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.
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...
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.
I think Stack Overflow is the canonical example. It feels like I deal daily with people who paste something from Stack Overflow instead of reading up on a library or API. It is made worse by all those to game their score system by being very quick to paste in a semi-related "answer".
(unless xorcist is freakin' Holden himself!)
Those other skills form the foundation of successful online video channels, with the video skills following suit.
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.
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. ;)
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.
Sure, you can find some videos of people making a wooden clock online. It's much harder to find master craftsman making a watch. A few PHD students putting together an electric car vs. someone at GM actually designing a car. Home cook vs. Five Star Chef.
Granted, generally an amateur is fine. But, don't be surprised if there making several mistakes without noticing.
That applies to occupations, not to hobbies. I.e. those who can't find a proper job using their skill go on to teach that skill.
It does not however apply to the most valuable content - one made not for money, but out of love for the subject. A lot of masters in all occupations simply like to share. Our industry is probably the best example - it's almost entirely built upon masters who gave away their knowledge. But it happens in other industries too.
in sincerely doubt that...
The upside is that I learn a bunch of things. The downside is that I rarely have a question for anyone anymore. I'm either too lazy to dig into the question online to be sure that the question is worth asking, or I figure out the answer on my own.
Talking to someone who is a master at something is much more valuable than the internet... but the definition of a "stupid question" is becoming smarter.
If you find yourself enthralled in a subject after learning about it on Wikipedia/YouTube you can still find an expert and learn even more. Being seconds away from being able to learn about anything in the world is extremely powerful.
The point is not to take a hard engineering problem and turn it into a 5 minute solution. You're right. Not all problems can be reduced to short Youtube videos (although it is amazing how many can).
The point is to take what may have been considered a hard, even impossible, engineering problem and get it in the hands or head of someone who might someday come up with a new or better solution. Even if the ultimate solution takes years or decades, it's still a radical reduction in TTK.
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.
DICTIONARIES ARE DESCRIPTIVE, NOT PRESCRIPTIVE. THEY DOCUMENT HOW WORDS ARE COMMONLY USED, THEY DO NOT DEFINE THEIR MEANINGS.
(I only comment because I'm amused to find I've heard "cromulent" used as a "real word" enough that my brain has intuited rules for its usage.)
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.
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
edit date correction :)
I think it should mimic tried and true real life coins. The spychological cost is managed by having limited number of different coins available. And the value of coin is small, but meaninful enough to be considered. In contrast to something infinitesimally close to zero.
Let's say I make payment of 5$ to your account with my email address in the message field. You send me 20 hashes to that address, each worth 20snt. Now I see artists webpage with "tip me" field. I paste a hash, you make the money happen. Simple enough?
Lately, I see individuals, and companies carefully crafting pages to further their agenda. It could be PR, name recognition, or inaccurate information reguarding their cause.
It could be as subtle as changing the definition of a neologism to singular, rather than plural. I ran across this recently. Someone wanted to promote their technospeck.whatever domain, but the plural was taken, so they deleted all the wiki information on the original neologism, and in turn just put, "for plural see the singular page.". Bringing in overnight credibility to their domain name.
What bothers me is the changes, or complete rewrite of certain pages are obviously done for monetary reasons, and the Editors don't seem to notice the motives behind the
I don't want to be one of those people who claims a service was better in the past, but once people realized they could use Wikipedia to as indirect/free advertising; that's when I lost interest.
I would miss Wikipedia if it collapsed. Do I have a feeling someone else might be able to do a better job? Yes! In this case, I feel the federal government could do a better job with Wikipedia? I would rather see four billion going to unemployed paid/trained Editors--instead of self-driving technology. Editors trained mainly in sniffing out manipulation of history/facts for personal/corporate gain.
In my case, I can't.
I began editing Wikipedia in 2004, and I got banned last year after leaving a message on the talk page of another user telling them not to use aggressive language when interacting with new users. The way oversight on Wikipedia works is that it's incredibly easy for someone to block you if you do something that they read as a slight towards them.
It's something you know all along if you spend any amount of time on Wikipedia. Over the years I was constantly running into people talking about things like overreach and abusive admins, but as an editor, you don't really look into those cases. When you're more interesting in creating content than getting involved, you trust that the admins are doing their jobs properly, and if they ever aren't, then the conflict resolution process will take care of them.
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.
* San Francisco (Saturday): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco...
* New York City (Saturday): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia...
* Boston (Saturday): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Events/Boston
* Bangalore (Sunday): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_15/Events/Bangalor...
* London (Sunday): 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...
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!
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.
(I am being facetious; I bloody love Wikipedia and do donate, but you think they'd be more careful about this sort of thing)
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.
However we can use this to read on desktop too.
The one of the recent iteration removed the symbol from the Klingon alphabet to be replaced by a Geʿez character, along with other changes.
> Why Wikipedia? Because you often stumbled upon it and thought “Urgh, it’s so ugly!”? If so, you weren’t using it. You were looking at it.
and I think it rings quite true.
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.
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.