I emailed Jimmy Wales about adding a "real" discussion function to Wikipedia. He suggested that I post to this mailing list to start a discussion. Below are the 4 emails we exchanged. What do you think?
1. My initial email: -------------------------------- Hi,
This is Will. I am the co-founder of Nabble, a project for making discussions better.
I have been following the discussions on the wikia mailing list (http://n2.nabble.com/Wikia-Search-f738587.html). I like your product design work and philosophy, for example, "avoid excessive a priori thinking", we do the same in our work.
I write to you because you don't seem to care much about discussions. On Wikipedia, the "discussion" tab is ubiquitous, but you don't allow people to discuss the subject there because discussions can ONLY be about improving the main page.
This rule sounds arbitrary. Why can't a I ask a question about the subject there? You have many experts and fellow users visiting the same page, wouldn't it be good if they can talk and socialize and help each other out? Communities grow there. You can have a separate discussion area dedicated to editors. But currently it's all editors. What's more, the design of the discussion function is so wiki-centric, you probably designed it on purpose in order to keep the regular guys out. You seem to be missing a community opportunity here.
I hope to continue this conversation, if you are interested...
Regards, Will
2. Jimmy Wales' response: -------------------------------- I think you're just mistaken. On the main page, the discussion is about the main page. On every other page, the discussion is about the subject.
Or wait, maybe you aren't mistaken but just I am confused by your terminology. When we say "main page" we are always referring to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
But maybe you are making a more subtle point about the distinction between "article space" and "talk space"?
So, you are asking, why can't I just ask a question about Thomas Jefferson, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson
Is that right?
Well, because that's not what we *do*. Nor is it something we want to do.
We care about community, but the community is always subordinate to the goals of the community. Being a general chat board is a good thing for... general chat boards.
At Wikia, we do support those.
3. My response: -------------------------------- Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I made at least ten drafts for this reply. I hope you see my point.
So, you are asking, why can't I just ask a question about Thomas Jefferson, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson
Is that right?
Yes. You got my point. Asking questions and debating and watching other people ask and debate is a crucial part of learning. Have you ever learned a subject by just reading an article? For example, you can read an article on breast cancer, but if your wife has it, then you WILL have tons of questions, few of which are addressed by that article. Similarly, you can read the article on SEO, but if you are a web start-up that needs it, then you will have questions.
Learning is called "学问" in Chinese. 学 means to "study", and 问 means to "question". Wikipedia has 学 but not 问. I am not just being philosophical here. I am a practical guy and I use wikipedia a lot. Right now I do the 问 part in other places, but you could have me easily. It will be a natural addition to Wikipedia.
We care about community, but the community is always subordinate to the goals of the community.
You are saying that your goal is to create an encyclopedia and there is nothing else to it, right? You can always reject a new idea by stating an old goal. I say it's an old goal because it was already achieved a few years ago. Wiki is already history as Wikipedia has done nothing new since you started working on search engines.
Maybe we can ask what is the goal of an encyclopedia? If you see it along the lines of learning (学问), then you will see my point as relevant. Otherwise, nice talking to you. I appreciate you actually get back to me.
4. Jimmy Wales' response: -------------------------------- :-) It is very interesting, and is affecting my thinking. But of course decisions like this are not up to me really. They are more up to the community... you might want to start a discussion on wikien-l.
2008/9/2 Will will@nabble.com:
I emailed Jimmy Wales about adding a "real" discussion function to Wikipedia. He suggested that I post to this mailing list to start a discussion. Below are the 4 emails we exchanged. What do you think?
- My initial email:
Hi,
This is Will. I am the co-founder of Nabble, a project for making discussions better.
I have been following the discussions on the wikia mailing list (http://n2.nabble.com/Wikia-Search-f738587.html). I like your product design work and philosophy, for example, "avoid excessive a priori thinking", we do the same in our work.
I write to you because you don't seem to care much about discussions. On Wikipedia, the "discussion" tab is ubiquitous, but you don't allow people to discuss the subject there because discussions can ONLY be about improving the main page.
This rule sounds arbitrary. Why can't a I ask a question about the subject there? You have many experts and fellow users visiting the same page, wouldn't it be good if they can talk and socialize and help each other out? Communities grow there. You can have a separate discussion area dedicated to editors. But currently it's all editors. What's more, the design of the discussion function is so wiki-centric, you probably designed it on purpose in order to keep the regular guys out. You seem to be missing a community opportunity here.
I hope to continue this conversation, if you are interested...
Regards, Will
Your software does not appear to be open source.
Yes. You got my point. Asking questions and debating and watching other people ask and debate is a crucial part of learning. Have you ever learned a subject by just reading an article? For example, you can read an article on breast cancer, but if your wife has it, then you WILL have tons of questions, few of which are addressed by that article.
