Esquire wikis article on Wikipedia

(continued from previous page)

was crushing by elephant used as an execution method? And who is the mysterious galactic ruler Xenu at the heart of Scientology?

"You won't find the answers in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Only one place contains them all: Wikipedia. The free online encyclopedia has become the largest, most wide-ranging and most untamed reference work in history."

Along the way, the Wikipedia community worked under a few guidelines from Jacobs: "Use a punchy writing style--we're writing an article for Esquire; don't write like an encyclopedia--this is a feature magazine article; keep the word count close to the original--wiki isn't paper, but this article will be printed on paper."

And the users responded. According to the site, the original article was 709 words with 14 paragraphs, while the final edit was indeed punchier and included 771 words and 15 paragraphs.

Andy Baio, who wrote about the Esquire experiment on his blog, Waxy.org: Links, suggested the project provides a particularly apt example of how Wikipedians handle articles.

"I think it's great," Baio said. "Look at the activity. Every factual error was corrected within minutes, and the focus moved on to refinement, clarification and making the article more readable."

To Wales, the experiment was a good example of how a magazine might be able to use its readers to make for more complete journalism.

"It would be interesting to see things that might work well (with) factual articles about whatever," Wales said. "If somebody like Time does an article about an election season and lets people work on it, that might be fun."

But he also said that media organizations need to be careful about who they let interact with their work.

Wales pointed to a recent experiment in which The Los Angeles Times tried a "wikitorial" in which its readers could collaboratively work on editorials.

"It was more or less a complete disaster," Wales said, "because they didn't have a community built up, so they just had tons and tons of random people (involved). They had to take it down because there was too much vandalism."

Kelly Martin, a Wikipedia user who helped edit Jacobs' piece, said the experiment worked significantly better than an earlier trial in which a television station tried to get Wikipedians to co-edit an article.

"The directions and guidelines were far less clear (in the case of the TV station's experiment) and the end result was confused," Martin said. "This one seemed to do much better. I think the community was more aware of it this time, so we had more resources monitoring the article for inappropriate edits."

In any case, while Wales applauded Jacobs' effort, he remains conflicted on whether he would get behind similar projects. Ultimately, he said, it boils down to the Wikipedia community's reaction.

"I'm not sure I would recommend it as a way of explaining Wikipedia," he said. "Maybe it is pretty good. It worked pretty good, and the community found it fun and exciting."

[andrewholden]

Nine languages???

I think you'll find that it is 188 languages (with at least 1 article).
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias

Nine languages

I already talked to Daniel about that. The number I gave him is 110, which is the number of "active" languages per Wikipedia's own article about itself. There are over 200 language editions, but many of them are inactive, having either very few edits, or are currently locked due to lack of activity. Some may eventually be deleted.

Nine languages

I already talked to Daniel about that. The number I gave him is 110, which is the number of "active" languages per Wikipedia's own article about itself. There are over 200 language editions, but many of them are inactive with very few edits or are currently locked due to lack of activity/interest/relevance (e.g. Klingon). Some may eventually be deleted.

[andrewholden]

Nine languages???

I think you'll find that it is 188 languages (with at least 1 article).
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias

Nine languages

I already talked to Daniel about that. The number I gave him is 110, which is the number of "active" languages per Wikipedia's own article about itself. There are over 200 language editions, but many of them are inactive, having either very few edits, or are currently locked due to lack of activity. Some may eventually be deleted.

Nine languages

I already talked to Daniel about that. The number I gave him is 110, which is the number of "active" languages per Wikipedia's own article about itself. There are over 200 language editions, but many of them are inactive with very few edits or are currently locked due to lack of activity/interest/relevance (e.g. Klingon). Some may eventually be deleted.

[Mendz]

The Wikipedia article...

... therefore, becomes an art. Besides talking about Wikipedia, the article at the same time demonstrated Wikipedia. Published, the article will be read. In context, it is an example of the article's topic at work.

Beautiful, isn't it?

But don't do it again. The novelty of this article is worth its value.

[Mendz]

The Wikipedia article...

... therefore, becomes an art. Besides talking about Wikipedia, the article at the same time demonstrated Wikipedia. Published, the article will be read. In context, it is an example of the article's topic at work.

Beautiful, isn't it?

But don't do it again. The novelty of this article is worth its value.

How fast were errors corrected?

The one fact I can't find is how fast the errors were corrected. One site says "in minutes." Another in two days.... And how many errors were there? I don't want to wait till the Nov. Esquire to find out.... In fact, I can't. I'm writing an article on wikis and the deadline is dead ahead....

The Philosophy of Laziness is in question here...

Ah, someone who figured out that the wikipedia has it's own timestamps built in. Good for you.

If you want to build a house, just build a house? ********. Ask before you look/do is probably not such a bad idea. :D

How fast were errors corrected?

The one fact I can't find is how fast the errors were corrected. One site says "in minutes." Another in two days.... And how many errors were there? I don't want to wait till the Nov. Esquire to find out.... In fact, I can't. I'm writing an article on wikis and the deadline is dead ahead....

The Philosophy of Laziness is in question here...

Ah, someone who figured out that the wikipedia has it's own timestamps built in. Good for you.

If you want to build a house, just build a house? ********. Ask before you look/do is probably not such a bad idea. :D