Open Wiki Blog Planet

Pictures of the Day: Pictures of the Day - August 21

2008-08-21T06:03:02+00:00

commons.wikimedia.org:

Cuzco-Pano edit.jpg from commons.wikimedia.org, provided by Fir0002

de.wikipedia.org:

Liriodendron tulipifera Integrifolium leaf front.JPG from commons.wikimedia.org, provided by Mastermolch

en.wikipedia.org:

Japaneseweavera.jpg from commons.wikimedia.org, provided by Durova

Wikipedia Weekly: Wikipedia Weekly 61: Corpus Linguistics

2008-08-21T05:03:55+00:00

Recorded before the closing ceremony of Wikimania '08, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed talks to Liam Wyatt about his linguistic analysis work of en-Wikipedia. By analysing the frequency of "hedger" and "booster" words in both articles and in talk pages he compares our writing quality favourably to a PhD level.

Erik Moeller: The Power of Free Content

2008-08-21T01:02:01+00:00

David Shankbone, who has contributed countless photos to Wikimedia Commons (including many very hard to obtain shots of celebrities), has written a very interesting blog post about how his photos get used throughout the universe of Wikimedia languages and projects: The global reach of just one photo. If you want to see where a photo you’ve uploaded is used, you can use the CheckUsage tool. This kind of global usage is a true testament to what’s possible when content is shared with few copyright restrictions.

Blog on Wiki Patterns: Interview with me on the Front Page of Campus Technology

2008-08-20T22:37:58+00:00

Linda Briggs interviewed me last week for an article on wiki uses in higher ed, and today it’s on the front page of the Campus Technology web site.

Shankblog: The Wikipedia tally on whether to un-ban Greg Kohs

2008-08-20T22:00:45+00:00

Below I have tallied the lengthy debate and dialogue to show how consensus is forming on whether to lift the ban of Greg Kohs of MyWikiBiz, which I wrote about earlier. The public hearing continues. If anyone feels their opinion is misrepresented, let me know and I will change it. I will also update this list periodically (feel free to drop me an e-mail to remind me).

In other news, Neıl ☄ opened a deletion review to have the Wikipedia article on MyWikiBiz.com restored. MWB is the business that initiated the ban that Kohs now wants lifted.

Prodego ^talkdeclines Kohs's request to be unblocked.

They would like Kohs ban lifted immediately with restrictions:

-Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No Indexer (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
RMHED (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Rodhull andemu 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*Dan T.* (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Kelly ^hi! 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Giggy 23:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
George The Dragon (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Everyking (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Viridae ^Talk 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Peter Damian (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Neıl ☄ 10:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Minkythecat (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
-MPerel 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They want to keep the ban for the immediate future:

HalfShadow 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Blueboy 96 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Guy (Help!) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keeper ǀ 76 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
how do you turn this on 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
MCB (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
MONGO 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
RxS (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC
Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
east718 // talk // email // 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
bibliomaniac 1 5 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Wizardman 03:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 13:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
howcheng {chat} 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
naerii 12:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
--Conti|✉ 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Avruch ^T 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Friday (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Bedivere (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Satori Son 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Martinp (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Duk 01:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Alison ^❤ 01:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Athaenara ✉ 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On the fence or of an unclear opinion:

Relata refero (disp.) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Coren ^(talk) 02:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Random832 (contribs) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon: Wikipedia: unlimited growth?

2008-08-20T21:19:03+00:00

A recent article in the Wikipedia Signpost newsletter describes a study that found that Wikipedia may be capable of “unlimited growth.” What the heck does that mean? I can’t really say I know, but the study compares the number of new “red links” (that is, links to articles that don’t exist yet) to the number [...]

Jim Brown: Remembering to Listen

2008-08-20T21:00:35+00:00

Sometimes I forget to listen. This happens in various situations: conversations with friends (and girlfriend), conversations with relatives, conversations with colleagues. I forget to listen. I get wrapped up in what I want to say.

This flaw sometimes finds its way into my writing. I also sometimes forget to listen when it comes to research. I'm reading Latour's Reassembling the Social, and while I won't be applying his Actor-Network Theory in any direct way (at least not in my dissertation...I can see myself considering ANT for a future project) the book has already reminded me that the best research happens when we just listen. That listening needs to happen regardless of how messy things get. Don't take my word for it, listen to Latour:

read more

Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight): Wikitoddler Flowers Alphabet

Whiteknight — 2008-08-20T18:11:09+00:00

[[Wikijunior:Animal Alphabet]] is one of our more successful and popular* Wikijunior titles, aimed squarely at young pre-readers who need books with more pictures then words. It's a beautiful title, and if you have toddlers at home, it could make for a great interactive read.

Another similar project in the same vein is [[Wikitoddler Flowers Alphabet]], which uses pretty pictures of flowers to teach the alphabet, instead of pretty pictures of animals. As quick-to-get-distracted kids will tell you, a little variety is always nice. This book stub was created by our own [[User:SB Johnny]], and has seen a few helpful edits tonight from Wikibooks regular [[User:Panic2k4]]. More hands are always appreciated, especially hands who are familiar with the huge image library at Commons.

If you want a fun activity to do with the kids, or just like writing some things that are less serious then your average encyclopedia, come on down to Wikijunior and take a look at our titles for kids.

* This book was so popular at one point that a visitor commented that Wikijunior was little more then a "collaborative zoobooks". There are a lot more WJ books available, but most of them weren't as visible.

Blog on Wiki Patterns: Creating Mozart: Enterprise Wikis at Chevron Richmond

2008-08-20T15:40:38+00:00

This is from guest author Camille Goksever. She is an amenable risk taker and an entrepreneur at heart. She has run the gamet from working for Fortune 500 companies to Start-Ups, and from owning her own restaurant in the San Francisco Bay Area to a wine exporting business in Istanbul, Turkey. Wikis were a central focus in her businesses, and continue to be in her second life as an independent Wiki consultant for Chevron. With seven more lives to go, she’s anxious to ingrain social computing as a better way of doing business.