And those questions are best answered by a doctor.
Similarly, you can read the article on SEO, but if you are a web start-up that needs it, then you will have questions.
Perhaps but there are no shortage of SEO forums on the web.
Learning is called "学问" in Chinese. 学 means to "study", and 问 means to "question". Wikipedia has 学 but not 问. I am not just being philosophical here. I am a practical guy and I use wikipedia a lot. Right now I do the 问 part in other places, but you could have me easily. It will be a natural addition to Wikipedia.
Not really. You don't get discussion with say encarta.
You are saying that your goal is to create an encyclopedia and there is nothing else to it, right? You can always reject a new idea by stating an old goal. I say it's an old goal because it was already achieved a few years ago. Wiki is already history as Wikipedia has done nothing new since you started working on search engines.
Nothing new? Wikiversity? The in browser video player?
Maybe we can ask what is the goal of an encyclopedia? If you see it along the lines of learning (学问), then you will see my point as relevant. Otherwise, nice talking to you. I appreciate you actually get back to me.
An encyclopedia is a general source of knowledge.
Yes. You got my point. Asking questions and debating and watching other people ask and debate is a crucial part of learning. Have you ever learned a subject by just reading an article?
No, certainly not. Learning involves far more than just reading an encyclopaedia article, but Wikipedia's goal isn't to teach, it's to create a free encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is a very useful tool in learning, but it's not the end of the matter and never will be. If there are relevant encyclopaedic facts that are missing from the article, you can ask about them on the talk page or on the Reference Desks. If your questions are very specific or are more about a difficulty understanding the topic (and not just because the article is poorly written - that you can suggest we fix) then you need to consult an expert in whatever way is appropriate for the topic in question (a question about your wife's breast cancer would be directed at a doctor, a desire for a greater understanding of breast cancer would involve enrolling in medical school (you could try a textbook first, but they are often difficult to understand without the necessary prior knowledge) - Wikipedia will never be a replacement for those two options, even if we wanted it to be).
Hi Will,
Thanks for your interest. I think Jimmy and Thomas have made the standard points above - that our aim is to provide a source of accessible and comprehensive information. It isn't a primary teaching tool. We aim to, for instance, contain all the material you might find in a standard general chemistry textbook (as an example). What we do not do, though, is provide this material in a manner suitable for actually learning general chemistry. We also, obviously, don't provide an instructor.
One of the key benefits of the Wikipedia development model is that it allows for improvements by people who are not terribly well informed, on the assumption that in time enough people will have enough aggregate knowledge that the general quality of our articles will be high. The editors who might respond about a subject on the talkpage of a random article can't be assumed to have complete knowledge, or even to know much of anything at all. They might still make valuable contributions to the article, but you wouldn't want to ask a question (say, about breast cancer) where an accurate answer would require a broad depth of knowledge on related subjects.
On the other hand, we do have the reference desk. General subject questions are often answered there, and perhaps that is a form of the tool you're looking for? Kind of a Wikipedia-style Google Answers?
Nathan
2008/9/5 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
On the other hand, we do have the reference desk. General subject questions are often answered there, and perhaps that is a form of the tool you're looking for? Kind of a Wikipedia-style Google Answers?
Is much Reference Desk stuff consciously fed back to the articles?
- d.
2008/9/5 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/5 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
On the other hand, we do have the reference desk. General subject questions are often answered there, and perhaps that is a form of the tool you're looking for? Kind of a Wikipedia-style Google Answers?
Is much Reference Desk stuff consciously fed back to the articles?
I know some certainly is, I'm not sure how much, though.
Nathan, and everyone,
Thanks for the responses. Let me make the idea more concrete.
Here is the wiki article on what is Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Here is the wikien-l mailing list discussions: http://www.nabble.com/English-Wikipedia-f14021.html
I use Nabble's wikien-l archive because it's easy to browse the topics and to SEE the tight relationship between the discussions and the wiki article.
They complement each other. Why should they be separated?
Regards, Will
Nathan Awrich wrote:
Hi Will,
Thanks for your interest. I think Jimmy and Thomas have made the standard points above - that our aim is to provide a source of accessible and comprehensive information. It isn't a primary teaching tool. We aim to, for instance, contain all the material you might find in a standard general chemistry textbook (as an example). What we do not do, though, is provide this material in a manner suitable for actually learning general chemistry. We also, obviously, don't provide an instructor.
One of the key benefits of the Wikipedia development model is that it allows for improvements by people who are not terribly well informed, on the assumption that in time enough people will have enough aggregate knowledge that the general quality of our articles will be high. The editors who might respond about a subject on the talkpage of a random article can't be assumed to have complete knowledge, or even to know much of anything at all. They might still make valuable contributions to the article, but you wouldn't want to ask a question (say, about breast cancer) where an accurate answer would require a broad depth of knowledge on related subjects.
