The Encyclopaedia Britannica As We Know It has existed from, say, the ninth edition (1889) to the present, and is probably in sharp decline now. Let's say it's had about a 150-year life. I don't think it has another twenty years in it. And I don't think the Boston Globe will be available as smudgy ink on pulp paper delivered to front porches in twenty years, either...
The slide rule as we know it--as a working tool for engineers--lasted from about 1860 into the 1970s... a bit over a century.
Carbon paper... didn't really come into its own until the invention of the typewriter... it's lasted a bit over a century, too.
"New media" though, have had a shorter life.
The text adventure game: Colossal Cave, early 1970s, to about 1990 and the folding of Infocom. About twenty years?
The soap opera: 1930 to present. The _radio_ soap opera, though, obviously had a much shorter life. Thirty years?
Wikipedia is much harder to predict, though, because it is changing over time and will continue to do so. I'd give good odds that ten years from now there will be a recognizable "website" on something called the "Internet" named "Wikipedia" that will be an online encyclopedia, but I wouldn't bet that its culture and policies will be closely similar to those in existence today.
On 16 Jul 2006, at 03:38, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
The soap opera: 1930 to present. The _radio_ soap opera, though, obviously had a much shorter life. Thirty years?
Hold on: [[The Archers]] is a radio soap opera, and its been going 55 years so far.
Justin
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:42:23 +0100, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
The soap opera: 1930 to present. The _radio_ soap opera, though, obviously had a much shorter life. Thirty years?
Hold on: [[The Archers]] is a radio soap opera, and its been going 55 years so far.
I'd like to know which TV soap opera supposedly predates The Archers.
Dum di dum di dum di dum....
Guy (JzG)
I think it is more to do with Wikipedia's ability to adapt and change with developing technology. If Encyclopedia Britannica had created a wiki back in 2000, Wikipedia may not exist and Britannica would have extended their lifetime by a few decades.
As long as we are willing to embrace changes and developments (such as, at the moment, Wiktionary Z and Semantic MediaWiki) and don't object for reasons of familiarity, we should do fine.
On 16/07/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
The Encyclopaedia Britannica As We Know It has existed from, say, the ninth edition (1889) to the present, and is probably in sharp decline now. Let's say it's had about a 150-year life. I don't think it has another twenty years in it. And I don't think the Boston Globe will be available as smudgy ink on pulp paper delivered to front porches in twenty years, either...
The slide rule as we know it--as a working tool for engineers--lasted from about 1860 into the 1970s... a bit over a century.
Carbon paper... didn't really come into its own until the invention of the typewriter... it's lasted a bit over a century, too.
"New media" though, have had a shorter life.
The text adventure game: Colossal Cave, early 1970s, to about 1990 and the folding of Infocom. About twenty years?
The soap opera: 1930 to present. The _radio_ soap opera, though, obviously had a much shorter life. Thirty years?
Wikipedia is much harder to predict, though, because it is changing over time and will continue to do so. I'd give good odds that ten years from now there will be a recognizable "website" on something called the "Internet" named "Wikipedia" that will be an online encyclopedia, but I wouldn't bet that its culture and policies will be closely similar to those in existence today.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oldak Quill wrote:
I think it is more to do with Wikipedia's ability to adapt and change with developing technology. If Encyclopedia Britannica had created a wiki back in 2000, Wikipedia may not exist and Britannica would have extended their lifetime by a few decades.
I've read that Encarta represented the first shoe to drop for EB; it could not easily adapt to that technology shift. Now, with the benefit of hindsight this does not seem as though it would have been such a big change.
The major paradigm shift lay in the enabling of two-way online communications. The passive consumer could now also become a content producer. This wasn't quite what ISP's had hoped for in an asymmetrical technology that assumed that the public would want to download far more than they would upload. Their model also presumed that they would profit from also providing the content.
As long as we are willing to embrace changes and developments (such as, at the moment, Wiktionary Z and Semantic MediaWiki) and don't object for reasons of familiarity, we should do fine.
One should not presume that any specific technology will be the one that leads to the big steps forward.
