Forthcoming book about Wikipedia’s first 20 years

[eagle]

https://space.wmflabs.org/2019/07/04/a- ... -20-years/

Wikipedia @ 20 is a collection of essays where seasoned Wikipedians share their lessons learned during Wikipedia’s first 20 years online. It is edited by Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner, who envision anyone interested in Wikipedia as potential readers of this work.

Wikipedia’s legacy is an opportunity to reflect on this project and online communities more generally. That is, what insights are available from Wikipedia’s twenty years of history? What does this history tell us of expectations fulfilled or disappointed, opportunities seized or missed, myths confirmed or busted, lessons learned, or the probable future?

Community feedback is priceless. To share your views and comments please use the PubPub platform. The public review period closes on July 19. Your views will provide the contributors with valuable community perspective.

[Kumioko]

Honestly this looks like a way for the Wikimedia foundation to profit from Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

Honestly this looks like a way for the Wikimedia foundation to profit from Wikipedia.

They already profit via donations. I expect that the great bulk of donations are given because of ENWP.

I wonder how much POV and even COI there will be in the book!

[mendaliv]

It's just a glorified festschrift (but celebrating WP rather than a person). The shit thing is that the essays that will be included are probably by nobodies and probably have no academic or literary value.

[Smiley]

It's just a glorified festschrift ...

... in honour of an unqualified Scheißfest.

[Guido den Broeder]

This is pathetic.

[Poetlister]

It's just a glorified festschrift (but celebrating WP rather than a person). The shit thing is that the essays that will be included are probably by nobodies and probably have no academic or literary value.

Indeed. How many serious academics are likely to want to contribute? It would be unlikely to forward their careers.

[mendaliv]

It's just a glorified festschrift (but celebrating WP rather than a person). The shit thing is that the essays that will be included are probably by nobodies and probably have no academic or literary value.

Indeed. How many serious academics are likely to want to contribute? It would be unlikely to forward their careers.

Exactly. Just like the WikiJournal thing. I wouldn't want to poison my CV with that.

[Katie]

I can't wait for the day there's a book about Wikipedia that mentions Wikipediocracy and criticises Wikipedia. Wikipedia has far too many positive things written about it.

[mendaliv]

I can't wait for the day there's a book about Wikipedia that mentions Wikipediocracy and criticises Wikipedia. Wikipedia has far too many positive things written about it.

Honestly there's probably room in the marketplace for that.

[Poetlister]

I can't wait for the day there's a book about Wikipedia that mentions Wikipediocracy and criticises Wikipedia. Wikipedia has far too many positive things written about it.

Honestly there's probably room in the marketplace for that.

There was an attempt to write such a book, led by Peter Damien here. I don't know if any progress has been made in publishing it.

[mendaliv]

I can't wait for the day there's a book about Wikipedia that mentions Wikipediocracy and criticises Wikipedia. Wikipedia has far too many positive things written about it.

Honestly there's probably room in the marketplace for that.

There was an attempt to write such a book, led by Peter Damien here. I don't know if any progress has been made in publishing it.

Perhaps The Transformer could streamline writing it.

[eagle]

I can't wait for the day there's a book about Wikipedia that mentions Wikipediocracy and criticises Wikipedia. Wikipedia has far too many positive things written about it.

Honestly there's probably room in the marketplace for that.

There was an attempt to write such a book, led by Peter Damien here. I don't know if any progress has been made in publishing it.

Perhaps The Transformer could streamline writing it.

Sample chapters were posted and it was very well researched and well written. I would recommend it highly and would be willing to give Peter a promotional blurb for the dust jacket if he ever finds a publisher.

[Poetlister]

Sample chapters were posted and it was very well researched and well written. I would recommend it highly and would be willing to give Peter a promotional blurb for the dust jacket if he ever finds a publisher.

I thoroughly agree with eagle. But we really need Larry to endorse it.

[lonza leggiera]

Sample chapters were posted and it was very well researched and well written. I would recommend it highly and would be willing to give Peter a promotional blurb for the dust jacket if he ever finds a publisher.