Camille will be speaking about her work at Chevron at the WikiFest Symposium, part of WikiSym 2008 in September.

When Chevron’s Richmond Refinery decided to implement a wiki for their Design Engineering team I was giddy. Not only because I was going to be the lucky one to undertake this endeavor, but because I knew that the refinery had no idea what they were getting into (bring on the culture shock!). I had used wikis in my previous businesses, so I knew how wikidly powerful this technology was. People at the refinery had never heard of, nor seen, a wiki. (Well, other than Wikipedia, but does that really count?) From the get go, I knew this would be a unique experience for all involved.

I’ve managed software deployment projects, but never a wiki, so I had plenty of homework to do. I read, and read, and read some more. Many paths led me to Stewart Mader. Wikipatterns, the book and the website, became an indispensable resource. I attended talks and seminars about wikis. I spoke with people I knew at other big companies about their wikis. I became wikified for the enterprise.

Pulling the first core team members together was relatively easy. I sent a select few people a meeting invite entitled, “Wanna do a Wiki?”, and they came beating down my cube wall. Well…okay, not exactly. It was more like the big boss said, “You’re lucky. You’ve been selected to participate in a special project…so show up for this meeting.” The response was, “Great! Yay! I can’t wait.” <groan>

Needless to say, getting going was slow. People weren’t engaged. For some it was their workload that inhibited them, and for others, quite honestly, I think it was their age. I’m sure most of you know…age does things to you. In addition to losing flexibility in your joints, you lose flexibility in your ways.

Of the thirteen team members, only six to eight of them were pulling the wiki weight. The early meetings dealt with brainstorming engaging topics, such as refinery engineering guidelines. We would then organize those topics into a logical hierarchy. Security was a hot button. If we wanted to “lock” pages, could we do it? The idea of anyone editing a website at anytime was a jarring concept for some on the team. The young guns argued for complete openness – or no locking of pages. The more senior refinery folk liked the command and control way – or “lock ‘em up”. I’m a young gun (so I like to think), thus the latter was a wiki anti-pattern to me. “It’s just not the wiki way,” became my mantra about command and control.

Once we had our topics nicely organized, the genuine building of the wiki began. (Or what Stewart affectionately likes to refer to as: The Barn Raising Sessions.) To be completely honest, the first two sessions I felt like I was hauling a pack of elephants through the desert using a tricycle. People would slowly show up to the meeting, then slowly log onto the computer, then slowly pull up the wiki…then <pause>. Then they would chit chat with someone for awhile. Then they would slowly go to their area of expertise, then <pause>. Then….*peck*…<pause>….*peck* *peck*….<longer pause>….*peck*…until…a…sentence…was….finally……complete. Then they would strike up another conversation. And on it went like this.

The elephants, I found, tended to be the more senior folk and were weary of new tools. Many of them weren’t shy about letting me know this ‘wiki thing’ is likely to end up in the tool graveyard, where many new and trendy technical solutions ended up over the years. “How is this wiki thing any different?”, one fellow asked. I was caught off guard. “Well”, I said, “those other tools didn’t allow you to freely express yourself to share the valuable knowledge you carry around in your head.” I’m assuming that sold him, because he added a decent section on Drafting Procedures during that session.

I don’t think all the elephants suffered from new-tool-phobia. A decent percentage of them suffered from work overload, and the wiki was yet another task in their crazy day. I felt bad, so I volunteered my services to wikify any documents they felt were important to share.

Granted not everyone was an elephant. We did have a few Mozarts - team members who had full compositions in their head note-perfect. When they sat down to type…it was music to my ears. They were fast and furious. I was proud of them. And oddly enough, collaboration was more natural for the Mozart type. They sought input and welcomed edits. They inherently understood that it was the wisdom of the crowd that would turn their original scores into masterpieces. Experiencing this first-hand made me realize the profound positive impact wikis can have on organizations, especially those mired with tradition, such as Chevron.

But my challenge was…how do I train elephants to play like Mozart?

To be continued…

Shankblog: Bebe Buell is Overexposed

2008-08-20T14:26:15+00:00

Bleach Portrait of Bebe Buell, Tribeca Film Festival, April 2008

This is the second in a series of bleach portraits I call "Overexposed."

Bleach portraits happen almost exclusively at major events with a red carpet, and they are often discarded by photographers as unusuable. At large film festivals, premieres and awards shows there are sometimes hundreds of photographers. When a celebrity poses, there are moments when so many flashbulbs are popping at once that the subject becomes completely bleached out.

I never deleted mine because I found powerful symbology in multiple metaphors that the images represent.

It is not a setting on the camera; it is not Photoshop (at all); it is just capturing a moment where there is blinding light produced from multiple flashes. If you click on the photo above, you will see the portrait produced for her Wikipedia article that was taken just moments after this one, with all the same camera settings.

Buell, photographed at the premiere of Squeezebox!, has led an interesting life. She is the mother of Liv Tyler, and Cameron Crowe said he partly based the character "Penny Lane" in Almost Famous on her. She was a model and singer, but what made her name was the long list of major rock stars she has dated.* Among them, Rod Stewart, Elvis Costello, Todd Rundgren, Iggy Pop, David Bowie, Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, and Steven Tyler (father to Liv). She was also involved with the late Stiv Bators and actor Jack Nicholson.

Did you know she told her daughter Liv for years that her then-stepfather, Todd Rundgren, was her real father? Liv figured out the truth for herself when she saw how much she resembled Steve Tyler and her half-sister Mia. And did you know she claims Coyote Shivers abused her? She is not the only one.

She is married to musician Jim Wallerstein of Das Damen and Vacationland

Click on the bleach portrait above to see her Wikipedia portrait.

Overexposed: Bleach Portraits
(click above for a complete list)

Steve Martin

*All information regarding Buell's past comes from her Wikipedia article; should it be inaccurate, feel free to let me know and I will see if there is something I can do to fix it.

Anthony: I'm glad I'm not banned

Anthony — 2008-08-20T12:02:00+00:00

A few years ago on Wikipedia, when the witchhunters came to get me, I made a decision to leave voluntarily. The arbitration committee, which was in de facto control of the site, proved itself incapable of maintaining a sane and productive environment for me to work in.

