
Wikipedia Turns 15 - doppp
https://15.wikipedia.org/
======
klenwell
I was talking to a friend the other day and came up with a term to sorta
quantify what I consider perhaps the most important revolution of my lifetime:
TTK or Time To Knowledge.

The example I always use, the occasion when it first occurred to me, was a
couple years ago when, for some reason, I decided I wanted to make a foam for
a cocktail. Within 5 minutes, I had found a video on Youtube illustrating how,
not to mention a dozen other sites documenting various techniques.

I imagined being back in the 1980s or 90s and confronting the same wild
impulse. How would I have figured this out? Asked a couple people perhaps.
Contemplate a trip to my local library. Maybe make a mental note to chat with
a bartender next time I found myself at a cocktail bar. Probably just give up
on the idea and go back to watching the A-Team.

This is a rather trivial example. But then consider the ease and dramatically
lowered TTK where programming knowledge (via StackOverflow) or general
knowledge (Wikipedia) is concerned. The internet itself cut the lag. But it
was first Google, then Wikipedia, that turned TT#$&!%&@ (Time To me cursing
that I have access to all this potentially useful information that I can't
quite seem to reach) to TTK, Time To (real meaningful well-organized)
Knowledge.

~~~
reasonality
All magic comes at a price.

You could have learnt other tricks of the trade, could have made new friends
talking to that human bartender.

Talking to someone who is a master at something is far more valuable than
asking the internet specific questions - how do you know what questions to
ask...

~~~
judemelancon
The internet's supply of masters is much larger and more accessible. Is there
a reason to think the video or other sources he found are from someone
inferior in expertise to a local? Does that reason apply even for people who
live outside major urban centers?

Also, that line of thinking is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Remember the most likely outcome before was recognizing the cost of acquiring
the knowledge exceeded the benefit of having it; there would have been no
learning at all.

~~~
Retric
Most online videos are made by people good at making videos. There not the
same people that are good at making drinks or whatever.

~~~
Zikes
I'm subscribed to YouTube channels devoted to crafts such as woodworking,
cooking, metalworking, development, sewing, drink mixing, and others, and very
few of them use professional equipment or editing software. Some of the most
entertaining ones do, of course, but mostly because they started small and
were able to grow their audience enough to turn it into a career, over the
course of which they picked up the skills to improve the quality of the
videos.

Those other skills form the foundation of successful online video channels,
with the video skills following suit.

~~~
Retric
Yea, there are plenty of people worth following out there. But, a few minutes
of random searching is probably not going to show you one of the gems. Unless,
I am just bad at finding videos.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Consider then finding an on-line community of enthusiasts first. Like, in case
of woodworking, /r/woodworking and some of the other subreddits listed in the
sidebar there. Spend few minutes there, and you'll know where to find the best
5% of woodworking sources _available to mankind_.

Let me emphasize it - thanks to the Internet, you have access to the best
knowledge and experience _entire humanity_ has produced. All it takes is some
experience with using the Internet and spending little time on filtering
links.

~~~
Retric
I think your vastly overstating what videos people put online.

I think woodworking is hard to qualify. So, let's simplify.

1) A master craftsman video demonstrating how to make an Italian style flat
bread oven from someone that spent ~15+ years learning and building them.

2) One of those small but highly accurate mechanical clocks that's accurate
enough for navigation at sea.

3) A European ed: (English) style saddle made by a craftsman, as in someone
that made and sold 100 others before it.

I am sure there are at least a few hundred people with those skills world
wide, but actually finding a detailed video made by one of them online seems
much harder. As in something that's good enough to learn from not just
advertising or a 'how it's made' video showing some highlights.

It's 3:30 EST on Friday. Let's give it 24 hours. ;)

~~~
Zikes
Moving the goalposts to the furthest conceivable distance isn't going to prove
anything to anybody. Nobody claimed you could completely master a trade skill
just from watching YouTube videos.

~~~
Retric
The parent post (TeMPOraL) said:

 _have access to the best knowledge and experience entire humanity has
produced_

Sure, you can find plenty of videos on how make a hard boiled egg, apply tile,
or do a card trick... But, that statement seems way over the top.

PS: Though, this is one case where I would haply be proved wrong.

------
deepnet
I pay monthly to wikipedia, I use it tens of times a day, it is a fantastic
unparalleled resource - a real public good.

Wikipedia is a proof of a utopian vision that infused the early web - ensuring
public rights wins public contribution.

Humanities collective knowledge is better distributed because of Wikipedia, a
true wonder of the modern world.