I thoroughly agree with eagle. But we really need Larry to endorse it.

The book—with a tentative title of Wikipedia through the Looking Glass—was discussed in this 6-page thread.

[Poetlister]

The book—with a tentative title of Wikipedia through the Looking Glass—was discussed in this 6-page thread.

Yes, many familiar but long-gone members contributed to that thread!

[Randy from Boise]

It's just a glorified festschrift (but celebrating WP rather than a person). The shit thing is that the essays that will be included are probably by nobodies and probably have no academic or literary value.

A festschit?

RfB

[eagle]

So far, chapters include:
From Utopia to Practice and Back
by Yochai Benkler

The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia
by Joseph Reagle

How Wikipedia Drove Professors Crazy, Made Me Sane, and Almost Saved the Internet
by Jake Orlowitz

Wikipedia As A Role-Playing Game, Or Why Some Academics Do Not Like Wikipedia
by Dariusz Jemielniak

The problem with humans writing an encyclopedia
by Jackie Koerner

Collaborating on the sum of all knowledge across languages
by Denny Vrandečić

What We Talk About When We Talk About Community
by Melissa Tamani, Michael Mandiberg, Jacqueline Mabey, and Siân Evans

Wikipedia and Libraries
by Phoebe Ayers

Rise of the underdog
by Heather Ford

The First Twenty Years of Teaching with Wikipedia: From Faculty Enemy to Faculty Enabler
by Robert Cummings

[tarantino]

The book—with a tentative title of Wikipedia through the Looking Glass—was discussed in this 6-page thread.

Peter's wiki is broken at the moment, but an overview of the chapters is archived here.

[Katie]

The book—with a tentative title of Wikipedia through the Looking Glass—was discussed in this 6-page thread.

Peter's wiki is broken at the moment, but an overview of the chapters is archived here.

From the overview of these chapters it seems like it would have been a fantastic book if published. I would have enjoyed reading it.

[mendaliv]

Any idea on what the holdup is on publication?

[Smiley]

From Utopia to Practice and Back
by Yochai Benkler
The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia
by Joseph Reagle
How Wikipedia Drove Professors Crazy, Made Me Sane, and Almost Saved the Internet
by Jake Orlowitz
Wikipedia As A Role-Playing Game, Or Why Some Academics Do Not Like Wikipedia
by Dariusz Jemielniak
What We Talk About When We Talk About Community
by Melissa Tamani, Michael Mandiberg, Jacqueline Mabey, and Siân Evans
<snip>

Our friend Transformer suggests further exciting essays to come:

Uniting and Excommunicating People from Their Communities
by Steve McNeill

I hate to be the bearer of bad news
by Christopher Caldwell-Pope

The real reason why everyone believes in Wikipedia (except Wikipedia editors)
by Jason Durden

Fossil-fuel-sourced Wikipedia entries
by Markku Suppala and William Gass

The biggest hoax (if you haven't heard of it), and why the Internet is so dangerous, and the truth about Wikipedia
by John Riese

Do My Friends Know I Go to Wikipedia?
by Michael Rullman Jr.

The Wikipedia Mythbusting Conspiracy
by David Gerard(!)

Wikipedia Will Turn America Into a Third World Nation
by Charles J. Marcy

How the Wikipedia Project Was Made Into a Business . . . And Why Nobody Knows About It
by Matt Zoller Seitz

The End is Nigh - I did not believe this until I walked through our campus
by John H. Lee

Wikipedia will kill us all
by Larry H. Sanger(!)

[mendaliv]

Holy shit, those are really good titles.

I think we found a legitimate application for Transformer here: Getting essay topics (and titles).