When I came back I essentially adopted the Wikipedia Dissenter's Credo. I edit occassionally when the mood strikes me, but I try not to waste too much time contributing my efforts to a site that I know will bastardise them. I've since read an interesting quote by Ayn Rand: "In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins." I'm not sure if this principle holds true or not - and in fact I haven't yet gotten a chance to read the book that the quote is from, but it certainly would explain my experience with Wikipedia.

Anyway, I write this little nostalgic story because over at Wikipedia they're discussing whether or not to unban Gregory Kohs. One person is arguing against Kohs' reinstatment because Kohs once called him a "witless boob". I don't even think this incident occured on Wikipedia, but maybe it did. Some other common arguments are that he once tried to make money off Wikipedia, that he has pointed out the illegal activities of the WMF, that he participates on Wikipedia Review, that he ran for the board, that he engages in sarcastic criticism of other Wikipedians, and that he has a negative attitude. It made me realize how glad I am that I'm not banned, because if I was, I'm sure I'd have no chance of ever being reinstated.

Durova: Able was eh ere he saw Elba

Durova — 2008-08-20T10:12:48+00:00

It can be a good thing to focus on content. This morning I needed a smile and checked my watchlist to discover that a featured picture candidate had just gotten promoted. My user talk will probably get a notice about it pretty soon. Not the greatest artwork, really, but it's a restoration of an original 1814 hand-tinted etching and the subject is Napoleon. It's a piece of trolling: a British

Sabine Cretella: Neapolitan and Itzgründisch ... what a difference ...

Sabine Emmy Eller — 2008-08-20T07:38:00+00:00

I am known for my working with Neapolitan, writing articles, even newspaper articles, translating stories ... something I would have never expected when I came to the region where I live approximately 20 years ago (actually in April 1988). I then was somewhat forced to learn to talk in Neapolitan, because I lived up in the mountains in a very, very small place – so small that there was not even a shop and the next bus station was quite some walk. I learnt that language and at a certain point it happened to me that I got translations from "Italian to German" where the text turned out to be Neapolitan (Pulcinella and various songs and theatre plays). From that moment on Neapolitan became part of my job and I found it fun that I was one of the very few to be able to translate from Neapolitan to German being a German mother tongue. During the last four years I started to write, from articles about Maiori, music groups to actual news like Batman who was on holiday in Ravello and about the Italian parliament complaining that they could not get any ice cream after lunch to news about computer games which were localised into less resourced languages. Neapolitan is a language, it has no real standard, because there is no law that defines it, but there is somewhat a standard with some variations and once you know that, in most part of Southern Italy you will be able to write what you say using exactly these words.

Growing up (no, I am still not grown up even if I should be :-) several quite strong changes happened to my life and I started to become interested in my own language around the beginning of this year, just having had some look at it. I found a writer in Sonneberg, Karl-Heinz Großman who writes Itzgründisch, the variation of Sonneberg and when I read it, it is very familiar to me, because my grandparents were from Sonneberg, so that is what I heard from then when I was at home. After some time I found other texts written by people from Coburg and surroundings and Neustadt, one text from Rodach. All of them, except Neustadt which has stronger vowel differences, are familiar and all of them are written in a different spelling ... uhmmmmm ...

When I was a little girl I was not allowed to speak my mother tongue and my grandparents and parents only spoke German with me, but among themselves they spoke their language. This means that Itzgründisch is well present in my head, but I am not able to express me in that language, that is that door is still closed. It is starting to open a bit, but still not enough, I feel.

In June I was in Bamberg and came back home with quite some literature in regional languages – from Itzgründisch (Coburg) to the Mainfränkisch of Bamberg to some Bavarian. So I started to read and create terminology lists ... and hell ... I found that the same words are written in a different way by writes which are even of the same town.

That made me come into mind my first talk with Karl-Heinz Grossman, who then told me that the writers in their association decided to write everybody as he/she likes, just like they perceive the language. No spelling rules. Well the same seems to be true for the region around Coburg.

Now: how can one learn to write if there is no real standard? My father sent me a dictionary which includes terminology from Rodach – and yes, you imagine correctly ... comparing it with the books I bought in Bamberg: it is different again.

I asked Anneliese Hübner, one of the writers I seem to read easily, because it is a kind of the language that is near to what I heard when I was a little girl. She told me about a dictionary by Eduard Hermann which strictly deals with the version of Coburg. I ordered it through a shop which sells old books and it should arrive during the next days. But anyway ... just these are so many variations ...

The next thought of mine was: hell, I need some means to learn the language and something that can correct my grammar and spelling, and so I contacted Kevin Scannell, passed him all the texts I have in an electronic format and gave him some links. After some days he sent me his files with word lists which now need cleaning. All these texts refer to the centres of Itzgründisch only, so no border regions, no small villages ... only the bigger ones. When I received these files it was like Christmas and birthday in one for me ... I could start to work on my own language and get things done and hopefully help to have the whole culture of that region survive. I mean: language is only part of the culture and culture cannot be kept alive without language.

During the last days I was also working each day a bit on my own word list, extracting terminology from the books I bought in Bamberg ... then I opened the file and then ... there was one word "bloß" it had 4 variations

blos
bloß
blouß
bluoß

I looked at my list and there I had further variations:

bluuß
blueß
bluueß

Uhmmmmm 7 ... that was a real shock, I mean 7 variations out of 4 places which are all along a line of 40 kms. (btw. this is just one example of many)

Then I went and looked at the texts ... when I see all these variations in their position in the sentence, I don't note the difference, but I note it when I have that list there ... so why don't they try to use one way of writing one word at least in that restricted area so that at least one who wants to learn the language can REALLY learn how to read and maybe write?

Even if young people wanted to create for example some fun theatre play for the party you normally have around Christmas or at the end of the school year, how can they ever try to write a text, even just a few lines?

