The Truth According To Wikipedia (IJsbrand van Veelen, VPRO)

The Truth according to Wikipedia

More info on http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlic... (Dutch)

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

• Category

  Science & Technology

[usertogo]

Wikipedia is doomed for not having concurrent version capabilities! The right of the stronger (Administrator) rules. There is no functional democratic process. I can point out countless examples of fascist propaganda manipulation on Wikipedia! I want a system were valuable dissenting Information is given due respect! Only then is Wikipedia a tool for progress!

[CrazyHeliDude]

17:10 "and it often happens that the 17 year old is right." - WRONG. It often happens that the 17 year old is a newly re-branded yuppie; a v.3.0 arrogant, megalomaniac who is in love with the ego of his own perceived brilliance and sense of over-inflated self-importance, who has little to NO practical experience (not intelligence but EXPERIENCE, there is a HUGE difference) with the subject of which he erroneously espouses to have absolute knowledge. Perfect arrogance at its finest.

[Guillaume Le Tisseur]

Politics by election is crap because campaign money demand LOT (so it's a plutocracy) corruption by rich the superclass. No democracy without a draw and nationalize key positions!

ps: I would strongly advice the site "I have a doute.com" and "blog Plan C" (constitution Chouard Etienne) and the issue of salary Bernard Friot (pool half of the value added, etc.).

[mobsplif]

just realized i replied to you, which i didnt mean to do. wanted to make a general comment. sorry! :)

[mobsplif]

Implying truth was never based on person perception. implying books are never wrong. implying authority wont lie.

if you hate wikipedia you need to grow up and learn to learn again.

[Greg Carroll]

42.5 mins on,absolute makes sense.Business etiquette,otherwise you get swallowed,left behind.

[Greg Carroll]

No matter who you are,right here and then,all of us have a voice.That is what it is,people can change a point of view but on a real frame of memory is,,,,,,,,is or changed,like life.

[HiveKrZ]

Just as with all forms of knowledge you have to check the references, big deal. I read research papers and books all the time and wikipedia very closely follows that the vast majority of the time. You check wikipedia when you are a child, when you go to University you switch to Google Scholar or arxiv and the stacks.

[Arjun Temurnikar]

check out jimmy wales ted talk

[Arjun Temurnikar]

the problem, as jimmy wales mentions in his ted talk, is that it was like that - purely democratic in the beginning, until a neo-nazi group started spamming wikipedia with tons of accounts to get the popular vote on a biased self-promoting article they wrote. thats when democracy failed to produce the truth, and jimmy wales decided to amend the rules by giving more power to admins (people who have a good track record at curating, editing and creating good quality articles)