IMHO, we must treasure wikipedia as it is not clear it could happen again and
it embiggens us all.

~~~
theklub
I feel like wikipedia killed the web in a way. Anytime you search for
something 95% of the time wikipedia is the first result and thus 99% of the
time it is I go to it for information. What websites or innovations have we
missed out on because of this?

~~~
BatFastard
Indeed, it's too bad that libraries were created as well. Just think of how
many other knowledge sharing techniques would have been developed in its
place. I know some of the other contenders were "smoke signals", "bird
whistles", the list would be longer but I refuse to accept readily accessible,
free sources of knowledge. And the smoke signals have been strangely quiet as
of late.

~~~
HarryHirsch
In a library you get Bill O'Reilly and Howard Zinn and everyone in between.
But on Wikipedia, you get the loudest and most obsessive voice.

~~~
Karunamon
Yeah.. Wiki's systemic culture problems have chased off a number of editors.
The own admins don't even follow the site's rules when its convenient for them
not to.

This is not a matter of opinion. One such rule is that there is a procedure to
go through for deleting pages - I've personally been victim to a now-ex admin
who killed a page I was working on, completely bypassing the checks and
balances that are supposed to be in place. (Said admin was later kicked off
the site for bot editing without approval, but not for ignoring deletion
procedure.)

The site's still quite valuable as long as you avoid politically charged
topics (and run, don't walk, from the talk pages), but they are open to being
forked if this continues.

------
bsimpson
Whoa - Wikipedia has been around more than half my life already?

Good on them! It's one of the best things humanity has ever created. Hopefully
they'll find a funding strategy that doesn't make them constantly feel like
panhandlers. They provide uncountably huge value, yet I suspect with their
current marketing, even very heavy readers rarely donate.

EDIT: Sounds like they are working on it:
[https://15.wikipedia.org/endowment.html](https://15.wikipedia.org/endowment.html)

~~~
edelans
I find their campaigns rather effective. I have the impression they do a big
surge once a year with banners everywhere on the site. I find it very
effective at reminding you how wikipedia bring you value everytime you use it.
At least it made me donate at each occasions and I don't consider myself as a
heavy user (hardly one consultation / week), and I think it is the only
project I have donated multiple times.

~~~
wodenokoto
Is it really only once a year? I feel like I saw it several times last year.

~~~
MatmaRex
It should be. There are sometimes banners for other things, though, like to
announce the Wikimania conference:
<[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Calendar](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Calendar)
>. There are apparently also smaller fundraisers aimed at different
languages/countries at different times of the year, so maybe you remember one
of them.

------
moonshinefe
Wikipedia isn't without its problems, but there's no doubt it's been a very
positive force on the internet. I'm not sure there's been anything like it in
human history, where most people can have such easy access to such a wide
variety of encyclopedic topics for free. It's an equalizer for sure in
education.

For casual readers like myself it's also a real pleasure to occasionally just
dive into a section of history, follow the links around, and learn about the
world. Same goes for various other topics but that's the one that came to
mind.

Here's to hoping Wikipedia sticks around for a long time to come.

------
rodionos
Congratulations, Wikipedia! I found it tremendously useful over the years. I
have one suggestion for them. I wouldn't mind making micro-donations for
articles of particular quality and relevance to me. Say I find something
useful and click on a '2c' donation button. The system doesn't trigger an
immediate payment transaction because I would not have time to do it but
instead waits until I accumulate $1+ in 'spend' and then displays another
button 'Pay'. This way micropayments are easy for me as the reader and at the
same time Wikipedia's transaction costs are minimized. Besides, I like to be
able to pay later.

~~~
mtone
I think in that case I would somehow expect part of the money go towards the
authors. By giving to Wikipedia as whole, it's easier to accept that I'm
supporting the infrastructure and not the content.

------
jonknee
In the age of Unicorns, Wikipedia is truly the rare beast. Nothing is perfect,
but Wikipedia has managed to not screw up one of the most impressive
collections of information the world has ever seen. They haven't sold out
(like say, Mozilla) and manage to fund one of the world's most popular web
sites with an annual pledge drive. Bravo!

------
emw
Wikipedians are hosting free events across the world for "Wikipedia Day" this
weekend.

* San Francisco (Saturday): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco/Wikipedia_Day_2016)

* New York City (Saturday): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia_Day_2016)

* Boston (Saturday): [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Events/Boston](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Events/Boston)

* Bangalore (Sunday): [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Events/Bangalor...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Events/Bangalore)

* London (Sunday): [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/101](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/101)

* Portland, Seattle, Vancouver (Saturday, meet Ward Cunnigham!): [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Events/West_Coa...](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Events/West_Coast)

New York will feature a talk about Wikidata, how to query it with SPARQL, and
how we are integrating it with Wikipedia and pushing forward the Semantic Web.
Other NYC talks include things like "Git-flow approach to collaborative
editing", "Copyright and plot summaries", and "Automated prevention of spam,
vandalism and abuse". We will be linking up with San Francisco and likely some
other cities for a global teleconference at 4:00 - 5:00 PM ET (21:00 UTC).

