Allen has reason to celebrate the Wikipedia, which in this day ten years old . From small beginnings, it became the most widely used online encyclopedia in the world that no longer has to fear competition. If you instead own growth a problem? Actually, the Wikipedia are temporary. That they can now celebrate their 10th anniversary and as one of the most visited websites in the world, it owes to the fact that its software, a media-wiki was created as a online encyclopaedia of the anyone can contribute to , even if Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger had originally not planned that way. Their goal was to Nupedia , an online encyclopaedia, which followed a more conventional approach, because his articles should be written by professional writers and edited by an editorial.
In 2001, however, the time was ripe for something new. Software for wikis were already a few years, but no practical application in a big way. So when Larry Sanger, the first article in a set of Nupedia Wiki online, so that processing could be accelerated, no one knew what would emerge from this Wiki-Pedia: Very quickly, namely, the news spread about the fact that this article online and stood all sorts of people began to work on this and also to put out even own new products. The momentum was so great that Jimmy Wales, finally did the right thing: the work set at the Nupedia and operate the Wikipedia as an open and participative lexicon project.
developed As a result, the lexicon as an example and role model for a whole generation of new applications on the Web: services such as Flickr (2004) or YouTube (2005) based on the same basic principle, the User Generated Content , the Wikipedia has shown to make it work and develop a broad impact and dynamics which he can. At the same time it formed the foundation for a number of theoretical explanations, such as crowd sourcing or the Wisdom of Crowds.
course was and is disputed on Wikipedia violently. Mostly it is this is only the substantive level, the big picture is rarely seen and appreciated. Even 10 years of a successful operation and an unprecedented proliferation or the terms can not silence the critics who consider the collaborative and voluntary approach to user-generated content at Wikipedia for a malformation, prefer to turn back the wheel and everything Publishing would be put back into the hands of editors and editorial offices. The idea that principle to something sublime as an encyclopedia everyone can participate is also true in 2011, in places, still as provocative, if not as an attack on basic social values and conventions.
that the Wikipedia but is not the culmination or end point of development, but rather the beginning, makes Clay Shirky in his book, " Cognititve Surplus "(2010), clearly. He indicated the lexicon as a fact of Arts many people wrested concept that would otherwise sit largely unproductive just watching TV. His calculations suggest that the mankind in the future much larger projects like Wikipedia would lift, devoted only a little more free time such participatory projects and not the TV consumption. His optimism like to share it or not, at least the Wikipedia itself is missing in the next 10 years unlikely to participants.
The problem could be rather the other be growth of the platform . The Wikipedia would have to then change their organizational concept and thus assume once more a leading role: her it would be to design the structure of both very large, on the other hand also in principle open, transparent and largely non-hierarchical organization such that these functional and productive can stay, instead of reamed in internal conflicts.
addition, they must already clearly visible challenge to master, that their texts an unhealthy tendency to over-length . Get Single items have the character of a lexical entry does not have much in common and actually exceed even the character of articles. Undoubtedly well-intentioned commitment of many knowledgeable volunteers who contribute more and more detailed knowledge leads, in the sum means that the articles are good less and less for quick reference, but make a real reading required.
The community likely to slow down here at the right level to evolve into an enormous challenge that be an involuntary parallel to our modern affluent society where obesity is a serious problem, but that is to address despite the obvious causalities is difficult. could
The Wikipedia can look old and falling new-type services, resulting most probably in the next few years and become visible. These large amounts of data recorded by sensors and forwarded to sites on the Web in order to aggregate there and to supplement it with notes and comments entered manually. In this way arise "lexicons" that information in real-time processes and structures can be seen, for which there is still no match. In this way, modern sensor technology could be one part, and user-generated content on the other hand enter into symbiosis and knowledge pools form the lively and interesting than an online encyclopedia on the basis a wiki would occur.
It could also provide the open data movement to a new form of competition be for Wikipedia. To the extent that are as made available in the future databases of public institutions is the need to interpret the existing data, which in turn should form the basis of platforms, the explanation and discussion will be devoted primarily on user-generated Content should support. The competition for Wikipedia would be less in the thematic focus, as more visible at the level of participation: Which platform for mobilizing the best minds in the future?
As is well known competition is good for business, one need Against this background (still) not to worry about the Wikipedia and its community. For they will not stand idly by as solicit new players in the field of digital knowledge representation it the user, but become active and perhaps invent new. From the classic publishing at least no more danger: the most widely used online encyclopedia is the undisputed front and look back at yesterday's competitors would only adjust the perspective on the challenges of tomorrow. On that note: Happy Birthday, Wikipedia
0 comments:
Post a Comment