Message 08825 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT08825 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox] zur Debatte über gesellschaftliche Nützlichkeit

Unlängst kam ein Posting von Stefan in dem er meinen Hinweis auf die
gesellschaftliche Nützlichkeit als Kriterium freier Projekte in Frage
gestellt hat. Gesellschaftliche Nützlichkeit sei schwer zu
operationalisieren, statdessen müßten wir der Selbstentfaltung plus einem
nicht näher definierten OHA - Faktor vertrauen.  Meine Nichtreaktion
darauf hat nichts mit Einverständnis zu tun, sondern mit der Schwierigkeit
die die Sache bereitet. Ich gestatte mir statt einer direkten Antwort
folgenden Wired-Artikel vorauszuschicken, der das Problem ziemlich genau
trifft, für das uns vielleicht einfach noch das Vokabular fehlt. 


Wikipedia Faces Growing Pains  

"One of the mysteries of scale is that there's no such thing as scaling
well," said Clay Shirky, who writes about culture, media and technology.
"You can make something 100 times bigger, and if it works, you think
you've got it licked. But the next power of 10 can kill it. So I don't
know whether or not openness and co-creation are incompatible at Wikipedia

The difficulties Wikipedia faces these days relate mostly to its systems
for creating and vetting articles, and whether it covers enough
specialized topics sufficiently well to be considered a well-rounded,
single-reference source.

Any member of the Wikipedia community can write an entry, which then can
be edited by other members. Entries are never finished, given that anyone
can make edits to any of them. But that also means there is no final
authority who signs off on the accuracy of entries; veracity is assumed to
come from the self-policing nature of the community.

Yet that lack of official vetting is central to many of the questions
facing Wikipedia today. To academics like Danah Boyd, a graduate student
and instructor at the University of California at Berkeley, that is
precisely the problem: Wikipedia, for all its breadth of coverage, cannot
claim that each and every one of its entries meets any bottom-line
standard for accuracy.

"Usually there's only one or two people involved in writing the entries,"
Boyd said, "and you don't know anything about who they are."

To Boyd, who said she finds the project "an exceptionally valuable tool,"
the problem is that while some entries, particularly those about
technology, are well-read and edited by many community members, countless
others have received little or no scrutiny.

"Guess what?" Boyd said. "A lot of ancient-history specialists? They're
not online, let alone involved in Wikipedia. But a lot of students are
going to Wikipedia for information on ancient history....

weiter gehts:,1284,66210,00.html

Organisation: projekt

[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT08825 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
Message 08825 [Homepage] [Navigation]