On 16/07/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
The Encyclopaedia Britannica As We Know It has existed from, say, the ninth edition (1889) to the present, and is probably in sharp decline now. Let's say it's had about a 150-year life. I don't think it has another twenty years in it. And I don't think the Boston Globe will be available as smudgy ink on pulp paper delivered to front porches in twenty years, either...
The slide rule as we know it--as a working tool for engineers--lasted from about 1860 into the 1970s... a bit over a century.
Carbon paper... didn't really come into its own until the invention of the typewriter... it's lasted a bit over a century, too.
This technology is nowhere near as important as it once was, but its residual applications are likely to last for some considerable time yet.
"New media" though, have had a shorter life.
The text adventure game: Colossal Cave, early 1970s, to about 1990 and the folding of Infocom. About twenty years?
The soap opera: 1930 to present. The _radio_ soap opera, though, obviously had a much shorter life. Thirty years?
In a sense soap operas are much older. In the 19th century many novels were first published in serial form. This social phenomenon may change the medium that carries it, but is likely to remain in some form or other.
Wikipedia is much harder to predict, though, because it is changing over time and will continue to do so. I'd give good odds that ten years from now there will be a recognizable "website" on something called the "Internet" named "Wikipedia" that will be an online encyclopedia, but I wouldn't bet that its culture and policies will be closely similar to those in existence today.
It's importance as an encyclopedia is likely to fade long before its role in the development of open data.
Ec
I've read that Encarta represented the first shoe to drop for EB; it could not easily adapt to that technology shift. Now, with the benefit of hindsight this does not seem as though it would have been such a big change.
The major paradigm shift lay in the enabling of two-way online communications. The passive consumer could now also become a content producer. This wasn't quite what ISP's had hoped for in an asymmetrical technology that assumed that the public would want to download far more than they would upload. Their model also presumed that they would profit from also providing the content.
I'm not sure this changes my point. If Britannica had adapted to the proliferation of personal computing and portable media by releasing a comprehensive, easy-to-use and widely advertised electronic edition before Microsoft managed to release Encarta, they may have remained on top into the 21st century. Similarly, if they had jumped on the Wiki bandwagon a little later, they may have further adapted and remained on top for several more decades.
One should not presume that any specific technology will be the one that leads to the big steps forward.
Again, this was not my point. We should not invest in few technologies and hope they win out, we should spread our bets. We should adopt and adapt to new technologies as soon as they appear. We shouldn't be afraid to change; Britannica were and they are dead.
Oldak Quill wrote:
I've read that Encarta represented the first shoe to drop for EB; it could not easily adapt to that technology shift. Now, with the benefit of hindsight this does not seem as though it would have been such a big change.
The major paradigm shift lay in the enabling of two-way online communications. The passive consumer could now also become a content producer. This wasn't quite what ISP's had hoped for in an asymmetrical technology that assumed that the public would want to download far more than they would upload. Their model also presumed that they would profit from also providing the content.
I'm not sure this changes my point. If Britannica had adapted to the proliferation of personal computing and portable media by releasing a comprehensive, easy-to-use and widely advertised electronic edition before Microsoft managed to release Encarta, they may have remained on top into the 21st century. Similarly, if they had jumped on the Wiki bandwagon a little later, they may have further adapted and remained on top for several more decades.
Established companies do not change by simply drinking from a fountain of youth. Encarta took a step forward from Britannica, but when it came to understand the importance of public participation its klunky results were already stuck in an existing proprietary model. Nupedia could transform itself because it was never anything more than an experimental skeleton.
Ec
On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is more to do with Wikipedia's ability to adapt and change with developing technology. If Encyclopedia Britannica had created a wiki back in 2000, Wikipedia may not exist and Britannica would have extended their lifetime by a few decades.
"It's not the technology. It's the social structure, stupid". Although Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia and not about a building a community, without our social structure our project could not be a success. Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.
There is always the chance that they'll adapt... I'm not expecting them to go away any time soon.. It's still a useful resource, is so much as something which isn't instantly available to more than an infinitesimal fraction of the world can be...