I spoke to some linguists ... the funny situation with Itzgründisch is that it seems nobody has studied the whole region of it "as one", because after World War II it was split – one part went to East Germany and one to West Germany. I remember one remark by Karl-Heinz Großmann, who, after the opening of East Germany in 1989 went to Neustadt with his pupils which were really astonished to find that people in that city in West Germany talked "like them". So the part speaking Itzgründisch in Turinga was studied in Turinga and the part speaking Itzgründisch in Bavaria was studied in Bavaria ... now you have different studies, but nobody is connecting them (as it seems, well I will go ahead searching, maybe someone did it or is doing it right now). Why do political borders have to influence on a language? In such a strong way? I mean: all want to maintain the culture, the beauty of the region, the way to do things like once upon a time: well that is ONLY possible when you also care about the language.

When you talk to authors (various) some work with universities, others completely refuse them, each one writes like he/she finds best ... but if they want to maintain their culture and by writing in their language, they show me that they want to do exactly that, why don't they put all misunderstandings apart, sit at a table and start to find a way on how to unify the way of writing? That is standardise it as much as possible? Not all will be possible, some specific expressions are of some very specific places, but 95% of what is written could be standardised.

You believe not? Well whatever language you speak: look at it and the various places where people speak it. Have them read the same text and then compare: the big languages do that all the time.

Now the next question is: but how to do it without giving too much weight to one variation, well we have examples about that: one of it is Occitan – they use an old way of writing which is pronounced in each part of the region a bit different. But now anyone, even a foreigner, can learn that language, can learn how to read it and the culture which is connected to it can survive. Piedmontese underwent a similar process in the 1920s already: today it is alive and people use it every day. Even I am able to learn it (yes, some sentences I can write).

Now when I compare this to my culture and mother tongue it makes me really sad. The more you cut a language down in pieces the easier you can delete it from the landscape of cultures and languages ... and that is happening with Itzgründisch.

When I started to work with Neapolitan and there were all those stupid political fights among people from the actual regions of the South of Italy if they wanted to belong to Neapolitan or not (sic) I thought I was standing in front of some of the highest mountains of the Alps and I knew that in one or the other way I could get up there.

But this ... Itzgründisch ... takes me to a very different place ... in the deepest valley, just before you can start to go up the Kilimanjaro ... and if I look at myself I understand in so many ways that MANY things have to change to make it possible to reach the top.

Like I so often say: it is only a matter of time to reach things if you really want ... and this here will take loads of time and patience.

If you are from the region where Itzgründisch is spoken, if you love your culture and want to maintain it for the future, please consider very much every pace you make ... and then choose the one that goes into the right direction: doing things together, finding ways together ... not everybody as he/she wishes ...

If you are a linguist and you are interested in this very particular language which has been divided by a war and still remained the same, even if people could not talk to each other, then you can help by doing the "inventory" from where we all together can help to get it done.

I am really sad about this situation ... no, more than sad, but as long as there are people left who write and speak the language, as long as the recipes and the food remains the same, as long as you want the beauty of the landscape to survive: there is a chance ... because having all that is closely connected to "language".

Let me close with a quote by David Crystal, Florence Devouard used in her speech for our conference in Cherasco:

"The world is a mosaic of visions and each vision is encapsulated by a language. Every time a language is lost one vision of the world disappears."

p.s I will translate this into Itzgründisch just in the way I perceive my language, Itzgründisch ... just to show that it will be different again and anyway: who cares, right? It's just another version ... it will take some time ...

Pictures of the Day: Pictures of the Day - August 20

2008-08-20T06:03:02+00:00

commons.wikimedia.org:

Narzisse.jpg from commons.wikimedia.org, provided by Know Nothing

de.wikipedia.org:

Alfeld Alte Lateinschule 1-2005.jpg from commons.wikimedia.org, provided by Heidas

en.wikipedia.org:

Red-eyed Tree Frog - Litoria chloris edit1.jpg from commons.wikimedia.org, provided by Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Shankblog: Should Wikipedia unban Gregory Kohs?

2008-08-20T01:58:13+00:00

Gregory Kohs was banned from Wikipedia years ago for starting a business to make money writing articles. Since his initial ban in 2006, Kohs has spent years following, critiquing and trying to be noticed by the editors and admins of Wikipedia (including challenging the Wikimedia Foundation's status as a charity) He then ran for the Foundation's Board of Trustees. His campaign as a "Cassandra", righteously fighting the perceived wrongs of an, in his view, organization corrupt to its core; and the "future battles" he gravely predicted; brought him in last place in a field of 15 candidates.

Now he wants to be let back in as an editor and there is a public hearing of sorts to lift the ban.

So far opinion is split, with people who frequent the criticism site Wikipedia Review forming the bulk of the vote to end the ban. Kohs frequently posts criticism of Wikipedia and of its editors on WR.

Below are the main arguments both for and against the ban, by the people who made them. [Full disclosure: I wrote about Greg Kohs and his feud with Lise Broer (Durova) in local literary magazine The Brooklyn Rail, and I voted to continue the ban].

Not to Ban

Support unblock. His original "offense" was pursuing a cash-for-articles scheme that he's long since abandoned; his next "offense" was wanting Durova to own up to what he felt was a misstatement about his talking to a reporter. These are all ancient history now. Since then, he's been a gadfly for Wikipedia, but is that necessarily a bad thing? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ufff - we've had banned editors (and even WR regulars - *gasp*) who not only did okay when unblocked, but excelled here on WP. I've also blocked enough MWB socks myself to know what he's like & mostly, his target seemed to be Jimmy. Now that Jimmy has given a sort of tacit endorsement to his unblocking, I don't see why not, however I'd like a very firm undertaking from MWB that he keep well away from Durova. I'm not 100% au fait with what happened there, but I know that there were issues and we as a community need to respect that and consider our contributors already here. As for monitoring the guy, somehow I suspect he'll be watched rather closely indeed by various folks. He knows this already, and I'm sure he's taken that into account. As Sam Korn points out, remuneration and NPOV can co-exist, ergo I suggest a tentative Conditional unblock - Alison ^❤ 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear heavens, is this necessary? However useful MWB might have been able to be as a contributor, I would think he's too embittered now about this project to participate fully. Whatever. Of course, the community ban should end if he agrees that he will not attempt to link his personal website, that he will not institute editing-for-money schemes without community approval, that he will not operate bad hand accounts, and that he steers clear of inappropriate on-site personal remarks. If he violates any of those, I'd suppose that he could be reblocked with a note at AN pretty easily. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To Ban

