PopSugar

Wikipedia's Army of Volunteer Editors Are Quitting

TresSugar — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:00:32 -0800

Volunteers who edit Wikipedia each day are quickly teaching the online encyclopedia that freedom and fun are crucial to the democratization of information. Burdened by complicated restrictions and uninterested in the more mundane topics (the most popular entries have already been written), volunteer editors are leaving Wikipedia faster than new ones are joining.

Wikipedia is under constant pressure to police the accuracy of its information, and that typically means leaving the moderation to millions of engaged users. That approach is fine with me, since I usually use Wikipedia to find out what everyone else knows about something; whether or not the info is true is a secondary consideration. But if less people engage in the content creation and moderation the quality of the information could go down. And that's a problem when these pages embody, and perhaps create, conventional wisdom. It's safer when there are more people who edit the entries, and thus more people who hold the power of truth (or truthiness) in their hands.

Luckily right now there are more than three million people who write, edit, and check the information, guaranteeing some level of oversight. Let's hope Wikipedia figures out how to keep them coming back. Have you ever contributed to Wikipedia?

Is It Fair to Sue Wikipedia For Removal of Information?

GeekSugar — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:33:32 -0800

I just came across an article about a German convicted murderer who is suing Wikipedia to have his name removed from the entry of the actor he is accused of killing. Because of its community edits and contributions, Wikipedia is a fascinating place. Because it's a US company, facts on Wikipedia are protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. In Germany, however, a privacy law seeks to protect the name of a person from unwanted publicity.

I'm inclined to say if it's fact, it's fair game on Wikipedia. What do you think? Should people be able to sue for the removal of information on Wikipedia?

Website of the Day: WikiDumper

GeekSugar — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:25:15 -0700

With over three million entries, Wikipedia is the ultimate online encyclopedia. Most of you said that you regularly use it, but that you don't ever contribute or edit articles. But what happens to all of the entries that are considered for deletion by the Wikipedia gods? A website called WikiDumper pools together some of the Wiki articles that get flagged as inappropriate submissions or ones that have been nominated to be deleted. I'd have to say "The Purple Diet" entry that Mariah Carey supposedly followed - which involves eating only purple foods like plums and beetroot - is pretty hilarious.

Have an interesting website you want to share? To learn how to post your favorite websites to our Website of the Day group, read more.

First of all, join the Website of the Day group.
Click "New Post" under the website of the day tab at the top of the page.
Give your story a "Title."
Fill in the "Body" with a link to your favorite website and the reasons why you love it.
Type "Technology and Gadgets" in the Categories box
Add keyword(s) in the tag field with relevant tags (for example mine for this story was "Website of the Day").
Choose whether you want the post to be private or public.
Click "Create Post" to submit content.

Do You Contribute To and Use Wikipedia?

GeekSugar — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:50:21 -0700

Fresh off the news that Wikipedia will be rounding up trusted users to create a pool of volunteer community managers, who will approve data before it's published, a study has resurfaced saying most of the site's readers and writers are male. In fact, the study found that just 13 percent of Wikipedia contributors are female.

I find the results shocking. Next to Google, Dictionary.com and IMDB, Wikipedia has long been my go-to source for trivia and back story (taken with a grain of salt, naturally), but I have never contributed an entry. How about you?

Wikipedia Recruiting Community Managers to Monitor Content

GeekSugar — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:47:14 -0700

Although I reference Wiki on a regular basis for fun facts and trivia, I know that anyone can contribute information, which leaves me at a high risk of quoting inaccuracies. But yesterday, Wikipedia announced that they will be rounding up trusted users to create a pool of volunteer community managers, who will approve data before it's published.

But Wiki won't be covering all its bases - the rule will only apply to submissions on living people. So you can still offer up your insider knowledge on the subplots of BSG (if you are so inclined), but you can't just start publishing deets on Ashton Kutcher without getting it approved. Wiki is hoping that this will curb the amount of false data and keep the site clean, while others think that the extra step shouldn't be necessary. What do you think of the new Wiki rules?

Download of the Day: Googlepedia

GeekSugar — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:01:59 -0700

Here's a super useful Firefox extension to enhance your Google searches: Googlepedia.

Just install the extension and each time you perform a Google search, your results will come up as usual, but the right half of the screen will be populated with the Wikipedia entry of whatever you just searched - not only is it better than ads, but it kills two birds with one stone more often than not.

Wikipedia Keeps Obama's Page Clean - Is That Fair?

CitizenSugar — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:05:43 -0700

It may be more truthiness than truth, but Wikipedia still has some standards. The free, user-generated encyclopedia makes sure any mention of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president is deleted from his page within minutes. The argument that Obama is not a natural US citizen has been rejected by the Supreme Court and Wikipedia it seems.

But some fear the lookout against offensive content goes too far. Neither Jeremiah Wright or former domestic terrorist William Ayers show up on Obama's page, even though his connection with the two men gained a lot of attention during the campaign.

Wikipedia, a site that embodies and perhaps produces conventional wisdom, is monitored by trusted community members who have access to extra tools that allow them to delete certain entries. Do you trust them?

Skittles Ups the Ante With New Website

YumSugar — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:32:30 -0800

As the recession has affected consumer buying behaviors, the candy business is seeking to adapt. Mars-owned Skittles is no exception. In an attempt to reach out to the social media set, the fruity candy has completely rebranded its homepage.

Visitors to Skittles' main page are redirected to a search of the word "Skittles" on the microblogging service Twitter. The videos point to wacky Skittles commercials posted on YouTube; a "friends" section connects users to a fan page on social media giant Facebook; an image section leads to Skittles pictures on photo-sharing site Flickr; and those looking for information on Skittles products are connected to user-contributed online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

"Skittles lives in a world that is unexpected," said Carole Walker, VP of integrated marketing communications for Skittles. "We are leveraging what we think are the key consumer social media touch points."

The Skittles site requires users to enter their date of birth, as it doesn't advertise to users under the age of 12. Do you think this strategy to target older audiences will prove to be successful? Or is it too risky to depend on user-generated content? Does it change the way you view Skittles?

Source

Professor Wikipedia Is a Haphazard Mess!

GeekSugar — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:03:06 -0700

I feel like I have such a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia - the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I love how it's easy to access and offers quick facts about everything and anything, but I'm wary about trusting it as a credible source of information. I think most of you feel the same way as me, since 66 percent of you said you trust it to an extent. Well what if Wikipedia info was taught the way it's presented on the website? Here's what would happen.

Source

Do You Trust Wikis?

GeekSugar — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:00:55 -0700

Today John McCain announced he has picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. In its morning broadcast, NPR reported that McCain's choice showed up on Wikipedia (and the AP) before it had been officially confirmed as fact.

This isn't exactly an irregular event in wiki world, considering the content is created by millions of users, but it says a great deal about the power of the Internet. In the hours following the official announcement, Wikipedia users frantically updated and edited Palin's entry, adding nasty descriptive words after her name (I took a screenshot of one, but it's honestly so lowbrow I don't want to share it).

I use wikis as one of my first stop spots to learn about people and random topics, but I can't say I take anything I read as verifiable fact. How and when do you trust wikis?