[snip]
As long as we are willing to embrace changes and developments (such as, at the moment, Wiktionary Z and Semantic MediaWiki) and don't object for reasons of familiarity, we should do fine.
To add some contrast: Just because you die out without some changes, does not mean all changes should be accepted. In biology we find that most mutations are harmful.
Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest' environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a significant risk.
I can't suggest a real solution to this today, but I think that one of the things we already to today helps the situation somewhat: do as much as possible without modifying Mediawiki. And with bots, toolserver, templates, manual, and quasi-manual processes... we're already doing that.
I'm wary of software which grants someone who merely has working code the ability to control long term direction of the project. Enwiki folks are very concerned about the consolidation of 'power' that comes from combining a bcrat and a arbcom member in one usrs.... Good thing that developers are under the radar, because with the ability to make wide scale decisions without consensus that comes from a patch is pretty much unparalleled. But I suppose thats why we don't have any developers on the Wikimedia Foundation board.
Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.
I was making the assumption (an assumption which I maintain isn't invalid) that having put the Wiki infrastructure in place, and having done a little advertising, the project would have been successful. I don't think Wikipedia was successful because it grew from the FLOSS community. It was successful because anyone could edit it (you could argue that this was entirely because Wikipeida grew out of the FLOSS community). Britannica could have been just as successful if they had allowed anyone to edit.
Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest' environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a significant risk.
We do, in fact, have quite a powerful development environment. The "open-sourceness"of our software allows for interesting twists and turns in MediaWiki. Others can develop MediaWiki in a ways that we don't have time and resources for. As an example of this, just take a look at the development of Semantic MediaWiki on Sourceforge. This development takes nothing from Wikimedia resources but potentially benefits us on a grand scale. This is facilitated by our commitment to free software - the ability of others to reuse our work and create better things with it
I think we *do* have a "survival of the fittest" development method. Apart from the aforementioned "open-sourceness" of our software, members of the community (who aren't developers) spend their own time developing certain features and additions in the form of bots and tools on toolserver. These features are then put through rigorous practical tests (bots function on Wikipedia, proving their worth and exposing their mistakes). If one of these features proves to be wonderfully useful, it is assimilated into MediaWiki proper.
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.
I was making the assumption (an assumption which I maintain isn't invalid) that having put the Wiki infrastructure in place, and having done a little advertising, the project would have been successful. I don't think Wikipedia was successful because it grew from the FLOSS community. It was successful because anyone could edit it (you could argue that this was entirely because Wikipeida grew out of the FLOSS community). Britannica could have been just as successful if they had allowed anyone to edit.
The number of unsucessful and amazingly unsuccessful wiki's implies that there is secret sauce involved, and that the secret sauce isn't the mere use of Wiki technology.
It is by no means a given that britannica could have been successful simply by letting anyone edit as there have been failures among sites which have done exactly that.
Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest' environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a significant risk.
We do, in fact, have quite a powerful development environment. The "open-sourceness"of our software allows for interesting twists and turns in MediaWiki. Others can develop MediaWiki in a ways that we don't have time and resources for. As an example of this, just take a look at the development of Semantic MediaWiki on Sourceforge. This development takes nothing from Wikimedia resources but potentially benefits us on a grand scale. This is facilitated by our commitment to free software - the ability of others to reuse our work and create better things with it
I think we *do* have a "survival of the fittest" development method. Apart from the aforementioned "open-sourceness" of our software, members of the community (who aren't developers) spend their own time developing certain features and additions in the form of bots and tools on toolserver. These features are then put through rigorous practical tests (bots function on Wikipedia, proving their worth and exposing their mistakes). If one of these features proves to be wonderfully useful, it is assimilated into MediaWiki proper.
It doesn't change that fact that there are additions which can't be simply done outside of mediawiki core (due to schema change requirements, and needing hooks in places we don't provide them).