• How Wikipedia Created Its Own Power Base to Kill it in the Comments
• How Wikipedias Fought Back , and Why We Still Oppose Them
• The Battle of Wikipedia and our battle against it
• Why Wikipedia Works Too Well
• WTF Wikipedia, What Happened? A History
• Wikipedia and the Media - the greatest threat to education
• My Wikipedia-less class
• Unplugging from Wikipedia, Part 3
• Escape from Wikipedia
• How Wikipedia Made Me a Teacher
• Why Wikipedians, Not Wikipedia: The case for Wikipedia as a "community"
• How Wikipedia Became the Language of the Web
• An open encyclopedia is a community
• Wikipedia for the masses
• Community and Academic Collaboration at Wikipedia . . . Again
• Myths, Misunderstandings and Other Flawed Views on Wikipedia
• What's the deal with Wikipedia? A primer on the subject
• It's Time to Build and Share a Common Knowledge Base on Wikipedia
• Why are people so obsessed with Wikipedia?
• Wikipedia, and the Next Phase of Social Journalism
• The Real Story Behind the Word "Wikipedia"
• The Great Wikipedia Scandal
• Problem With Wikipedia: More Evidence and No New Solution for the Wrongness Problem
• How Wikipedia and the Law Made Us All Less Law Professors
• On the Use and Abuse of Wikipedia For Educational Purposes

[Katie]

Speaking of stuff that's broken, Wikipedia Review has been down for a few days - it appears Selina forget to pay the bills.

[lonza leggiera]

Any idea on what the holdup is on publication?

Some information is provided here.

[mendaliv]

Any idea on what the holdup is on publication?

Some information is privided here.

Ah. That's a shame.

[Smiley]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news
by Christopher Caldwell-Pope

I suspect that this essay will have been the work of a future Rogol sock.

[Smiley]

This took three minutes . . .

The biggest hoax (if you haven't heard of it), and why the Internet is so dangerous, and the truth about Wikipedia
by Kyle Reese

Introduction:

The purpose of this essay is to expose the truth about Wikipedia, to expose the lies about "free speech on Wikipedia" (in reference to the principle that it is the right of everyone to express himself without fear of government interference, and to be treated by Wikipedia as a resource of knowledge), and to share the lessons I have learned since 2012 as an information security expert.

History:

How did things get so bad? It started with a simple act.

When the CIA had just completed a massive operation in Afghanistan, the United States government realized the Internet was the future. It didn't seem like the CIA was going in with the plan to create "an all-web propaganda machine." The CIA's first mission was to find a new type of spy—one that could penetrate computers, monitor communications, and hack into electronic networks. But there was more to it than that.

A major goal of the intelligence community at that time was to create a "weaponization" of technology: software to transform any device into an electronic weapon. With this new "weapon," the CIA wanted to become, in the words of the agency's chief of station, Richard Helms, "the ultimate internet warrior."

Wikipedia is now the most ubiquitous online encyclopedia in the world. In the years since publication, its popularity has soared. More than 300 million Americans have logged on to the site on several different platforms over the past 12 years.

But there are dangers lurking just below these lofty stats. To avoid this potentially life-threatening condition, we must understand this encyclopedia, and why so many of the entries are misleading or outright false. If the encyclopedia is a hoax, its many and increasing detractors deserve our full attention.

Statistics:

The encyclopedia comprises over 150,000 articles with more than 60,000 links to the original source for each article. According to Wikipedia's own definition of a hoax, a single and complete article is believed at least 10% false or exaggerated. As a result of a wide range of sources being cited for each entry, the number of "fakes" who are proven to be genuine is enormous.

Administrators:

Wikipedia's administrators are not very interested in improving quality and accuracy for the sake of improving the appearance of a website, but instead are only interested in preserving their power and wealth. These administrators are not concerned in helping Wikipedia become better (i.e., it gets some good edits into some articles) or less controversial (i.e., it gets "unmoderated"). For them, the primary interest is to create a world in which their power and wealth will be protected at all cost, whether the damage is actual or perceived.

Conclusion:

The Internet is full of people who don't know what they're talking about. For those people, Wikipedia is a powerful tool. It allows them to tell the world what they know. They simply edit it. But in doing so, they miss the bigger picture and the truth about the world around them.


