Wikipedia Hoping To Entice New Writers

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Wikipedia Hoping To Entice New Writers

Nearly $900,000 is going towards studying and simplifying Wikipedia's user interface in the hopes of attracting new authors.

In a recent press release [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikipedia_to_become_more_user-friendly_for_new_volunteer_writers] the Wikimedia Foundation anounced that the
Stanton Foundation is donating money to Wikimedia to help bring in first-time authors.

The new project team based in San Fransisco, home to Wikimedia, will be looking at updating the user interface so that new contributions continue to flow in.

Some may remember the scandal [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/] of Wikipedia's secret mailing list, detailing who to ban, but Wikipedia seems to have cleaned up its act since then.

The project itself will employ 6 full time workers and run from January 2009 to April 2010.

With the massive increase of news reporting, one wonders if having a central encyclopedia compiled by Joe Public is a curse or a blessing. The BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7761153.stm] may think it's a curse, but then they had problems with Apple this week [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7760344.stm].


Permalink

 

[Blank__]

A redesign won't rid the site of the arrogant, tight-fisted mofos who already edit the entries.

 

[Spinwhiz]

A redesign won't rid the site of the arrogant, tight-fisted mofos who already edit the entries.

So so so TRUE!

 

[SimuLord]

A redesign won't rid the site of the arrogant, tight-fisted mofos who already edit the entries.

Attracting new writers seems to run counter to Wikipedia's incestuous community of asswipes who make the place such a wretched hive of pretension and elitism. They're so convinced over there that they're assembling the sum total of human knowledge that (to steal a line from Ferris Bueller) if you stuck a lump of coal up a Wikipedian's ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

A redesign won't rid the site of the arrogant, tight-fisted mofos who already edit the entries.

So so so TRUE!

Agreed. I could only endure that environment for a month before the vomitting threatened my health.

-- Steve

 

[Lance Icarus]

A redesign won't rid the site of the arrogant, tight-fisted mofos who already edit the entries.

So so so TRUE!

Agreed. I could only endure that environment for a month before the vomitting threatened my health.

-- Steve

Thirded. The people over there remind me of the South Park Hybrid episode where they'd fart into wine glasses and take a deep whiff, acting like they were sampling fine cheese.

 

[xitel]

A redesign won't rid the site of the arrogant, tight-fisted mofos who already edit the entries.

So so so TRUE!

Agreed. I could only endure that environment for a month before the vomitting threatened my health.

-- Steve

Thirded. The people over there remind me of the South Park Hybrid episode where they'd fart into wine glasses and take a deep whiff, acting like they were sampling fine cheese.

True as that may be, it does mean that the articles tend to be more accurate than not.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Whatever you think about them, it does make the articles accurate.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

True as that may be, it does mean that the articles tend to be more accurate than not.

yeah it's a catch 22, if you swing too far one way you get a lot of crap content that is a pack of lies but if you really clamp down on editing you get called a bunch of tight ass jerks

in a bit of an ironic twist, the moderators here run a pretty tight ship and yet everyone praises them. not that there's anything wrong with the way they rule the roost here tho

 

[Blind0bserver]

True as that may be, it does mean that the articles tend to be more accurate than not.

You do have a point. That community may be arrogant and full of themselves but uh... *mumbling* it's because they usually know what they're talking about*cough*. I hate to admit it, but most of what I search for on there (which is irrelevant crap anyway) tends to be spot on.

I know this is off topic, but Xitel, what the hell is the deal with you and phoenix all of the sudden? Has he become your "bizarro world" counterpart or something?

 

[xitel]

True as that may be, it does mean that the articles tend to be more accurate than not.

You do have a point. That community may be arrogant and full of themselves but uh... *mumbling* it's because they usually know what they're talking about*cough*. I hate to admit it, but most of what I search for on there (which is irrelevant crap anyway) tends to be spot on.

I know this is off topic, but Xitel, what the hell is the deal with you and phoenix all of the sudden? Has he become your "bizarro world" counterpart or something?

He's trying to.

 

[Blind0bserver]

I know this is off topic, but Xitel, what the hell is the deal with you and phoenix all of the sudden? Has he become your "bizarro world" counterpart or something?

He's trying to.

This may sound cold, but better you than me.

 

[TheBluesader]

As long as Wiki keeps giving me otherwise impossible-to-find trivia about late 90s sitcoms and video games no one else played, I could care less about their internal politics. I've only known one person who wrote for them, and all the stuff she submitted was about weird Central Asia history and languages. And I made fun of her for it. And she doesn't talk to me anymore (only sort of because of that).

What I'm saying is, as long as I can get tidbits of crap no one would ever care to verify, Wiki is doing its unpaid job and god bless it. If I ever need hard info on geopolitics, I'll go to the state library with all the other NEEERRRRDS.

Haw haw. Book lernin iz fer dorcs.

 

[Alex_P]

Whatever you think about them, it does make the articles accurate.

Only on some topics, and only when the right people get to them.

Example of failure: "symbol grounding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding]" article.

-- Alex

 

[Anton P. Nym]

in a bit of an ironic twist, the moderators here run a pretty tight ship and yet everyone praises them. not that there's anything wrong with the way they rule the roost here tho

The difference is fairly significant, in my experience; here the moderators aren't citing people for violating Article IV, item C, line 32, subclause d... they're just clearing out obvious miscreants. My brief stint in Wikipedia made me feel that the rules were more important than the content there.

-- Steve

 

[cleverlymadeup]

in a bit of an ironic twist, the moderators here run a pretty tight ship and yet everyone praises them. not that there's anything wrong with the way they rule the roost here tho

The difference is fairly significant, in my experience; here the moderators aren't citing people for violating Article IV, item C, line 32, subclause d... they're just clearing out obvious miscreants. My brief stint in Wikipedia made me feel that the rules were more important than the content there.

-- Steve

well the moderators here DO quote the rules when the ban or warn, it's just a LOT simpler. with wikipedia they have a threat of lawsuits dangling over them like the Sword of Damacles ready to smite them, hence why having to be very stringent with the rules.

good example, a certain child performer, who i won't name, married my friend's mom after his parents divorced. he molested my friend's sister and went to court, he won because she changed her story in the presence of her mom and the charges were dropped so he got off scot free. now if i put this up on his wikipedia page, which there is no mention of the case, it would probly be deleted or at least edited down to what could be proved. if he saw this then wikipedia and myself could be sued for slander and liable.