The Truth According To Wikipedia

Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online – and who doesn’t? – are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online “encyclopedia of the people” has been topping the lists of the world’s most popular websites. But do we really know what we’re using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. Is it a revolution, or pure hype? Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. The online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to and revise is now even bigger than the illustrious Encyclopedia Britannica.

Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do “the people” really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all? In this film, “Wikipedians,” the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia’s ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics.

Join The Conversation

11 Comments / User Reviews

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. You’ll never see Mark Dice referred to on Wikipedia because he’s a conservative and they don’t like him. Wikipedia is truly a joke because it’s “Steered information” like Google is. You’d be better off if you could block it on your browser. You don’t know if it’s real or if it’s memorex.

  2. this film has been totally scrubbed from the internet…even if i try to pay for it on iTunes it goes to a different film with a similar name. wtf was in it that was so damning to Wikipedia??

  3. Hmm..interesting that the video isn’t showing anymore. Any chance it will be back? Pest control Amarillo

  4. Anthony Keen sounds like someone who is trying to figure out why he isn’t famous and is so not-a-narcissist that it couldn’t possibly be his fault.

  5. The TRUTH? This is always relative, as the time is. The truth doesnt lies on Wikipedia or Academic books…is just relative!
    One day a King decided that he would force all his subjects to tell the truth..A gallows was erected in front of the city gates..A
    herald announced, “Whoever would enter the city must first answer the
    truth to a question which will be put to him.” Nasrudin was first in
    line..The captain of the guard asked him,
    “Where are you going? Tell the truth — the alternative is death by
    hanging.” “I am going,” said Nasrudin, “to be hanged on that gallows.”
    “I don’t believe you.” “Very well, if I have told a lie, then hang
    me!” “But that would make it the truth!” “Exactly,” said Nasrudin, “your

  6. I don’t believe you!

  7. Andrew Keen: Put Some Money Behind Your Predictions?
    from the who-actually-listens-to-this-guy dept

    Andrew Keen, of course, is a guy who has written a laughably bad book about how only experts like himself should be able write things, because all those “amateurs” get stuff wrong. There are some who believe that Keen’s entire personality is satire, because everything he accuses “amateurs” of doing, he does himself. He gets many facts wrong in his book. His writing is amateurish at best. His interpretations are laughable. He relies on incredibly weak reasoning — all of which are things he insists that amteurs do, but pros such as himself don’t do, because they have editors and such. The most amusing, of course, may be his condemnation of Larry Lessig, whose position he gets almost 100% factually incorrect.

    So far, I have yet to read anything by Keen that isn’t easily torn apart as laughably false, which reinforces the idea that everything he writes is satire. His latest piece, pointed out by Slashdot, is no exception. In it, Keen announces that the current financial crisis will put an end to open source and “free” business models because the crisis will mean that people actually have to make money.

    Spot the rather obvious logical fallacy? The one even your sixth grader could point out? Right. Keen has set up a totally bogus strawman, that “open source” and “free” mean you don’t make any money. As anyone who actually looks at the details knows, that’s simply not true. Keen is so blinded by the word “free” he misses the fact that when people discuss the use of “free” as a part of a business model, they’re talking about using it to make money. Instead, he seems to assume that “free” is the end of the discussion.
    “One of the very few positive consequences of the current financial miasma will be a sharp cultural shift in our attitude toward the economic value of our labor. Mass unemployment and a deep economic recession comprise the most effective antidote to the utopian ideals of open-source radicals.”
    Funny, but part of the reason why all of those “user generated content” businesses took off in the first place was that after the dot com bubble burst, people had a lot of spare time on their hands. So they were more willing to contribute and take part in these things. Keen also seems to not realize that much of that user generated work and open source efforts are not about “utopian ideals” but very practical reasons that involve non-monetary benefits. People contribute to open source software not because they’re idealistic, but because it helps them elsewhere. People blog and post videos on YouTube not because they’re idealistic, but because they get value out of doing so.
    The altruistic ideal of giving away one’s labor for free appeared credible in the fat summer of the Web 2.0 boom when social-media startups hung from trees, Facebook was valued at $15 billion, and VCs queued up to fund revenue-less “businesses” like Twitter. But as we contemplate the world post-bailout, when economic reality once again bites, only Silicon Valley’s wealthiest technologists can even consider the luxury of donating their labor to the latest fashionable, online, open-source project.
    You know, I remember another business that had absolutely no business model right after the last bubble burst, even though venture capitalists had dumped $25 million into it at a very high valuation (which many — including myself — thought was ridiculous). That company became Google. According to Keen, that couldn’t have happened, because who would ever invest in a company with no business model? Does Keen have no sense of history?
    “I’m pretty sure, if not certain, that the idea of free labor will suddenly become profoundly unpalatable to someone faced with their house being repossessed or their kids going hungry. Being paid to work is intuitive to the human condition; it represents our most elemental sense of justice.”
    Again, that’s not what happened during the last downturn, but why let facts get in the way? Also, this is still based on the false premise that there’s no actual benefit for people and that they’re only doing things for “utopian” ideals. That’s simply untrue. If contributing to an open source project helps get you a well-paying job, is that utopian? If building an open source tool helps you jump start a different business, is that utopian? If blogging, Twittering or posting videos to YouTube helps you communicate cheaper, faster and better than other tools, is that utopian? Hardly. But Keen seems unable to consider these possibilities.
    “So how will today’s brutal economic climate change the Web 2.0 “free” economy? It will result in the rise of online media businesses that reward their contributors with cash.
    Well, I certainly hope so, since we hand out plenty of cash to contributors at The Insight Community, but I still think Keen is wrong here. He again is dismissing or purposely ignoring the non-monetary value that people get. Let’s look at his “winners” list:
    “It will mean the success of Knol over Wikipedia, Mahalo over Google, over the, iTunes over MySpace, Hulu over YouTube Inc. , over, TechCrunch over the blogosphere, CNN’s professional journalism over CNN’s iReporter citizen-journalism.
    Well, first off, some of those aren’t actually competitors, so it seems rather unfair to suggest that’s the case. However, I’d like to make a bet. While there are different estimates as to how long any recession might be, the general consensus is that we should hopefully start pulling out by the end of 2009 or early 2010. So, let’s pick a few of these that we can measure, and I’ll bet Andrew Keen $100 (really money, Andrew) that in two years, on October 22, 2010, Wikipedia still gets more traffic than Knol, that Google is still much, much, much bigger than Mahalo (if they’re even considered competitors any more), and that YouTube gets more traffic than Hulu.

    If any one of those is untrue, I’ll write him a check. As for the other comparisons he makes, they don’t seem to be particularly reasonable comparisons, so I don’t see how to fairly evaluate how one wins over the other. TechCrunch is a part of the blogosphere, so how does that make sense? In fact, TechCrunch came out of the same “utopian” ideals that Keen dismisses. Michael Arrington started it for fun, with no plans to turn it into a business, but that’s what it became. I thought Keen thought that wasn’t possible? iReporter doesn’t compete with CNN’s professional news staff — they work together. iTunes doesn’t compete with MySpace — they’re in totally different businesses.

    So, let’s put some real money on this, Andrew. Or does Andrew Keen not really believe what he writes?