Kyle Reece, PhD. (M.A., Ph.D.)

Author of Wikipedia: My Journey Down the Knowledge Train and Other Lies

[Poetlister]

So far, chapters include:

One or two familiar names among the authors, but do the others really have much expertise in the topics?

[eagle]

So far, chapters include:

One or two familiar names among the authors, but do the others really have much expertise in the topics?

I am sure that the WO regulars could write an insightful 20th anniversary anthology book, but most of them are probably banned. Since the book is being assembled off-wiki, nothing prevented WO editors from proposing chapters for this effort.

It is not clear to me whether, and to what extent, the WMF is funding the forthcoming book.

[mendaliv]

An anthology of negative essays would actually be pretty funny. Someone should do that.

[The Garbage Scow]

Any idea on what the holdup is on publication?

Some information is provided here.

It should be self published. People don't need big publishing houses anymore with Amazon and SEO.

[Poetlister]

I am sure that the WO regulars could write an insightful 20th anniversary anthology book, but most of them are probably banned. Since the book is being assembled off-wiki, nothing prevented WO editors from proposing chapters for this effort.

We have plenty of non-banned regulars, such as Zoloft and Mr Midsize. And of course people could draft something and submit under a pseudonym - that's the Wikipedia way.

[rhindle]

I am sure that the WO regulars could write an insightful 20th anniversary anthology book, but most of them are probably banned. Since the book is being assembled off-wiki, nothing prevented WO editors from proposing chapters for this effort.

We have plenty of non-banned regulars, such as Zoloft and Mr Midsize. And of course people could draft something and submit under a pseudonym - that's the Wikipedia way.

A collection of essays from banned users telling their stories is not a bad idea. Maybe reach out to those who don't participate in any critic form anymore also. And from that pick out the best ones. Of course for some, being lucid, concise, and/or rational may be a challenge. However, there are many banned users who got a raw deal due to running afoul of the wrong people.

[Randy from Boise]

I can't wait for the day there's a book about Wikipedia that mentions Wikipediocracy and criticises Wikipedia. Wikipedia has far too many positive things written about it.

Honestly there's probably room in the marketplace for that.

There was an attempt to write such a book, led by Peter Damien here. I don't know if any progress has been made in publishing it.

On Wikipedia Sucks, Peter indicated that his regular publisher took a pass on it with legal concerns one issue. He noted that the manuscript is now rather out-of-date and in need of extension and revision. It does not sound like he plans to do that.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

I am sure that the WO regulars could write an insightful 20th anniversary anthology book, but most of them are probably banned. Since the book is being assembled off-wiki, nothing prevented WO editors from proposing chapters for this effort.

We have plenty of non-banned regulars, such as Zoloft and Mr Midsize. And of course people could draft something and submit under a pseudonym - that's the Wikipedia way.

A collection of essays from banned users telling their stories is not a bad idea. Maybe reach out to those who don't participate in any critic form anymore also. And from that pick out the best ones. Of course for some, being lucid, concise, and/or rational may be a challenge. However, there are many banned users who got a raw deal due to running afoul of the wrong people.

Synopsis

A. Title Page
B. Introduction (pp. i - xii)
1. "Abusive Administrators Banned Me!" by Kumioko (pp. 1 - 472)
2. Conclusion (pp. 473-475)


t

[rhindle]

snip

snip.

A collection of essays from banned users telling their stories is not a bad idea. Maybe reach out to those who don't participate in any critic form anymore also. And from that pick out the best ones. Of course for some, being lucid, concise, and/or rational may be a challenge. However, there are many banned users who got a raw deal due to running afoul of the wrong people.

Synopsis

A. Title Page
B. Introduction (pp. i - xii)
1. "Abusive Administrators Banned Me!" by Kumioko (pp. 1 - 472)
2. Conclusion (pp. 473-475)


t

Well, there obviously would be a page limit to discourage the tl'dr

[mendaliv]

I'm thinking 20 pages per essay should be a limit, with 5 or 10 pages being the minimum.