One side of me says unban: his sockpuppets make good article edits, but he normally screws up by revealing the sock is him. I don't see why we should ban people who contribute well to articles. However, the other side of me looks at the reason for his banning, his antics on Wikipedia Review, his rather unusual candidacy for the board election, and that shows me that, perhaps, this person really isn't suited to this site. His negative attitude of Wikipedia makes me wonder why he'd even want to edit here. He should stick to criticizing it. I would maybe reconsider if he just stuck out the ban a bit. how do you turn this on 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why not give the guy a second chance? All he did was use Wikipedia to make money, spam his website, sockpuppet, evade blocks and bans (ongoign, I believe, with recent incidents), try to get the Wikimedia Foundation's charitable status rescinded, attack numerous people offsite and mount a years-long campaign of hate. What's not to forgive? Guy (Help!) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand why he was even allowed back as many times as he was. From what I understand, this guy was one of the very reasons promotional usernames aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Even without his massive socking, the fact that his very approach to Wikipedia is a quantum leap from what Wikipedia is should be enough to keep him blocked. Blueboy 96 20:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Shankblog: Liberals are suffering, stewing in hell this week

2008-08-19T23:10:28+00:00

I came home tonight and nestled up to my Hulu to watch last night's Daily Show and Colbert Report. I usually watch Daily Show first. I clicked the first one it started to play, and felt familiar. Then he started to do his news segment, and by the time the "3 a.m. in the morning" segment came up, I realized he's off this week. So is Colbert.

And to top it off, it is NPR fund raising week. Liberals are really feeling the pain this week. No wonder their Wikipedia articles are mostly silent....

Blog on Wiki Patterns: What People are Saying About the Consultancy Launch

2008-08-19T23:08:26+00:00

In the week since I announced the launch of consultancy services, the response from around the web has been phenomenal. Here’s what people are saying:

Luis Suarez - “Grow Your Wiki” Grows into Specialist Consultancy:

In case you don’t know much about Stewart, which I doubt, since he is a very prolific blogger, incredibly engaging speaker, writer of one of the most essential books on wikis and corporate wiki adoption: Wikipatterns, active twitterer, too (On top of various other social networking sites!), I can honestly say that you are missing out on one of the smartest talents within the Enterprise 2.0 space we have nowadays.

Thomas Vander Wal - Stewart Mader is Now Solo and One to Watch and Hire:

Stewart wrote the best book on understanding wikis and adoption, Wikipatterns and is my personal favorite speaker on the subject of wikis. Others may have more broadly known names, but can not come close to touching his breadth nor depth of knowledge on the subject. His understandings of wikis and their intersection with other forms and types of social tools is unsurpassed.

Martin Menu - 3, 2, 1… Wikignition!:

If Stewart leaves evangelization to ROI, it could means the market is now strong enough to feed consultancy companies and not only software and technical companies. That is really a good news for wiki users that will be able to be helped and advised by strong professionals, neutral from a software or a platform.

Jon Mell - New wiki consultancy:

I’d particularly recommend his concept of BarnRaising workshops - check out his services for more details. BarnRaising workshops solve the problem of having an empty wiki when you first launch, which no-one will use. The wiki is actually built during the BarnRaising workshop so that when people go back to their desks, they have something of value they can use together.

Sherif Mansour - Wiki adoption - growth to the next level:

This is great news for the Enterprise Web 2.0 community and organisations around the world looking to increase collaboration and knowledge sharing between their employees.

John Tropea - Grow Your Wiki Consultancy Services:

There are lots of enterprise 2.0 type consultancies, but a non-vendor consulting specifically about wikis must be a first…Congratulations to Stewart for being a pioneer in his field, and best wishes for spreading the word.

Other mentions from around the web:

Scott Abel - Wiki Master Stewart Mader Goes Solo With Grow Your Wiki
Doug Cornelius - Stewart Mader Launches a New Venture
Rachel Happe - (on Twitter) @slmader is starting his own Wiki consulting business
Stephen Collins - Stewart Mader goes indie
Dennis McDonald - Daily Notes for August 11, 2008: Stewart Mader is announcing formation of his own full time wiki consultancy. Congratulations, Stewart!

A big, heartfelt THANK YOU! to everyone who has commented on the launch and my work with wikis.

Are you implementing a wiki in your organization? Get a subscription to my services: You’ll get excellent guidance, visibility as a leader in embracing new tools, and you’ll be helping to support the insight and analysis I provide on Grow Your Wiki.

Shankblog: On Paul Newman and public dying

2008-08-19T21:45:49+00:00

Revered actor Paul Newman appeared haggard in public recently. According to his friend A.E. Hotchner, co-founder of Newman's Own, he has cancer. I went to his Wikipedia article and reflected on his varied career, and how the page's editors treated his failing health.

Death is a difficult and challenging thing to write about on Wikipedia, especially in today's media saturation. How far should Wikipedia go in reporting details of a person's declining health? Should it just be a fact once it happens, or is it a fact as it is happening?

All of these questions are made more difficult by a familiar routine: the Celebrity Death Cycle. This is how it goes:

1. The celebrity, the studios, the media, the publicists, the agents and the rest of the Hollywood machinery tirelessly work to promote, and create public fascination with, the celebrity as they try to get their career moving.

2. Years and years of things such as branding products with their name, selling their lifestyle, selling their sex appeal, selling their personalty and selling their talent ensue.

3. As they get older, people reflect upon their career, television portrayals ensue, "Remember this person" specials air about their lives.

4. Like every other human alive, this person eventually is taken ill, becomes disabled or has other things go wrong with them as they mature.

