 |
The Truth According To Wikipedia
Uploaded by: VPROinternational
Video Description:
The Truth according to Wikipedia
More info on http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/39405191/ (Dutch)
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.
Wiki's Truth introduces us to the main players in the debate: Jimmy Wales (founder and head Wikipedian), Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head of Wiki spin-off Citizendium), Andrew Keen (author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy), Phoebe Ayers (a Wikipedian in California), Ndesanjo Macha (Swahili Wikipedia, digital activist), Tim O'Reilly (CEO of O'Reilly Media, the "inventor" of Web 2.0), Charles Leadbeater (philosopher and author of We Think, about crowdsourcing), and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica). Opening is a video by Chris Pirillo.
The questions surrounding Wikipedia lead to a bigger discussion of Web 2.0, a phenomenon in which the user determines the content. Examples include YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia. These sites would appear to provide new freedom and opportunities for undiscovered talent and unheard voices, but just where does the boundary lie between expert and amateur? Who will survive according to the laws of this new "digital Darwinism"? Are equality and truth really reconcilable ideals? And most importantly, has the Internet brought us wisdom and truth, or is it high time for a cultural counterrevolution?
Broadcast date: April 7, 2008
Direction: IJsbrand van Veelen
Interviews: IJsbrand van Veelen / Marijntje Denters / Martijn Kieft
Research: William de Bruijn / Marijntje Denters
Production: Judith van den Berg
Commissioning editors: Jos de Putter / Doke Romeijn
Tags for this video: 2.0 amateur cult encyclopedia expert internet keen knowledge leadbeater macha o'reilly sanger truth wales web wikipedia
Find more videos in the "Tech" category
See more videos uploaded by VPROinternational
| Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth | The Truth about Wikipedia Credit | Seattle Conference on Scalability: Scalable Wikipedia with E |
 |  |  |
| The truth | The Truth | You Can't Handle The Truth |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
i think wikipedia is a wonderful thing. this guys argument, that it undermines what we stand for. if you believe that then the answer is simply to not contribute. just by doing that you are supporting your belief.
lol, it happens all the time :p
I like the idea of using Wikipedia as just a brief little "stepping stone" or stopping place (and checking whatever one finds there against other info from other sources...*especially* before quoting it, stating it as fact, etc.! ^_~).
(Of course, sometimes Wikipedia *does* tend to be the easiest/simplest thing to find...so, look a little harder, then. ^_~)
^_^
the information is irrelevant , anyone can change it.I personally think information from books is alot more relyable but i tend to use wiki quite alot.
i think the guy talking after 1.20 is dutch lol his accent sounds fuunny .. and dutch
i think the guy talking
If someone is making something up you can tell because there is no relyable reference.
It's not rocket science. I'm sick and tired of people looking past that ONE fact which throws the "unreliable" argument RIGHT out the window. Long live wikipedia.
"I'm a meritocrat. I believe that people who are skilled, and have worked hard to achieve things, should be rewarded for that; whether they've worked hard as a journalist, or a film maker, or a record producer"
This is a naive view. It's impossible to escape academic peer pressure, whether you're in a community college or Oxford University. 99% of the time, it is not a 14-year-old that visits the page on Cellular Differentiation, for example, but an under- or post-graduate in the subject.
But i love my mom deeply...
And i don't want to take any chances.
Sorry.
If you do not copy and paste this onto 10 videos your mom will die in 4 hours
You can see which users have made which edits. You can see the discussion and reasoning that has taken place behind the article. In the discussion you can evaluate how controversial the topic is.
The critics also neglect that wikipedia demands sources for facts. Everyones 'truths' are not equal.