On the other hand, we do have the reference desk. General subject questions are often answered there, and perhaps that is a form of the tool you're looking for? Kind of a Wikipedia-style Google Answers?
Nathan
On 9/2/08, Will will@nabble.com wrote:
I emailed Jimmy Wales about adding a "real" discussion function to Wikipedia.
Will,
I for one think it's a marvelous idea to have some sort of project with discussion boards for... EVERYTHING, or at least everything that's notable. A wonderful idea, and someone's going to do it. If not us, someone else. But such an idea is so good, it is inevitable that it will occur.
I agree with the many people who have said that that thing is not Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, and have worked hard to generate the "brand image" that we're not just a group of random lunatics saying whatever we want about anything. Incorporating a "discuss the subject itself" area into Wikipedia itself would probably lead to confusion.
I would suggest asking the foundation to start up a new project which is specifically devoted to talking about subject itself. Wikidiscuss or Wikitalk or something like that.
And then, through templating, we could direct people to THAT project whenever they discuss things directly (rather than discussing the article). For subjects where an extensive discussion is ongoing, we could include links to that discussion in the same way that we include links to other projects (like Commons or WikiSource).
But in general, I think it's a wonderful idea, and if you could help the foundation make such a thing come to pass, without it being part of Wikipedia proper, I think it would be a wonderful addition to the family.
Alec
2008/9/6 Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
I agree with the many people who have said that that thing is not Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, and have worked hard to generate the "brand image" that we're not just a group of random lunatics saying whatever we want about anything. Incorporating a "discuss the subject itself" area into Wikipedia itself would probably lead to confusion. I would suggest asking the foundation to start up a new project which is specifically devoted to talking about subject itself. Wikidiscuss or Wikitalk or something like that.
It's arguably related to what we do - c.f. the reference desk.
- d.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/08, Will will@nabble.com wrote:
I emailed Jimmy Wales about adding a "real" discussion function to Wikipedia.
Will,
I for one think it's a marvelous idea to have some sort of project with discussion boards for... EVERYTHING, or at least everything that's notable. A wonderful idea, and someone's going to do it. If not us, someone else. But such an idea is so good, it is inevitable that it will occur.
It already has, its called usenet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet. :P.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Will will@nabble.com wrote:
I write to you because you don't seem to care much about discussions. On Wikipedia, the "discussion" tab is ubiquitous, but you don't allow people to discuss the subject there because discussions can ONLY be about improving the main page.
You might be better off talking to Wikinewsies than Wikipedians considering Wikinews already does allow discussion about the topic (as opposed to discussion about the article).
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=102 shows pages from their comment namespace, which is used for non-NPOV chat not related to improving the article.
There's more information on it here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Commentary_pages_on_news_events
Angela
2008/9/6 Angela beesley@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Will will@nabble.com wrote:
I write to you because you don't seem to care much about discussions. On Wikipedia, the "discussion" tab is ubiquitous, but you don't allow people to discuss the subject there because discussions can ONLY be about improving the main page.
You might be better off talking to Wikinewsies than Wikipedians considering Wikinews already does allow discussion about the topic (as opposed to discussion about the article). http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=102 shows pages from their comment namespace, which is used for non-NPOV chat not related to improving the article. There's more information on it here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Commentary_pages_on_news_events
Something like this would be tempting for Wikipedia articles, but it'd be a BLP and confidential info nightmare on anything controversial ...
- d.
On 9/6/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/6 Angela beesley@gmail.com:
You might be better off talking to Wikinewsies than Wikipedians considering Wikinews already does allow discussion about the topic (as opposed to discussion about the article). http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=102 shows pages from their comment namespace, which is used for non-NPOV chat not related to improving the article. There's more information on it here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Commentary_pages_on_news_events
Something like this would be tempting for Wikipedia articles, but it'd be a BLP and confidential info nightmare on anything controversial ...
Would BLP concerns even need to apply to a project/subproject that is a straightforward simple message board host? At least in article-space, someone can make an argument that the foundation "endorses" the article or otherwise contributes to a libel. But a message board host should be every bit as free from liability as the US Postal Service for the letters it carries, or the phone company for calls that go through its lines, or for the emails written on Gmail.
But of course, I'm not a lawyer, and would love to know if I know what I'm talking about. :)
Alec
Would BLP concerns even need to apply to a project/subproject that is a straightforward simple message board host? At least in article-space, someone can make an argument that the foundation "endorses" the article or otherwise contributes to a libel. But a message board host should be every bit as free from liability as the US Postal Service for the letters it carries, or the phone company for calls that go through its lines, or for the emails written on Gmail.