[eagle]

I'm thinking 20 pages per essay should be a limit, with 5 or 10 pages being the minimum.

I agree with mendaliv, but you would need an overall admin/editor to enforce the limit (e.g., K will write a separate 20 page essay on each time he was blocked and each time he was outvoted at WikiProject:United States.) (Sorry for the cheap shot -- we all really love you.)


If we can get an expression of interest by the end of this month, we can do pre-sales at Wikimania. About a decade ago, when Wikimania came to Washington DC, there was a group preparing a highly critical documentary about WP, and they were actively soliciting at Wikimania. They got a favorable reception because people were too slow to realize that they were not "of the body." I don't think the film was every completed.


Of course with online e-books, we can complete a professionally-looking book and sell it with very little upfront investment. All profits can be donated to the "FREE LAURA AND MARIA FUND" (a.k.a. try a trip on something other than WMF expense.)

[Poetlister]

It would be pretty easy for the WMF to rubbish a book written entirely by banned users. Can we find any friendly admins to make sympathetic comments? Or would that put them in danger of a desysop?

[Vigilant]

We could fund the whole thing if I promise to show up and setup a “take a shot at Vigilant” booth.

[mendaliv]

Wikipediocracy Academic Press

[Midsize Jake]

About a decade ago, when Wikimania came to Washington DC, there was a group preparing a highly critical documentary about WP, and they were actively soliciting at Wikimania. They got a favorable reception because people were too slow to realize that they were not "of the body." I don't think the film was every completed.

Indeed it was completed, the title is Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia, and until someone complains, you can watch it on Youtube. After someone complains, you can still stream it on Amazon for $3.99 in the US.

I certainly wouldn't say it's hostile to WP or the WP kommuniteeeee, but it is critical - mildly, in most cases, but definitely critical.

[eagle]

About a decade ago, when Wikimania came to Washington DC, there was a group preparing a highly critical documentary about WP, and they were actively soliciting at Wikimania. They got a favorable reception because people were too slow to realize that they were not "of the body." I don't think the film was every completed.

Indeed it was completed, the title is Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia, and until someone complains, you can watch it on Youtube. After someone complains, you can still stream it on Amazon for $3.99 in the US.

I certainly wouldn't say it's hostile to WP or the WP kommuniteeeee, but it is critical - mildly, in most cases, but definitely critical.

Yes. That is the film. It takes me back to when Jimbo was a handsome young man, and most people did not know what Wikipedia is. There are at least two cringe-worthy moments:

I am the founder of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is my website.

There are arguments on both sides and let the reader decide.

[Randy from Boise]

If it's a general book project, I'd commit to 20 pages on something or another.

If it's a collection of banned editors telling war stories, maybe I could do the index or something.

RfB

P.S. Maybe Peter could contribute a couple chapters of his book.

P.P.S. I'll also commit to buying at least 5 copies.

[mendaliv]

I wouldn't mind helping out with the typesetting. I switched my law journal over to LaTeX (and even got my successor to do it too).

[eagle]

I would put in time editing, including selecting some of our best blog posts of the past. Perhaps the diffused C-level management can have a private discussion and green light this effort. (Afterall, WO should be as opaque as WMF in undertaking new projects.)

[Poetlister]

I think we're getting there already. I'd hesitate to write a chapter myself, for various reasons, but I'd certainly be willing to copyedit it for spelling, grammar and obvious errors.

[Randy from Boise]

Assuming a general volume on various aspects of WP over time from a critical perspective, the topic that speaks to me is the growth of fundraising and expenditures, with an emphasis on the cancerous growth of the WMF bureaucracy.

RfB

[AndyTheGrump]

If anyone is interested I could probably put together 20 pages on what I consider Wikipedia's fundamental structural flaw: the contradiction between 'encyclopaedia' and 'anyone can edit', and on why this fundamental contradiction is responsible for so much of the disfunctionality that gets blamed on the failings of individuals.