Larry Sanger: "Deconstructing Wikipedia", Reed College Commencement speaker Options

[Larry Sanger]

Just popping in to link to this: http://web.reed.edu/reed_magazine/june2010...edia/index.html
Chris Lydgate, "Deconstructing Wikipedia," from my alumni mag, Reed (College, Portland, Oregon).

[gomi]

Just popping in to link to this: http://web.reed.edu/reed_magazine/june2010...edia/index.html
Chris Lydgate, "Deconstructing Wikipedia," from my alumni mag, Reed (College, Portland, Oregon).

You beat me to it - it just turned up in the mailbox today. I Wonder what dmcdevit (T-C-L-K-R-D) would have to say about it?

Larry leaves out that he is this year's Reed Commencement speaker. Quite an honor.

[Modnote: I split this from another topic and wrote the title.]

[Kevin]

Since August 2009, biographies of living persons (known as BLPs) are subject to extra scrutiny; changes to these articles must be reviewed by experienced editors before they are made public, and material from dubious sources is forbidden

Pity that the article does not note that this actually never took place.

[privatemusings]

there's a mistake about the 'Handel' broo ha ha which is quite serious - the article was never 'feautured' (a process that at the very least is actually pretty hard to get through) - rather it was part of the 'did you know' section of the main page, which doesn't really have a quality bar, but the articles in the area have to be new, or significantly (5 times I think?) expanded.

You could wriggle and say that the Handel article was featured on the mainpage (true, but misleading) - this; 'Wikipedia’s “Feature Article”—the most prominent location on the site' - is just plain wrong unfortunately.

[Kevin]

there's a mistake about the 'Handel' broo ha ha which is quite serious - the article was never 'feautured' (a process that at the very least is actually pretty hard to get through) - rather it was part of the 'did you know' section of the main page, which doesn't really have a quality bar, but the articles in the area have to be new, or significantly (5 times I think?) expanded.

You could wriggle and say that the Handel article was featured on the mainpage (true, but misleading) - this; 'Wikipedia’s “Feature Article”—the most prominent location on the site' - is just plain wrong unfortunately.

I saw this as well, but thought the distinction would be lost on the general public. Still, it doesn't say much for the accuracy of the article.

[GlassBeadGame]

You deserve the recognition from Reed. I offer two thoughts on the article.

First, reading this article for made me realize much more clearly the importance of articulating the nature of Bomis. This is not just to get a cheap shot in at Mr. Wales. It has great bearing in establishing you as "co-founder" or even as more properly described as founder of Wikipedia. If Bomis was a respected think tank on applying technology to learning projects then Wales would have a point when he relegates you to the status of mere hired help. But Bomis was in fact a site helping users access soft-core pornography and had no resources, experience or credibility on matters relating to learning projects. In fact its background was nothing but an embarrassment. This turns the tables nicely and far from being the "hired help" you are established as prime mover and animating force. Wales is then seen as a rich guy buying the talent for a vanity project and sticking his name on it. The article is weaker for glossing over Bomis.

Second, as noted above the discussion of BLPs at the end of the article is flawed beyond the acceptable and you really need to publicly reply and correct the impression that the issue of BLPs has been addressed appropriately by WP. It is just the opposite of the Fox article where a claim is made by WP and the writer took the time to check whether it was true or not. I don't want to be too hard on a student publication but it really can't stand.

[Larry Sanger]

Second, as noted above the discussion of BLPs at the end of the article is flawed beyond the acceptable and you really need to publicly reply and correct the impression that the issue of BLPs has been addressed appropriately by WP. It is just the opposite of the Fox article where a claim is made by WP and the writer took the time to check whether it was true or not. I don't want to be too hard on a student publication but it really can't stand.

It's not a student publication, it's a professionally-edited alumni magazine. FWIW, I thought this was one of the very best articles about the history of Wikipedia that I've ever read, the mistakes at the end notwithstanding.