But of course, I'm not a lawyer, and would love to know if I know what I'm talking about. :)
I think BLP is more a moral issue than a legal one, the foundation is pretty well protected legally. The moral issues are less important for a site where it's clearly just random people chatting than a world-famous encyclopaedia that's at the top of Google results for practically everything, so I think things are ok.
On 9/8/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think BLP is more a moral issue than a legal one, the foundation is pretty well protected legally. The moral issues are less important for a site where it's clearly just random people chatting than a world-famous encyclopaedia that's at the top of Google results for practically everything, so I think things are ok.
Behavior which differs based on audience cannot possibly be a "moral" issue either. More of an image/self-consciousness issue, I'd argue.
—C.W.
2008/9/24 Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 9/8/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think BLP is more a moral issue than a legal one, the foundation is pretty well protected legally. The moral issues are less important for a site where it's clearly just random people chatting than a world-famous encyclopaedia that's at the top of Google results for practically everything, so I think things are ok.
Behavior which differs based on audience cannot possibly be a "moral" issue either. More of an image/self-consciousness issue, I'd argue.
My comment wasn't about audience, it was about authors. If the authors are clearly just a bunch of random chatting chatting people aren't likely to care too much about what they say or take it seriously. If the authors are Wikipedians that are generally considered (possibly incorrectly) to be well informed and reliable, people are likely to care much more and will take it seriously.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb@gmail.com
wrote:
On 9/8/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think BLP is more a moral issue than a legal one, the foundation is pretty well protected legally. The moral issues are less important for a site where it's clearly just random people chatting than a world-famous encyclopaedia that's at the top of Google results for practically everything, so I think things are ok.
Behavior which differs based on audience cannot possibly be a "moral" issue either. More of an image/self-consciousness issue, I'd argue.
—C.W.
This is not true in the least. There are clear ethical issues arising from the fact that a Wikipedia article on a living person will generally become one of the highest (if not the very highest) search-engine result for that person's name. Writing a Wikipedia article including derogatory information about someone is not the same thing as writing a comment on some other random website.
Newyorkbrad
On 9/24/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
This is not true in the least. There are clear ethical issues arising from the fact that a Wikipedia article on a living person will generally become one of the highest (if not the very highest) search-engine result for that person's name. Writing a Wikipedia article including derogatory information about someone is not the same thing as writing a comment on some other random website.
No.
If I refuse to write derogatory information about you at all, I am ethical.
If I write or condone derogatory information about you elsewhere on the internet, but refuse to post it or discuss it on Wikipedia on the basis of ethics (basing my ethics on estimated google juice), I am a hypocrite of the worst kind.
—C.W.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.comwrote:
On 9/24/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
This is not true in the least. There are clear ethical issues arising
from
the fact that a Wikipedia article on a living person will generally
become
one of the highest (if not the very highest) search-engine result for
that
person's name. Writing a Wikipedia article including derogatory
information
about someone is not the same thing as writing a comment on some other random website.
No.
If I refuse to write derogatory information about you at all, I am ethical.
If I write or condone derogatory information about you elsewhere on the internet, but refuse to post it or discuss it on Wikipedia on the basis of ethics (basing my ethics on estimated google juice), I am a hypocrite of the worst kind.
—C.W.
I think our disagreement may stem in part from an ambiguity about the meaning of "derogatory information." If we are interpreting it as meaning "blatant lies and malicious gossip," then if course it does not belong anywhere on the Internet, period, end of story. But if it means "negative information that is true and can be sourced, but it is still questionable whether there is value in publicizing it," then the context for doing so may become more significant. As many BLP problems deal with the second of these categories as the first.
Newyorkbrad
On 9/24/08, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I think our disagreement may stem in part from an ambiguity about the meaning of "derogatory information." If we are interpreting it as meaning "blatant lies and malicious gossip," then if course it does not belong anywhere on the Internet, period, end of story. But if it means "negative information that is true and can be sourced, but it is still questionable whether there is value in publicizing it," then the context for doing so may become more significant. As many BLP problems deal with the second of these categories as the first.
I agree that there is an overwhelming tendency to conflate these issues, exactly as explained in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts_on_BLP
In any case, when you put anything on the internet, you have to assume that pretty much everybody will see it, and copy it too, regardless of the copyright status.
Yes, I will be the first to admit this about the real world, that anything's kosher as long as you don't get caught, or as long as nobody cares, or as long as you have a good lawyer. Most people do base decisions on the probability of negative consequence, and not on "ethics".
Ethics are about doing what's right regardless of these factors.
I'm not going to tell anybody how to act when they find a lost wallet. Maybe you return it to the rightful owner, maybe you don't, but you can't call it "ethics" when the real reason is "everyone in the building saw you pick it up". Not with a straight face anyway.
—C.W.