Just saw Jimmy speaking on Wikipedia (shock). He spoke on a range of interesting issues facing public encyclopaedias.

First, he talked about the muppets. Wikipedia has 300 articles on muppets, which sounds like a lot. Consider then, the muppet wiki on Wikia with over 15000 articles.

When Jimmy spoke with authors of the muppet wiki, he asked “you must be running out of things to write out”.

“Oh no, we’re just getting started”.

Well, there’s a couple of conclusions Jimmy draws from that experience

• Wikipedia is only a general reference encyclopeida. Wikia and other wikis make up the rest of the library.
• These wikis include a wide range of reference material that would simply not be built up according to traditional economic models.
• Wikicrack (his term) is at play. People really ENJOY spending time indexing the knowledge on topics they like. Apparently there is a wikibridge project which is full of people who debate and write articles about the world’s major bridges.

Jimmy also went on to talk about how Wikipedia is not an appropriate citation source for a university student (and neither is Encyclopaedia Britannica). Academics must pursue the orignal source material but may well find it via Wikipedia.

With respect to editing Wikipedia, he made an interesting point I have never considered. Contributing to Wikipedia is a great way to learn about writing as an academic. Wikipedians have high standards for the quality of citations and can help you improve the rigour of your writing.

Jimmy said something which to me reflected an interesting cultural difference. In english Wikipedia, there is an article on every pokemon character. The german wikipedia has none as their wikipedians thought pokemon articles were ridiculous.

Finally, he discussed the restaurant analogy and how most systems are designed to be closed rather than open.

“Imagine designing a restaurant from scratch. You want to serve steak, so you have to give people knives. But, customers might use the knives to stab other people, so you decide to put them in a cage …”

This is what happens in run-of-the-mill web design, he said. “If you prevent people from doing bad things, you prevent them from doing good things, and it eliminates opportunities for trust.”

I’m not sure if the security folks in the conference hall next door would like that last thought so much.

I confess, I have a soft spot and an admiration for the contribution and impact that Jimmy Wales and WikiPedia have made.
In February this year, Wikipedia entered the top ten most visited Internet websites^_.[1]

In August, Wikipedia moved up to number six, receiving roughly a third of the hits that Google does.^[2]

Pretty good for the only non-profit website in the top ten. Quite a remarkable achievement for an encyclopeadia – who would have thought it?

If you are one of the 210M people that visit WikiPedia each month you may have noticed a new banner at the top of every page seeking voluntary donations to support the initiative. As I write this post, Wikipedia has received 26,396 such donations. The video from Jimmy Wales in relation to donations is worth a look.

This thought is in the nature of a challenge.

Given the amount we all use WikiPedia, in many instances to assist in doing our jobs (and our children’s homework), how much is that worth to our large successful organisations? What would the impact be if it were unavailble, or blocked by your employer? Is it worth one dollar per employee? The cost of a team lunch?

If the firm you work for hasn’t already cut a cheque, perhaps its one donation you might encourage it to make. Further,
by supporting Wikipedia you encourage others to volunteer their time for similarly valuable activities, and create a powerful resource which is being used around the world to break down the digital divide. WikiPedia is being made available in developing countries through DVDs, the 200 dollar laptop, books and pamphlets and the Wikipedia Academy holds events in Africa just to name a few.

Value simplicity

It is clear Wikipedia is well known by Internet users, and one of the reasons for its popularity is the “readability” of the table of contents, infoboxes and headings layout. Readers do not have to learn a new site each time they conduct research. It is just useful. Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge but it is a great simplifier and an outstanding connector of knowledge.

And then there is its low price….

Encourage others

Jimmy Wales’ vision and the Wikipedia team have built something truly amazing. Supporting Wikipedia tells the volunteers that their contribution has value, and sustains the effort. Its a thank you and encouragement.

The people who work for Wikipedia are great people, but there are not wealthy beyond their means. They need to eat, pay the rent, and have a life. Ultimately, if we benefit from their hard work, maybe we have an obligation to give something back?

How much? Well, it’s up to you. Perhaps $1 per employee/per year would be a useful benchmark as a starting point.

So, donate now or visit cafepress.com where you can buy Wikipedia branded merchandise.

Wikipedia donation video

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6mCO5lXsSU[/youtube]

Wikipedia spending breakdown for 2007-2008

[1] http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1214

[2] http://www.comscore.com/press/data/top_worldwide_properties.asp

Its very easy to find out, just visit the wikiscanner created by Virgil Griffith, a CalTech graduate student. Wired magazine covered the story earlier this year. Makes for some interesting research (try having a look to see who’s editing your company entry).