5. Suddenly, everyone is supposed to drop their interest in the person and give them some privacy.

This cycle is so played out in the media that it is annoying. Unless a person immediately succumbs to death with no warning, like Bernie Mac, the entire public is supposed to forget that they are conditioned to be interested in this person and their life. Who they are dating, what they like to eat, what they like to wear, where they vacation, how they divorce and all the other topics that feed the celebrity media grist mill.

Death is a part of life; it's one of the fundamentals. When cultural touchstones are felled by disability, death, disease or drugs there is naturally widespread public interest. It's a moment not just in that persons' life, but in everyone's.

In fifty years the name could be Justin Timberlake instead of Paul Newman. For the people who see Timberlake now in all his youthful, beautiful and talented glory, that day they learn an 80-something Timberlake might be dying will carry special significance.

So will Madonna's. So will Michael Jackson's.

Instead, we are treated to sermonizing pundits decrying the lack of privacy for individuals who long ago made the decision to give up their privacy. Suddenly, the lifetime of cultivated interest in their lives is replaced by people wagging their finger in disgust. The same people who lap up details about their sex and dating lives with insatiable hunger (think Britney Spears) and by the media that feeds it. Amusingly, when a column like this is written, it gives you all the details people want and rehashes the entire saga (like Tom Dorsey's below).

Instead, let's face reality: When you invite massive public interest in you, expect the public to be interested through every cycle of your life. I'm sure Dana Plato would have liked some privacy to deal with the mental illness that killed her; Lindsay Lohan, Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty would enjoy some privacy to handle their drug abuse; Alec Baldwin would enjoy some privacy handling his child custody.

Nobody calls for that, though. It's only when the problem is seemingly honorable we are all supposed to shut up and have some manners:

"This isn't a new story. A couple weeks ago the media, especially the TV tabloid and entertainment magazines, along with that great grist mill called the Internet, pounced on Newman like ravenous tigers. [....] Another picture of a haggard-looking Newman at a charity event was plastered on the Web by Martha Stewart, apparently another friend. Some friends Newman has , but it looks like he posed for it, so what are you going to do?" Tom Dorsey, Louisville Courier-Journal.

Not only do we get a column from Dorsey telling us what is news, we even get him second-guessing Newman's friend and Newman himself as he lambastes the media for telling all the details that...he just told us. Dorsey comes off looking like a self-righteous hypocrite.

I say we give Paul Newman a break. He has lived a wonderful life, giving so much to others through his Newman's Own Foundation. He deserves privacy, just like we all do. Lisa Fayed, About.com

Lisa should give us a break. People simply want to know what is happening with someone they admire and feel they know. Someone who defined an era for them. To respond, "You'll find out when he's dead" is a callous thing to say to a public who have been conditioned to care about Newman. I think Paul Newman and his family are more preoccupied with reflecting on far greater things than what the blogs are saying about what a family friend said about his condition.

"If Newman doesn’t want to tell us about his cancer (if he has cancer), why should he? As he has said so often about his private life, “It’s nobody’s business." Patricia Bosworth, Vanity Fair.

That statement is correct. If he does not want to tell us, it is not our business. My issue is with the people in the media who take us to task for even wondering, "How is he doing?"

"How is he doing?" It is with that question in mind that Wikipedia's editors have handled his health problem, and they have done a good job (as always).

User:vishwin60: Commons suffrage poll

vishwin — 2008-08-19T22:10:30+00:00

Here we go again, for the third time. There are issues about other Wikimedia communities coming to Commons to skew the politics there. Unlike Meta, where there are notes on much of the elections that mention activity on other projects, Commons is a content-producing community that also has some users calling it their home project; myself included. A considerable amount of the greater Wikimedia community do not seem to understand that fact, much like the fact that my community in real life does not understand that native East Asian people with names in their native language do not have middle names (case in point: I don't have a middle name).

On to this suffrage poll. From the looks of the last two polls, no consensuses were reached due to the complex nature. A careful look at this poll does not see any consensuses forming at the last two options; the first option (edits in the past month) seems to be ruled out of the picture, at least for now. Support for edits in the past year note the ideal amount of edits needed to stay active, but the opposition, mainly in the 150 edits/year sub-option, say the bar may be a bit high. Looking at the no change option, backers mention that the system is not broken and that the other options on the poll can be gamed; the opposition say that no change is not good.

Regarding my opinion (if anyone asks): I don't have one. This situation is much too complex for me to express in seven votes, and it's not like I will influence anything. I can live with whatever comes out of this poll.

Final thought: As I said above, this situation is very complex. So complex that it cannot and will not take a few polls and discussions to solve the situation; it needs lots of input in many different ways: not just in collecting, but how it is collected. It really doesn't look like the community who would like this situation solved is trying hard enough to work out a solution.

Aaron Swartz: The Predator State: A Summary

2008-08-19T20:17:06+00:00

James K. Galbraith's The Predator State is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the economics of our era. Galbraith sets himself the task, not only of exposing the discredited economic orthodoxies of our generation, but also documenting the economy as it really exists, and setting an agenda for the future. It is a book that desperately need to be listened to. And, even better than all that, it's a fun read. Go out and buy it immediately.

That said, here is a brief, abbreviated summary of the book, to better pull out its themes and spread its message. It is of necessity less clear and less well-argued than the book itself, which I you should actually read if you want to argue, but it should give the gist of things.

1: The Reaganites swept into power on the arguments of economic conservatives: lower taxes, tight money, and an assault on all opponents of market forces (government, regulation, unions). Their views were tried and failed completely. They have no remaining defenders in academia and only slogans and cronies outside of it. There is no longer any vision on the right; the left should leave its defensive crouch and start proposing something new.

2: Friedman and friends said that markets would lead to democracy -- that "economic freedom" begets political freedom. But economic freedom isn't what it sounds like; it's not freedom from economic want but instead, as Friedman put it, "the freedom to choose" or, in other words, "the freedom to shop". But control over production is as unfree as in the Soviet Union, with advertising for propaganda, R&D for planning, and Wall Street analysts for government inspectors. "Lines form, under capitalism, every day."