If you're interested, sign up and stop by!

------
Isamu
I remember the announcement of the beginning of the project, probably on
Slashdot. There was the call for participants.

I felt certain they would fail to achieve critical mass in order to become the
large scale success that they have.

Glad to be proven wrong! And congrats.

I have contributed too. Here's hoping they solve the latest set of challenges
with the insider community.

------
midgetjones
The page is 2.5mb and took 18 seconds to fully load. Is that why they've been
badgering us for donations for donations recently?

(I am being facetious; I bloody love Wikipedia and do donate, but you think
they'd be more careful about this sort of thing)

~~~
rocky1138
It's true, though I think it's being hugged by HN right now. So that means
slow transfers. It took ~10 seconds to get to 115KB. The good part is that the
text loaded after the first 615B, so I was able to read it.

------
daniel_iversen
I've always wondered if Wikipedia could come up with alternate revenue streams
because of the huge amounts of people they touch, the mammoth cross section of
content they have. And the kinds of traffic analysis they could do... Targeted
ads? Analytics for companies (a medical, tech or other company could learn
what their stakeholders are interested in), recommendation engines, content
classification engines for media and news orgs (or even SEO or UX navigation
conscious web devs) etc.. They could do these thighs gracefully. What do you
think?

~~~
MatmaRex
I for one sure hope that Wikipedia never falls so low as to have to run ads.
:)

Which doesn't mean that there aren't any alternative revenue streams for the
Wikimedia Foundation. But it's a very touchy topic here. Ideas I've heard is
finding/accepting more large grants (rather rare now, since it affects the
independence of the organization), collaborating with companies wishing to
crawl the content (like search engines; nothing that isn't public, just easier
access) or hosting MediaWiki wiki instances (many people want to run "their
own Wikipedia" and there aren't very many good providers now).

Not that anyone is planning to switch to one of these models, as far as I
know. But it's an alternative in case people stop donating.

------
rplnt
I was thinking just yesterday whether wikipedia will ever change its design or
if it is timeless (unless devices change radically). I don't remember any
major changes, I guess there were gradual that I didn't notice?

~~~
provemewrong
There have been design changes. The most noticeable one happened in 2010.[1]

[1]: [http://www.technorms.com/326/the-new-wikipedia-wikimedia-
fou...](http://www.technorms.com/326/the-new-wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-
is-getting-ready-to-roll-out-design-changes)

~~~
im2w1l
In my entirely unqualified opinion, that's a very well done redesign; it looks
the same, only better.

------
markc
I first encountered Jimbo back in the 80's when he ran the Moderated
Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy (MDOP), an Objectivist mailing list that
featured brilliant philosophical discussions among the stars of the
Objectivist community. Jimbo's contributions were consistently excellent as
well. [Anyone know if there's an archive anywhere?]

It was quite a surprise when he turned up years later in an entirely different
context as a founder of Wikipedia - though I'm not surprised he did something
big. His charisma showed in his MDOP contributions and he always seemed
destined for something big. Congrats Jimbo, and all the other people who have
made Wikipedia, for this amazing asset to humanity.

------
arca_vorago
I love wikipedia, and contribute when I can, it does a great service to us
all. Where it fails though is regarding controversial subjects. It would be a
thesis paper to get into the meat of the issue, but thats its weakpoint.

Which is why I love they have shared their system open source so others can
use it.

The real issue boils down to a filter bubble problem, and google isnt helping
avoid this. Its that people use wikipedia as a panacea and forgoe actually
following sources far too often.

Shades of trusting trust but instead of compilers its editors and censorship.

------
paulannesley
Pretty much the more important site on the internet. I make a small automatic
monthly donation; you can set it up in a few clicks via
[https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give)

------
ausjke
Use it occasionally and donate to it annually, happy anniversary Wikipedia!

------
martiuk
I support Wikipedia's efforts and would gladly donate once they sort out the
NPOV issues on the site. A lot of power users think NPOV is their POV and
revert anything they don't agree with.

------
herbst
The grid is no grid on chrome. The boxes are beyond each other.

~~~
elcapitan
It's a grid in my Chrome, but only after loading js for another 15 years. ;)

------
joolze
"Wikipedia is no banners at the top of the page"

------
knughit
They celebrated by sending spam email to past donors.

