The Truth according to Wikipedia
More info on http://www.vpro.nl/programm... (Dutch)
Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and mor...
Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online "encyclopedia of the people" has been topping the lists of the world's most popular websites. But do we really know what we're using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. Is it a revolution, or pure hype?
Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. The online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to and revise is now even bigger than the illustrious Encyclopedia Britannica. Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do "the people" really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all? In this film, "Wikipedians," the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia's ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics. Wiki's Truth introduces us to the main players in the debate: Jimmy Wales (founder and head Wikipedian), Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head of Wiki spin-off Citizendium), Andrew Keen (author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy), Phoebe Ayers (a Wikipedian in California), Ndesanjo Macha (Swahili Wikipedia, digital activist), Tim O'Reilly (CEO of O'Reilly Media, the "inventor" of Web 2.0), Charles Leadbeater (philosopher and author of We Think, about crowdsourcing), and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica). Opening is a video by Chris Pirillo.
The questions surrounding Wikipedia lead to a bigger discussion of Web 2.0, a phenomenon in which the user determines the content. Examples include YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia. These sites would appear to provide new freedom and opportunities for undiscovered talent and unheard voices, but just where does the boundary lie between expert and amateur? Who will survive according to the laws of this new "digital Darwinism"? Are equality and truth really reconcilable ideals? And most importantly, has the Internet brought us wisdom and truth, or is it high time for a cultural counterrevolution?
Broadcast date: April 7, 2008 Direction: IJsbrand van Veelen Interviews: IJsbrand van Veelen / Marijntje Denters / Martijn Kieft Research: William de Bruijn / Marijntje Denters Production: Judith van den Berg Commissioning editors: Jos de Putter / Doke Romeijn
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
This video has been removed from your Favorites. (Undo)
Like to Favorite videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Web 2.0 is a joke. Its a term used so some ass can claim his doctorate. I've been in the web industry since its inception, there is no MAJOR revision of the web paradigm since its start. These new wave yuppies can keep your Volkswagon, overpriced coffee, macbook, and web 2.0. Idiots. Dont waste your time with this video.
Is anyone planning on informing Mr. Keen of how purely ironic it is that his interview is being screened on the internet, specifically on youtube? Or, for that matter, how hypocritical?
Well if youre stuck sitting around watching YouTube videos anyway you might as well be making some money investing properly.. try the newsletter at authoropen . com
You should stick to books in the library. Reading library books is cheap and will give you much more knowledge per subject. An added bonus is that you will get only the knowledge you're looking for without commercial stuff
Anybody can publish a book, without being checked for relevancy, research or accuracy. Individually authored books are also written from a singular perspective, sometimes omitting other facts and information. Sometimes, facts are simply out of date. I mean, look at a periodic table of the elements from 40+ years ago. Ununoquim isn't likely to be on there.
As a counterpoint, though, there are such fallacies as Conservapedia (Which should never, ever be taken seriously).
Obviously you shouldn't just read anything or trust anything you read, critical thinking can help you in that department. It should also be obvious that anything you read is subject to the viewpoints of its author (book or internet). Even if you have something that is objectively true theres always presenting information in a light favoring you views or omitting information.
My point is that in any situation on the internet all the problems that apply for books can be equally true while losing some of advantages of books like structure and global overview.
I'm not saying that wikipedia cannot provide an in-depth view on anything, I'm just saying that choosing a good book can provide you with more extensive information than a wikipedia article while not having to check every author and reference. Just checking one author and reading critically is enough for a book.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
I've been in the web industry since its inception, there is no MAJOR revision of the web paradigm since its start. These new wave yuppies can keep your Volkswagon, overpriced coffee, macbook, and web 2.0.
Idiots.
Dont waste your time with this video.
As a counterpoint, though, there are such fallacies as Conservapedia (Which should never, ever be taken seriously).
I'm not saying that wikipedia cannot provide an in-depth view on anything, I'm just saying that choosing a good book can provide you with more extensive information than a wikipedia article while not having to check every author and reference. Just checking one author and reading critically is enough for a book.