3: Supply-siders argued that a) saving is a public good because it leads to investment, b) America does not save enough compared to other countries, c) saving would be unleashed by lowering taxes on it, d) the resulting investment would spur an economic boom. Every piece of this is wrong: a) in an efficient market, all the benefits from investment are captured by the investor; thus investment cannot be a public good unless markets are inefficient, in which case the government should step in more, b) the correct amount of saving is a policy decision, there's no reason to believe other countries have it right (the Soviet Union had a 40% level of saving right up to its collapse), c) rich people save most of their money anyway (it's impossible to consume that much) and changes in interest rates dwarf changes in tax rates; furthermore, real investment is encouraged by high personal taxes, since this forces people to keep their money in corporations, d) personal saving is less than 1% of GDP; almost all investment comes from corporations or overseas.

4: Milton Friedman claimed that high inflation (it was 10% in the 1970s) was just the result of printing too much money. Reagan's Fed adopted this belief, sending the US and many foreign countries into deep recession. Eventually, the policy was completely abandoned and high inflation has not been seen since. Serious inflation isn't caused by printing money, but by wage-price spirals -- the price of oil shot up, causing rising prices to cover oil costs, causing workers to demand higher wages to pay those prices, causing prices to rise even higher, and so on. Today, most prices are set by overseas manufacturers and labor unions are so weak that workers can't demand wage increases. Inflation is dead.

5: Democrats (and some Republicans) repeatedly insist that we need to balance the budget or face fiscal collapse. But the budget is ruled by a simple equation: the total amount the government owes + the total amount the public owes = the total amount we owe to foreign countries. This is simple logic: whatever is not owed within the country must be owed to another country. But the international economy depends on other countries keeping large reserves of dollars (see 14), meaning our trade deficit must be high. As long as this is so, we must either have the government run large deficits or ask people to do so. The budget deficit was closed in the late 1990s because citizens picked up the slack with high credit card spending and home equity loans, inevitably leading to a slump. Balancing the budget is for suckers; Democrats should spend the money on public goods instead, promoting economic growth and thus raising tax revenue.

6: The argument for free trade comes from Ricardo's "comparative advantage" -- a clever textbook exercise, but irrelevant to the real world since it assumes constant costs. In reality, either you produce manufactured goods, in which your costs go down as you make more, or you sell off commodities, in which case your costs go up as you make more. With the former, it takes time for local industry to build up the advantage (requiring protectionism). With the latter, you end up like Mongolia, which opened up its animal husbandry market, swelling herd sizes, turning grass into permanent desert, and killing off the entire market. With no other exports, such a country is in big trouble. Ricardo was wrong: diversification, not specialization, is the way to develop -- and how every successful country has. Unfortunately, we've forced this broken system on most of the world. (China has escaped, letting state-supported banks fund money-losing new companies until they grow large enough to succeed as exporters. In the mean time, they dump their products on local Chinese, allowing them to have a very high standard of living at very low wages.)

7: There is no trade-off between equality and efficiency. Instead, equality leads to efficiency. Denmark is one of the most equal countries in Europe, and as a result one of the wealthiest. The rest are on a continuum down to unequal and inefficient. Full employment and high wages require companies to make the most of the employees they have, increasing efficiency. Raising the minimum wage doesn't raise unemployment, it lowers it -- unemployment and inequality have risen and fallen together since 1920. Higher wages lead to more jobtaking and less quitting. The remaining increase in inequality was caused by stock market giveaways to dot-commers and Bush giveaways to government contractors -- which is why it was limited to Silicon Valley and the Potomac, respectively.

8: The US is not a free market. Of GDP, 17% is health care (where experts, not consumers decide how to spend), 16% is housing (subsidized by quasi-public mortgage firms and tax deductions), 15% is federal welfare, 14% is local welfare, 4.5% is military spending, 3% is higher education (paid for mostly by government or conspicuous philanthropy¹ and consumed for status and not value). Together, 70% of US GDP is planned; it's just that our facade of a free market makes us less efficient at planning than other countries (especially in health care).

9: In the 1970s, American industry (particularly steel and cars) was being challenged and weakened by Japan. Reagan's assault on inflation (see 4) dealt them a death blow, sending their foreign and domestic markets into deep recession, driving up the value of the dollar (making their exports more expensive than their competitors'), and raising interest rates. In the 1980s the technical staff left for Silicon Valley, and 1990s financial fraud killed off what remained. When new startup founders paid themselves exorbitant salaries from VC money other CEOs rushed to keep up, making them all wealthy enough to become a separate class. They used their new power to prey on the corporations that they ran.²

10: Previously, regulation kept the predators in check -- unions, NGOs, and progressive businesses pushed government standards to kill regressive competitors. But newly-wealthy predator CEOs had the Republicans take over and gut regulation. The result is the Predator State, where every new law is a corporate giveaway. Prescription drug benefits for Big Pharma; NCLB to defund and deskill schools (building support for vouchers); and Social Security reform to give workers' paychecks to Wall Street. (Democrats have so far prevented the latter, but corporate-funded think tanks now aim to take them down from inside.) The programs allow further predation; privatizing college loans has led loan companies to bribe student loan officers. It's not that Republican government fails at tasks like stopping Katrina; it's that such tasks of governance are not its goal -- opening up New Orleans for Halliburton contracts is.

11: The great liberal economic agenda is "making markets work" -- small fixes for market failures. The canonical example is job training to fight unemployment. But job training does not create new jobs, economic growth does; the tech boom was the last time we saw a real decrease in unemployment. Similarly, some Dems propose universal preschool since experiments find kids with free preschool grow up to get better-paying jobs. But those preschools did not create jobs, they just gave their students an advantage in getting them. Universal preschool would give everyone that advantage, leaving no net impact. And creating markets in unmarketable goods (health care, energy, the climate) is doomed to failure. In these industries markets will not work; planning is required.

12: Planning is alleged to have been disproven by the Soviet Union's fall. But it is unavoidable. The market, even when it does work, fails to take into account the wishes of the poor and the needs of the future, since neither can buy things today. New Orleans fell not because of a lack of foresight (it was predicted by the local paper) or technology (the Army knew how to build strong levees) but because we lacked a plan -- nobody in power bothered to do anything about it. Similarly, climate change will melt Antarctica and drown New York, Boston, South Florida, Houston, the Bay Area, London, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and Shanghai. Stopping it requires a plan; an enormous one ranging from elementary school classes to government-funded research centers to a WWII-level restructuring of the economy.

