Gdańsk, WikiMania and <Truth in Numbers?>
It’s 11pm on a sultry evening in Gdańsk. I’m in the city to attend WikiMania, the annual conference for wiki projects operated by the WikiMedia Foundation – especially, Wikipedia.
On this particular sultry evening, the second day of WikiMania has just about wrapped up. Buses filled to capacity with Wikipedians wrapped up in earnest discussion are shuttling the majority of attendees to the birthplace of the Solidarity movement, the Gdańsk shipyard.
I’ve taken my leave. While I’d love to see the shipyards, it’s been a full day and I was feeling a bit unwell after letting myself get dehydrated in the heat.
Earlier in the evening we had the privilege of being the first audience to see <Truth in Numbers?>, a documentary on the Wikipedia movement and it’s critics.
The film, shot and produced over a 5 year period between 2005 and 2010, focused on what Wikipedia is, what effects it has had, who the Wikipedians are, and what the criticisms are of Wikipedia.
The film felt like a media literacy piece that was designed to foster discussion and introspection. The audience of dedicated Wikimedians took the film in many different ways. By turns, it was praised and criticized. A socially awkward young man made a long comment that abstractly reduced to, “I’m disappointed that the film wasn’t made for my own needs.” One volunteer was visibly wounded by the film and commented that he felt attacked. I threw in my two cents. Sue Gardner, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation offered her views. Small discussions and comments were twittered.
The film is worthwhile. It will foster discussions that will develop better media literacy – not just around Wikipedia, but also for traditional scholarship and media.
In some ways, perhaps the most shaken community member should have been Jimmy Wales. The movie provided a balanced view of his faults, something that few of us would like to see. Still, after the screening, he was on stage, answering questions alongside the directors and seeming to take it all in stride.
In the criticisms of Wikipedia, I’ve always been surprised at how often people focus on Jimmy and the idea that he is the project leader– it seems clear to them that this North American white male of a suitably alpha age should be in control of the project. Perhaps this idea is more comforting to them than the idea that the control really vests in those who do the work.
The Gdańsk, WikiMania and <Truth in Numbers?> by Zak Greant, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Posted on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 at 02:25
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.15 Responses to “Gdańsk, WikiMania and <Truth in Numbers?>”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated. I delete obvious SEO attempts and other content-free comments.
July 14th, 2010 at 09:00
Perhaps critics focus on Jimmy Wales so much because he is credibly the primary source of most of Wikipedia’s key problems and failures.
I’ll leave a pair of links — hoping that you don’t interpret them as (solely) “SEO attempts”.
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Criticism_of_Jimmy_Wales
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia
July 14th, 2010 at 11:03
Hey Gregory,
I delete obvious SEO attempts, however, I leave comments by folks with an axe to grind.
Dear Reader,
Note that most of the edits in the MyWikiBiz article on Mr. Wales are by Mr. Kohs or MyWikiBiz. Jonathan Zittrain has an overview of the situation that likely sparked Mr. Kohs’ enmity for Mr. Wales in his book, “The Future of the Internet (and How to Stop It)”. Yale University Press has posted an online version of the book – visit http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/16#48 for the section of the book that discusses MyWikiBiz and the kerfuffle with Wales.
p.s. I’m a paid consultant to the WikiMedia Foundation.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:32
I saw the trailer and I am looking forward to seeing the film. I agree that Wales is not (now) the source of Wikipedia’s problems. I lay that at the door of the ‘community’.
Incidentally, I looked through the Wikimania schedule and couldn’t find any of the sort of trenchant criticism made in the trailer by the likes of Susan Jacoby, Andrew Keen, James Woolsey and others.
Another thought. Comments favourable to Wikipedia tend to say things like ‘it’s the eighth largest website in the planet’, ‘it draws together the global community’ and things like that. Those hostile, tend to comment on the fact that it contains errors, that it is a collection of lists, that articles on humanities subjects are generally a disaster, and so on. Why is that?
July 14th, 2010 at 12:40
Never fear – discussion at Wikimania was vital and diverse. If something could be criticized, praised, defended or challenged, then it seemed to be. I’m not sure how much of these discussions made it online. Sessions were streamed (http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Streaming) and the videos are currently being convered to OGG format for downloading. I’m sure that there are many posts about the event. I’ve not gone looking, as my focus at the event was on meeting people and gathering information on what the developer community needs MediaWiki developer documentation.
I didn’t encounter much like Keen’s criticisms. I suspect that Keen chooses his arguments based on visibility rather than reason. His role as heel vastly increases his visibility, while being laudatory of Wikipedia does nothing for him. Interestingly, he even has the option of deciding to become enlightened at a later point when being a heel is no longer a benefit for his career.
July 14th, 2010 at 13:06
>>Never fear – discussion at Wikimania was vital and diverse.
I’m sure it was. But was it critical?
>>I didn’t encounter much like Keen’s criticisms. I suspect that Keen chooses his arguments based on visibility rather than reason.
What were Keen’s arguments? Remember I have only seen the trailer. He wrote a book called ‘Cult of the Amateur’ – I have only read reviews so far but it sounds as though he is on the mark. For example, he argues that the work of amateurs is undermining that of professionals. Agree – I wouldn’t mind if the work of amateurs were better but in fact it’s much worse.
I didn’t understand why you call him a ‘heel’. I thought he was a writer, not a professional wrestler.
July 14th, 2010 at 13:07
OK I understand. A ‘heel’ is a bad guy. Are you not passing judgment here?
July 14th, 2010 at 13:30
>> I’m sure it was. But was it critical?
I can’t really give you a good sense of that. As a newcomer to the project and with my acting role of technical writer, few would seek me out for discussions on this topic. I stumbled across some opinions that were very critical – but they often focused on personalities and individual conflicts, rather than overall dynamics. I’d bet that others with a stronger focus on community dynamics could give you a better overview of the discussions – perhaps the leaders of sessions about Wikipedia health or the various communities would be good contact points?
>> A ‘heel’ is a bad guy. Are you not passing judgment here?
I am absolutely passing judgement. However, a heel isn’t just a bad guy – they are a vital part of story-telling. Their actions in their role often don’t reflect who they are outside the ring – it is just what they do to be a part of the story. Keen benefits greatly from being the antagonist to Wikipedia. He receives attention that his scholarly work alone hasn’t merited in the past. Also, to some, is a protagonist – summing up all their fears and fighting back the godless, nameless, faceless hordes of the net.
As for Keen’s arguments, it is easy to find them (and to find them being taken apart) at various places on the net. Lessig does a good job of dismantling them.
July 14th, 2010 at 13:42
>> Lessig does a good job of dismantling them.
Where? (Thank you for being patient).
July 14th, 2010 at 13:56
The top result on Google for the search lessig keen is a good link: http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/05/keens_the_cult_of_the_amateur.html
July 15th, 2010 at 07:01
I note a goodly number of errors in Lessig’s rebuttal to Keen’s errors.
July 15th, 2010 at 07:09
@Gregory: … errors such as?
July 15th, 2010 at 12:13
Rather than continue these endless *ad homines* I am going to read what Lessig writes. I will report back, if anyone is listening. A quick scan suggests that at least I am seeing arguments here.
July 15th, 2010 at 13:33
I read Lessig’s critique, and I reply here
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/cult-of-amateur-lessig-vs-keen.html
July 16th, 2010 at 16:01
And another post here
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html
July 16th, 2010 at 16:02
“It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power denied to error”.