There is no 1:1 competition for "Semantic MediaWiki" that I'm aware of... In general users are left to take or leave software features. I'm not whining about it, because I don't see how we can avoid it... we're already doing a great job being modular. It's just something that we should be aware of... What we have works, in part because Brion is a great gatekeeper, but it's not a competative model and I'm very glad we haven't enabled most of the extensions out there... a fair number of them are pretty terrible. (They scratched the authors itch, but thats as far as many go).
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I was making the assumption (an assumption which I maintain isn't invalid) that having put the Wiki infrastructure in place, and having done a little advertising, the project would have been successful. I don't think Wikipedia was successful because it grew from the FLOSS community. It was successful because anyone could edit it (you could argue that this was entirely because Wikipeida grew out of the FLOSS community). Britannica could have been just as successful if they had allowed anyone to edit.
....
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Is this so certain, though? It seems fairly clear that Britannica wouldn't be using copyleft licensing, but proprietary licensing of some sort. Speaking for myself, I know I would not be contributing to a proprietary EB wiki. A lot of the initial seed for Wikipedia (for starting the virtuous cycle/exponential growth) seems to have been essentially ideologically motivated, and I do not think any significant segments of technically literate, motivated, educated and willing-to-donate-their-time people would have tossed their lot in with an EB wiki, except perhaps some academics.
~maru
Is this so certain, though? It seems fairly clear that Britannica wouldn't be using copyleft licensing, but proprietary licensing of some sort. Speaking for myself, I know I would not be contributing to a proprietary EB wiki. A lot of the initial seed for Wikipedia (for starting the virtuous cycle/exponential growth) seems to have been essentially ideologically motivated, and I do not think any significant segments of technically literate, motivated, educated and willing-to-donate-their-time people would have tossed their lot in with an EB wiki, except perhaps some academics.
The idea that a Wikipedian's work will change and adapt--will be immortal--is quite wonderful. The fact that they are codifying knowledge freely so that it can be reused is very satisfying.
I was made aware of the whole FLOSS movement because I became a Wikipedian (I did not become a Wikipedian because I was a member of the FLOSS community). Again, I expect this is the case with most users. I was initially attracted by the freedom to edit and the projects ability to grow (reuse of our work by others as a result of free licensing is an extension of this). I can't say whether I'd still be editing if this were a proprietary project, probably not (I now strongly believe in FLOSS principles and can't envisage giving my free time to something proprietary, so I may be biased). As for those who are less philosophical, I think there would be enough of them to have made a proprietary Wikipedia successful (in the absence of a free alternative, which would be more attractive to most).
Oldak Quill wrote:
Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.
I was making the assumption (an assumption which I maintain isn't invalid) that having put the Wiki infrastructure in place, and having done a little advertising, the project would have been successful. I don't think Wikipedia was successful because it grew from the FLOSS community. It was successful because anyone could edit it (you could argue that this was entirely because Wikipeida grew out of the FLOSS community).
Absolutely.
Britannica could have been just as successful if they had allowed anyone to edit.
I doubt it. Asking it to do that would be like asking its editors to throw themseves from a cliff in the expectation that angels would guide them safely to the ground. Their most important editions were premised on the authority of established and famous experts and top scholars of the day. That would have been too much to give up.
Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest' environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a significant risk.
We do, in fact, have quite a powerful development environment. The "open-sourceness"of our software allows for interesting twists and turns in MediaWiki. Others can develop MediaWiki in a ways that we don't have time and resources for. As an example of this, just take a look at the development of Semantic MediaWiki on Sourceforge. This development takes nothing from Wikimedia resources but potentially benefits us on a grand scale. This is facilitated by our commitment to free software - the ability of others to reuse our work and create better things with it
I think we *do* have a "survival of the fittest" development method. Apart from the aforementioned "open-sourceness" of our software, members of the community (who aren't developers) spend their own time developing certain features and additions in the form of bots and tools on toolserver. These features are then put through rigorous practical tests (bots function on Wikipedia, proving their worth and exposing their mistakes). If one of these features proves to be wonderfully useful, it is assimilated into MediaWiki proper.
FLOSS is about software. Your comments focus on software, and even though the "medium is the message", you seem to forget that a significant proportion of us deal purely and simply with content. For the general reader software is only a small part of what Wikipedia is about.