To be honest, I never followed the BLP stuff, I was very busy with other things at the time. Can you point me to a WR discussion or something else that sums it up? So, Wikipedia announced a stricter approach to BLPs, and they never followed through?

I'd be happy to put you in touch with Chris Lydgate, the editor of Reed Magazine & the author of the article. I'm sure he'll be very interested to hear about this.

[Ottava]

Larry leaves out that he is this year's Reed Commencement speaker. Quite an honor.

I've never heard of the school but the Wiki page makes it seem interesting. The question is, did he get an honorary doctorate from the school (like many commencement speakers) and, if so, which subject? Something related to ethics?

[GlassBeadGame]

Larry leaves out that he is this year's Reed Commencement speaker. Quite an honor.

I've never heard of the school but the Wiki page makes it seem interesting. The question is, did he get an honorary doctorate from the school (like many commencement speakers) and, if so, which subject? Something related to ethics?

I haven't looked at the article in a long while but at one time it was the target of a substantial smear campaign. I hope it hasn't, and more important won't again, fall into that state. Maybe it should be protected in anticipation of mischief around Larry's address? I usually don't comment on such internal details but I can see potential trouble here.

Second, as noted above the discussion of BLPs at the end of the article is flawed beyond the acceptable and you really need to publicly reply and correct the impression that the issue of BLPs has been addressed appropriately by WP. It is just the opposite of the Fox article where a claim is made by WP and the writer took the time to check whether it was true or not. I don't want to be too hard on a student publication but it really can't stand.

It's not a student publication, it's a professionally-edited alumni magazine. FWIW, I thought this was one of the very best articles about the history of Wikipedia that I've ever read, the mistakes at the end notwithstanding.

To be honest, I never followed the BLP stuff, I was very busy with other things at the time. Can you point me to a WR discussion or something else that sums it up? So, Wikipedia announced a stricter approach to BLPs, and they never followed through?

I'd be happy to put you in touch with Chris Lydgate, the editor of Reed Magazine & the author of the article. I'm sure he'll be very interested to hear about this.

Finding things around here can be a real pain in the butt. Here is a recent thread on the matter. The problem is that Wales has so often claimed that Flagged Revisions are on there way or even have been implemented that it gets repeated in the media. FR have ran into resistance on WP very similar to the porn clean up. The burden of waiting to see their edits is too great for these entitled editors who feel that lies and defamation borne by BLPs subjects is a fair price for their continued unimpeded freedom to do whatever they want.

[Ottava]

I haven't looked at the article in a long while but at one time it was the target of a substantial smear campaign. I hope it hasn't, and more important won't again, fall into that state. Maybe it should be protected in anticipation of mischief around Larry's address? I usually don't comment on such internal details but I can see potential trouble here.

To be honest, I wanted to seem if it was a legitimate institution. I saw that it was the only undergrad to have a nuclear facility (in the lead) and that was enough to verify it. The amount of regulations you need to go through to have such a thing is something that only a top school with a lot of effort can pass.

[John Limey]

there's a mistake about the 'Handel' broo ha ha which is quite serious - the article was never 'feautured' (a process that at the very least is actually pretty hard to get through) - rather it was part of the 'did you know' section of the main page, which doesn't really have a quality bar, but the articles in the area have to be new, or significantly (5 times I think?) expanded.

You could wriggle and say that the Handel article was featured on the mainpage (true, but misleading) - this; 'Wikipedia’s “Feature Article”—the most prominent location on the site' - is just plain wrong unfortunately.

Sadly, the article is incorrect on all of the particulars of the Handel incident, but I think it does get the general point across.

[GlassBeadGame]

there's a mistake about the 'Handel' broo ha ha which is quite serious - the article was never 'feautured' (a process that at the very least is actually pretty hard to get through) - rather it was part of the 'did you know' section of the main page, which doesn't really have a quality bar, but the articles in the area have to be new, or significantly (5 times I think?) expanded.

