Books have dependencies too. They can only be read serially, only the author's view is presented, you can't let 50 million people read something you authored simultaneously five minutes after you wrote something. And you said it yourself -- they are full of incorrect and out-of-date information.

Why else would professors need to revise the self-written textbooks they choose for their own classes every year? ;^)

> If a wiki were constantly (and consistently) updated [...]
> They would only see the 'current state' and not the journey.

That's what the version control is for. Anyone (usually) can "go back" and review the journey. At any time.

It's the same way with books. We never get to see the drafts or the galleys or the workbooks or journals or sketches the author used when writing a book. We don't see the "journey" in the creation of a book or a play or a piece of music either. Wikis are unique in this ability (if they have it, as some do not, although they are few).

We don't get to see the "journey" of MLK writing his "I have a dream" speech, nor of Leonardo Da Vinci as he painted Mona Lisa's smile, nor that of any number of important "stories" to humankind that have been lost to the mists of time.

Wikis are unique in that they can be altered after their creation, unlike a book. They can be updated and revised to be more valuable artifacts to the community they serve as a repository of information for. Again, unlike a book.

Wikis are also not a panacea for recording or distributing human knowledge.

Perhaps you should start a wiki to put down your musings... :=)

Mike/
_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members