Ec
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is more to do with Wikipedia's ability to adapt and change with developing technology. If Encyclopedia Britannica had created a wiki back in 2000, Wikipedia may not exist and Britannica would have extended their lifetime by a few decades.
"It's not the technology. It's the social structure, stupid". Although Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia and not about a building a community, without our social structure our project could not be a success. Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.
It's also the ability to live with paradox. In its short life Wikipedia has aged dramatically. It has already made many fundamental decisions that limit its future options.
Take verifiability as an example. This concept is a direct response to repeated complaints from the outside world that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. From a strictly objective perspective verifiability is a good thing, but it still has a cost. It leads to a situation where the game is taken ove by rules lawyers who can convince the other players that order is good. This makes it very difficult for the Calvinball player to introduce a new rule into the existing game. Instead, his new rule involves starting a new game. The 18th century Calvinball players that set up Britannica established the seeds of their own destruction when they failed to account for the internet; that they were unaware of the internet at the time is irrelevant.
[snip]
As long as we are willing to embrace changes and developments (such as, at the moment, Wiktionary Z and Semantic MediaWiki) and don't object for reasons of familiarity, we should do fine.
To add some contrast: Just because you die out without some changes, does not mean all changes should be accepted. In biology we find that most mutations are harmful.
No, I would venture to say that most mutations are inconsequential.
Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest' environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a significant risk.
Quite the contrary. If you can't come up with the resources you are not the fittest.
I can't suggest a real solution to this today, but I think that one of the things we already to today helps the situation somewhat: do as much as possible without modifying Mediawiki. And with bots, toolserver, templates, manual, and quasi-manual processes... we're already doing that.
Which only proves my point that most biological mutations are inconsequential. Your examples reflect only mere tinkering with the accepted technology of the game.
I'm wary of software which grants someone who merely has working code the ability to control long term direction of the project. Enwiki folks are very concerned about the consolidation of 'power' that comes from combining a bcrat and a arbcom member in one usrs.... Good thing that developers are under the radar, because with the ability to make wide scale decisions without consensus that comes from a patch is pretty much unparalleled. But I suppose thats why we don't have any developers on the Wikimedia Foundation board.
Except for the last bit of speculation this seems to appreciate the game.
Ec
On 7/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Take verifiability as an example. This concept is a direct response to repeated complaints from the outside world that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. From a strictly objective perspective
Was there a time before the verifiability policy?
verifiability is a good thing, but it still has a cost. It leads to a situation where the game is taken ove by rules lawyers who can convince the other players that order is good. This makes it very difficult for
That almost never happens.
the Calvinball player to introduce a new rule into the existing game.
No, it happens all the time.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Take verifiability as an example. This concept is a direct response to repeated complaints from the outside world that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. From a strictly objective perspective
Was there a time before the verifiability policy?
It wasn't there when I first came on board in February 2002
verifiability is a good thing, but it still has a cost. It leads to a situation where the game is taken over by rules lawyers who can convince the other players that order is good. This makes it very difficult for
That almost never happens.
Oh! Rules make most people feel comfortable. It makes them feel they have a chance to win. "Winning" can have a variable definition, and to many it can be as simple as having articles accepted by the community without any major changes.
the Calvinball player to introduce a new rule into the existing game.
No, it happens all the time.
Are they really making major changes to the rules? Of course you can also have a rule that says that a rule made when nobody is looking is also a valid rule.
Ec
On 7/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Are they really making major changes to the rules?
yes see CSD.
geni wrote:
On 7/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Are they really making major changes to the rules?
yes see CSD.
The response should be to the whole context:
This makes it very difficult for the Calvinball player to introduce a new rule into the existing game.
No, it happens all the time.
Are they really making major changes to the rules? Of course you can also have a rule that says that a rule made when nobody is looking is also a valid rule.
Certainly there are a lot of changes happening there, but are they really "major"? For the most part the details there are a matter of housekeeping, though like the death of a thousand cuts stringing enough of them together could accumulate into something major. Getting rid of CSD altogether, that would be major!
Ec