You could wriggle and say that the Handel article was featured on the mainpage (true, but misleading) - this; 'Wikipedia’s “Feature Article”—the most prominent location on the site' - is just plain wrong unfortunately.

Sadly, the article is incorrect on all of the particulars of the Handel incident, but I think it does get the general point across.

I'm impressed by the maturity of that statement. I would compare it to the Wikipedia response to the Fox article which was fundamentally accurate but they mis-characterized as "riddled with errors." Journalist are of course generalists who can never meet the expectations of zealots of a topic. That you can keep this in mind while the errors concern something so close is impressive.

[Larry Sanger]

You beat me to it - it just turned up in the mailbox today. I Wonder what dmcdevit (T-C-L-K-R-D) would have to say about it?

Huh? You are a Reedie?

[Moulton]

You beat me to it - it just turned up in the mailbox today. I Wonder what dmcdevit (T-C-L-K-R-D) would have to say about it?

Huh? You are a Reedie?

He's not only a Reedie, he's rumored to be a one-time high-level executive at a major computer chip manufacturer.

[EricBarbour]

You beat me to it - it just turned up in the mailbox today. I Wonder what dmcdevit (T-C-L-K-R-D) would have to say about it?

Huh? You are a Reedie?

He's not only a Reedie, he's rumored to be a one-time high-level executive at a major computer chip manufacturer.

Between those two, Howard Rheingold, Jobs, Peter Norton, and Dan Kottke.......
I am compelled to conclude that Reed College is the Evil Fount of Digital Horrors.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 12th May 2010, 9:14pm

[gomi]

Between those two, Howard Rheingold, Jobs, Peter Norton, and Dan Kottke.......
I am compelled to conclude that Reed College is the Evil Fount of Digital Horrors.

Oh, come now. I've met three of those people, and firmly believe that only two of those are irredeemably evil. There's at least a 33% chance that any given Reedie is at worst chaotic/neutral.

[Milton Roe]

Between those two, Howard Rheingold, Jobs, Peter Norton, and Dan Kottke.......
I am compelled to conclude that Reed College is the Evil Fount of Digital Horrors.

Oh, come now. I've met three of those people, and firmly believe that only two of those are irredeemably evil. There's at least a 33% chance that any given Reedie is at worst chaotic/neutral.

How about Steve Jobs? Was 6 months enough to pervert him to the Dark Side, or did he just improve his handwriting?

[Somey]

To be honest, I never followed the BLP stuff, I was very busy with other things at the time. Can you point me to a WR discussion or something else that sums it up?

We were all fairly impressed with this summary by Doc_Glasgow, so much so that we republished most of it in our blog.

So, Wikipedia announced a stricter approach to BLPs, and they never followed through?

Yes, though I suppose it depends on how you define "follow through." WP first began to get Public Relations mileage from the still-not-implemented "Flagged Revisions" feature back in mid-2006. Many of the stories that came through our newsfeed have since been archived and/or deleted, but here's one that's still available from 25 August 2006 - I believe this one was also posted on Slashdot. And this was almost a year after work began on the actual feature, which was "tested" on the German Wikipedia later in 2006 and formally adopted there a few months later.

WR member Kato (who hasn't been so active lately) started a Flagged Revisions timeline which is in need of an update - but it dates back to December 4, 2005. At this point I expect we'll get to the 5-year anniversary with the status quo intact.

[gomi]

Between those two, Howard Rheingold, Jobs, Peter Norton, and Dan Kottke.......
I am compelled to conclude that Reed College is the Evil Fount of Digital Horrors.

Oh, come now. I've met three of those people, and firmly believe that only two of those are irredeemably evil. There's at least a 33% chance that any given Reedie is at worst chaotic/neutral.

How about Steve Jobs? Was 6 months enough to pervert him to the Dark Side, or did he just improve his handwriting?

Let's just put it this way: he has someone else's liver in him!

And how do you think he made all that money for you?