Is Wikipedia Down?

I can't load Wikipedia. I just get 404 error (page not found) after error. I sure hope this is a very temporary situation, or perhaps a local ISP routing problem. There is no doubt The Author depends on the fine, bottom-up encyclopedia for many links on this blog - and on Wiki Commons (logo pictured) for a large percentage of the public domain images used here. Which reminds me, the Wiki Foundation can always use another few bucks to help their geeks get by. The Author donated modestly last year - to ensure this valuable resource stays available and continues to grow. I'm hoping that some of the big foundations, or maybe George Soros, can add some serious scratch to the pot to take this organization to the next level. But I'm not counting on it, so we'll all need to ante-up soon.

Google's New Knol Not a Wikepedia Killer

In a variation of the old, "if it bleeds, it leads" axiom of sensational journalism, today's technology news is rife with reports of Google's new challenge to Wikipedia. The WSJ headline says: Google Targets Wikipedia... C/NET talks of a Wikipedia "Rival." Well, that's one angle I suppose, but it is not the right one.

Google's new "Knol" platform is not a Wikipedia competitor, it is substantially different from the Wiki platform and it seeks to accomplish different goals. Read the Official Google Blog post here. Then, read Scott Gilbertson's post on the Wired blog. Scott gets it right. Once built, Knol will be a great compliment to Wikipedia and I personally welcome the development. And I confess, I'm interested in what readers think of my writing, so a rating system makes sense to me.

I've noted before that I use Wikipedia several times a day, and this blog contains almost 150 links to that wonderful and comprehensive source. In fact, I am a Wikimedia Foundation donor and have urged my readers to consider modest financial contributions as well. But I will certainly contribute content to the Google platform, and I imagine that I will soon be a regular user. Hey, the web is maturing and there's plenty of room for continued innovation, and new approaches. Bottom line, I trust both of these organizations and based on my own experience, both produce fine products with my best interests in mind.

Consider a Donation to Wikimedia

Okay, it's the season for giving and I'll be holding forth shortly on some gift ideas for skeptical brainiacs who live on the edge. No really. I'm working on the post now, and you'll just have to wait. Today I'm writing to encourage a donation to Wikimedia, the parent org for all things wiki, including Wikipedia. Click here to donate now.

I use Wikipedia and WikiCommons several times a day. In fact, regular readers already know that many of my links are to Wikipedia articles. Over 150 links on this blog alone. There are now 2 million Wikipedia articles in English, all for free on an open, user-managed platform. A bottom-up encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has 8 million total articles in 250 languages, making it by far the largest and most detailed encyclopedia ever developed. But it can't exist and continue to work without our support. So far this year, about 37,000 users from all over the planet have donated. A $40 donation buys 100 million page-views of free information. A C-note subsidizes two Wiki academies in Africa. So join me and become a Wikimedia financial supporter this holiday season. Or gift the donation to a nerd. It's the right thing to do.

Wiki Storm Reveals Cluelessness

Recent media headlines have been screaming, again, about the sky falling at Wikipedia. This time the storm is centered around an outed Ph.D. wannabe who was editing stuff that was clearly way over his head then staking his fictional credentials on strongly-stated opinions of worth. Like he knew. Turns out he didn't, but that's not the point. One editor among millions and the whole process is somehow called into doubt. Not buying it.

So why the negative attention? Does it seem to you, as it does to me sometimes, like the traditional 20th Century world is waiting with bated breath for Wikipedia to fail? What's up with that? Here's one possible explanation. 20th Century thinkers just don't get the whole, "bottom-up" thing. Not only does it not make sense in their traditional models, but they also seem to find the prospect to be threatening. So they subconsciously or consciously want all things Wiki to fail. It's that simple. What we're seeing here is push-back. Fact is, the problem cited is already solved. Wikipedia today announced that they would require verification of credentials. End of story. The problem, after all, was a mechanical one - not a fundamental flaw in philosophy, mission or method. So why the fuss?

Just like traditional broadcast networks are panicked at the thought of consumer generated content, traditional information aggregators and brokers are threatened by what is essentially "open source information." Somebody has to say it: bottom-up is the democratic way. The way of the future, if consensus and collaboration are important. After all, it's not like traditional sources of information can be trusted any longer. Not with Japan conveniently re-writing the history of World War II, the American right wing re-writing the history of Vietnam; and now, George Bush feverishly attempting to re-write the basis of 9/11 and the Iraq war. What is clear is the fact that grass-roots observers are a valuable balance. Especially when the effort is worldwide, overseen by an army of volunteers, and transparent in its presentation of information and the controversy surrounding the data served-up. I recently posted about the late activist, Saul Alinsky. The Wikipedia page I referenced clearly noted right at the top that the article was the subject of some dispute regarding its neutrality. I can work with that. It leaves the "weighting" process up to me and my research methods. A good thing. That's the thing about open source, it is always being improved, enhanced and expanded. Very organic.

Wikipedia and other popular Wiki sites to my knowledge do not claim the mantle of "be all, end all." Rather they provide an online hub for information seekers. Wiki sites are aggregators that refresh regularly, add background and links; and finally, use the basic tenants of Web 2.0 to provide a useful archive of information which already boasts over ten times the content of the print giants of the information industry. As such, these sites are nothing short of a raison d'etre for the Internet. Cluelessness is no longer an excuse for destructive criticism. Get over it.