13: Deregulation can have three effects: 1) increasing competition and lowering wages and prices, 2) speeding technological change and increasing quality, 3) creating monopolies and raising prices. Trucking deregulation did 1, airline deregulation did 1 and 2, but telecom, banking, and energy deregulation did 3. Charles Keating donated to the government, leading VP George H. W. Bush's task force to deregulate his industry and allow the Savings and Loan Scandal. Ken Lay was Bush's largest contributor, leading VP Dick Cheney's task force to deregulate his industry and allow the Enron energy scandal.

The solution is to lower CEO pay, raise the minimum wage, and set wage standards in between. Some liberals claim trade is the problem and the solution is to set environmental and labor standards on other countries. These are unenforceable and will be ineffective (companies moving overseas already build clean factories since that's most efficient and no significant exports are made using child or prison labor). Instead, we should set wage standards at home, like Scandinavia, forcing companies to increase productivity and pay fair wages. Wage standards should also apply to undocumented workers; illegal immigration is caused by employers who send recruiters to Mexico for compliant and low-paid workers. Applying wage standards to all will end these abusive practices.

14: Any country that can pay for its imports entirely with exports can organize its internal economy (its people and resources) however it likes. Countries that do not balance their trade depend instead on global capital markets and must play by their rules. But the US is a special case: after World War II (1944) it set up the Bretton Woods system of international exchange, pegging all currencies to the dollar and backing the dollar with gold reserves. But during Vietnam's deficits (1971), Nixon broke the system, devaluing US currency and wreaking havoc on the rest of the world. Reagan's tight money policies (1981) caused so much instability that other countries were forced to build up reserves of US Treasury Bonds in exchange for military, economic, and export security. US bubbles and the Soviet Union's fall make this system less secure than before, but as long as it remains the US can do whatever it likes economically. And it might as well, since economic success will strengthen the system and the policies proposed here will lead to economic success.

Conspicuous philanthropy is like conspicuous consumption, a way for the rich to flaunt their wealth, only far more effective -- you can outdo your neighbors simply by adding another zero to the check, the buildings with your name on them live on after you die, and the government gives you a tax deduction. ↩
See the classic Thorstein Veblen, Theory of the Leisure Class for more on predation. ↩

Blog on Wiki Patterns: Announcing the Speakers for WikiFest @ WikiSym 2008

2008-08-19T18:10:47+00:00

At WikiSym 2008 (8-10 September, Porto, Portugal), the first-ever WikiFest symposium will take place. WikiFest is all about wiki adoption in organizations: how to choose the right software, run a successful pilot, grow wiki use, and measure ROI.

I’m pleased to announce the speakers for this inaugural WikiFest. They come from organizations of all sizes around the world, including IBM, Chevron, University of Helsinki, Boeing, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, //Seibert/Media, and wikiwise. The range of industries represented is fantastic: Energy, Media, Technology, Transportation, Aerospace, and Education.

Each will talk about their experiences leading an enterprise wiki initiative, and offer timely advice that can help you guide your organization’s wiki efforts.

Soobaek Jang and Brian D. Goodman - IBM

Soobaek Jang and Brian D. Goodman are responsible for IBM’s internal wiki adoption. Over the past three years, they have supported over community of over 300,000 registered users working with over 20,000 wiki instances containing over 380,000 pages. After sharing high-level background, they will discuss three key lessons in managing wiki deployments and adoption in large-scale enterprises.

Camille Goksever - Chevron

Camille Goksever will present lessons learned deploying the first wiki at Chevron’s Richmond, California refinery. Presentation will focus on how a wiki triggered cultural changes in an organization of non-technical users.

Antero Aunesluoma and Heikki Wilenius - University of Helsinki

The University of Helsinki’s wiki service was opened in august 2007 - equally to staff and students. The adoption strategy has been strongly driven by the needs of users, all the way from selecting the software to formulating the rather liberal policy of use. At the moment there are more than 400 individually administered wiki spaces, supporting online collaboration on studies, research and administration. In this session we will showcase how the University of Helsinki has adopted the wiki. Until this far the story has been a success but there are certain challenges already waiting for a solution.

Sean Munson - University of Michigan, The Boeing Company and Derek Hansen - University of Maryland

We discuss the results from two studies of the wiki deployment and adoption. In the first, we provided three online patient support mailing lists with wikis, help files, and suggestions for use based on study of the CSS-D mailing list and wiki. The second provided a Boeing workgroup with a wiki to document and publicize their past work. In both cases, the social challenges were more difficult than technical challenges. In both instances, users were reluctant to edit others’ content and were unsure of what (and how much detail) to add. Identifying a wiki team or wiki champion, encouraging a small group to initially seed the wiki with content, introducing the wiki concurrently to many potential members, and allowing and encouraging authors to take ownership of content helped to ease adoption issues.

Martin Seibert - //SEIBERT/MEDIA

//SEIBERT/MEDIA is a German web agency with over 60 employees and experience since 1996. We started to use our new wiki in July 2007 and have been experiencing a tremendous usage increase and a lot of successes, that I would like to share. Additionally we have collected a couple of good insights, on how to sell a wiki both from an economical perspective and an internal perspective to clients.

Lex Slaghuis - wikiwise

Lex Slaghuis of wikiwise will discuss bbservations and experiences on wiki concepts within a large local Dutch government agency. An analysis of current collaboration processes is presented with five recurring collaborative patterns. These patterns were identified by clustering the collaborative ‘issues’ of employees. The patterns are of interest as they seem to influence each other as well as they provide quick and easy overview of the organizational collaborative processes. Some of these patterns also appear to relate to typical wiki capabilities, such as RSS-feeds and link indexing.

Brion Vibber: Wikipedia doesn’t have all the answers?

2008-08-19T16:32:32+00:00