Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010 - User contributions [en]

Presentation

2010-01-21T07:53:46Z

Yosuke: /* Different Perspectives on the Key Problems */

Hello - we are Amanda, Bruno, Franny, Hector and Yosuke of the Cyberlaw: Difficult Problems course. Feedback from people who use and are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an extremely important part of formulating our proposed solution, and we thank you for your interest and contributions. We only ask that you direct your comments and input to the other Future of Wikipedia pages, and allow us to use this Presentation page to create our final class presentation. We look forward to hearing from you!

= Introduction =
It might border on banality for us to repeat many of the important criticisms of Wikipedia (and indeed some of the less important criticisms). Nevertheless, we here try to sketch out areas of concern, and in some parts, our rational for not so pursuing. Several sources provided us with different categories and examples of Wikipedia's criticisms: JZ's book, Wikimedia's [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Usability Initiative], Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump Village Pump], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Policies and guidelines] (which implicitly draw attention to the small and large frictions that can develop within the community), the enthusiastic critique from commentary such as the [http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review], and in the spirit of user generated content and mass public distribution, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY YouTube videos]. [Warning: contains mild profanity.]

== Picking Our Battles ==
=== On God-Kings and Governance ===
Problems along this vein include:
*The odd status and power of [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/jimbobling.jpg Jimbo Wales], a "God-king who may or may not be able to act unilaterally" (JZ 141)
*The reliance on consensus, not on democracy
*The curious nature of a ''highly'' developed collaborative project, which has very wonderfully developed a governance structure and a form of constitutionalism. The level of development, however, can be a hindrance to reform, given the Wikipedians' strong devotion to the project and once more the need for consensus.
For purposes of the project, our group decided that we weren't about to kick out Jimmy, and the Wikipedians themselves as well as other media do a decent job at pointing out his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales#Controversy controversies]. Furthermore, the open and consensus-based nature of the Wikipedia project has resulted in very strong and thoughtful (though at times idiosyncratic) arrangements such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Five Pillars] that guide the activity of the encyclopedia.
How can we ride on the strengths of such internal machinery while injecting new sources of strength? We believe that the strength, vibrancy, and growth of the Wikipedia community could bring new avenues of improvement.

=== Contradictory Missions? ===
This broad, rather generative project was kick-started with an outrageous idea and clever new (for 2001) web-publishing software. Other than a few key initial nudges (as well as the code behind the structure), the community was left to fill in the gaps on its own. Some of the resulting kinks include:
*The Inclusionism vs. Deletionism debate
*An interpretation of the banner project as an attempt to compile An Online Encyclopedia or The Sum of All Human Knowledge
*The stark differences in the vision and execution in the different language Wikipedias. (Compare the English and German sites)
Much has been written regarding the inclusionism/deletionism debate, from the popular media to the depths of obscure Wikipedia discussion pages. As strongly as some of us (Hector) may feel one way or the other (why exclude valuable information about minor Star Wars characters?!) about the matter, adding another voice to the shouting match would probably not settle most of the disagreements.

=== Quality===
Our visiting friends from the Wikipedia Review were quite keen to correctly point out the differences between '''perceived''' and '''actual''' accuracy within Wikipedia. And indeed, different challenges are at hand in allaying the different concerns of different readers, who might be using Wikipedia to
*study for a med school exam,
*learn more about their Senator,
*write a 6th grade history paper, or
*write an Associated Press fluff piece about quality concerns in Wikipedia.
Currently, the most powerful tool in Wikipedia's arsenal against vandalism and inaccuracy is its editing base and the large number of eyeballs the community provides. Once again, the health and growth of the Wikipedia community are vital factors, as are the current policies regarding sources, references, and neutrality. We think that good solutions can tap into the project's very strengths here.

=== Issues in Education ===
When schools and colleges express concern over their students using or possibly misusing Wikipedia in their academic work, Wikipedia's own response has generally taken the mildly surprising form of acknowledging its limitations and underlining its proper use as a teriary source. Even so, this tertiary source is one that dominates many a student's initial research paths and quite often ends up being the only source consulted.

Another manner of addressing this problem can be to engage the students to collaborate with the Wikipedia project themselves. In doing so, they might learn more about an assigned topic (given the increasingly stringent requirements of relevance and citation within Wikipedia), learn more about collaborative projects more generally (with the rules, benefits, and pratfalls of such a subculture), all the while helping with Wikipedia's overall aims of further compiling human knowledge.

Various articles and even Wikipedia pages document how others have scratched at this possibility. While our own group's proposal is not directly about classroom participation in the Wikipedia community, we think that our concerns with streamlining certain forms of community participation could easily be ported towards more specific pedagogical implementations.

=== Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community ===
==== Size ====
==== Readers, Casual Editors, and Experienced Editors ====
==== Subcultural Aspects ====
=== Financial Sustainability? ===

== Honing In ==
=== Interaction with the Community-Centric Nature of Wikipedia ===
* As it stands, Wikipedia does have a constitution, albeit a bit more like England's constitution
* What improvements could be consistent with Wikipedia's strengths, while providing forward-thinking alternatives?
* A choice to work within the hilarious environment that is a consensus-driven open collaboration
=== Regarding Deliverability ===
* Considering the reams of electronic text that have been written on the topic, we decided that a simple, ''actually'' implementable solution might fare better
* Wikipedia is quite open and quite dynamic. But one does get a sense that the experienced editors rule, with added clout stemming from knowing the levers and style of the community.
* Can we suggest a perspective or solution that can dovetail with the aims of the present ''and future'' Wikipedia community?

= Selected Key Problems to Address =
[Yosuke to expand]
:1. Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
:2. Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)
::2.1 Deals with issues of:
:::- community
:::- motivations
:::- outreach and public relations

= Different Perspectives on the Key Problems =
[Bruno and Franny to expand]
:* Bridgespan
::- think of Wikipedia as a movement in addition to a non-profit organization under the direction of a board
:* Wikimedia
:: ''Wikimedia Usability Initiative''
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Usability_Initiative/Project_Scope Project Scope]
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study Usability and Experience Study]
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study Progress Study]
:* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 Wikipedia Review]
:* General public (primarily outside of Wikipedia editor community)
[[Image:Mturk01.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk02.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk03.jpg]]

[[Image:Mturkpie01.jpg]] [[Image:Mturkpie02.jpg]]

:'''CONTENT:'''
::''1. Too many people are writing/editing the same article.
::''2. Limit the number of people who can work on one article at any given time, and lock down good articles that shouldn't be changed, or only give access to writers/editors that are trusted.

::''1. Some of the information presented is false.
::''2. A suggestion is to make the material go through a process where it is checked by individuals before it is posted.

::''1. A lot of the information is false or inaccurate.
::''2. Have editors that check information before it is published.

::''1. it is not considered a reliable source by educators
::''2. prove that the information is reliable so students will be able to use it for academic reasons

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that not all of the information is legitimate. Wikipedia is not a good source for papers and some of the information is false. Anyone can post information there.
::''2. You can solve the problem by having a team collaborate on user's information before it is posted.

::''1. The biggest problem is its trustworthyness. I'm never sure that I can trust the information on wikipeida.
::''2. This can be fixed by being more careful about putting in citations.

::''1. I think Wikipedia's lack of total credibility is its biggest problem. Many entries lack citations verifying the accuracy.
::''2. I think the problem can be solved by finding editors to check the accuracy of the entries made by people.

::''1. I think too many big information on a given topic. Information that is unnecessary for a common man.
::''2. Wikipedia can be made short perhaps a link for "advanced reading" given seperately and only the basic information in the main page.

::''1. The grammar and sentence structure is often wrong or confusing.
::''2. Use grammar check and make people edit the texts.

::''1. The biggest problem is some of it is more opinion than fact.
::''2. A way to solve this is just to have the writer mention facts, and not on opinion or speculation.

::''1: The biggest problem is that most of the articles lack references and professionalism.
::''2: One solution is not to allow just any user to edit or create an article with providing good and "quality" references first, and then having a professional to look over the article and make sure it meets high quality standards before being published.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with the current Wikipedia is that quite a few things, such as medical terms or conditions, are either not even listed or only have a very, very basic explanation.
::''2. I think you can solve those problems by working on collecting & posting more detailed information about topics you only have a brief description of or that there is currently no information about on the site.

::''1. non expert opinion of explanation about subjects which looks like an expert explanation.
::''2. just do a simple test before letting people to post articals

::''1. I believe there is some inconsistency in the correct knowledge about topics.
::''2. This could be changed by having more experts on topics reviewing the information before it is posted.

::''1. I think the biggest problem is that anybody can submit information, and there is no real way to verify if the information is even correct or not.
::''2. Wikipedia needs to start really investigating who is submitting information and makes sure that correct information isn't tampered with.

::''1. In many articles recent updations are not clear in wiki.Sometimes wrong informations are given or outdated informations.
::''2. Make a team for checking the article ,they can create updations if needed.

::''1. Not peer reviewed.
::''2. Have professionals review articles before posted.

::''1. Extreme left wing bias, as well as failure to monitor those who have extreme bias. The Climategate scientist who edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and wiped out all mention of the Medieval Warm Period and anything that included discussion of other causes of global warming (such as solar activity or continuation of human deforestation as agriculture advanced) were removed.
::''2. Allow those who report slander and abuse to have the editor's changes removed. Allow those who have credentials in their field to have a higher value in their edits than general off the street users.

::''1. People write things that aren't correct or accurate on Wikipedia.
::''2. To solve the problem, Wikipedia can hire professionals to verify all information posted on Wikipedia.

::''1. Unverified informatioin.
::''2. Require the production of the reference to support the information's accuracy.

::''1. There is no standard level education or research ability to those who edit it.
::''2. Allow only those who can provide necessary abilities and pass tests and reviews by wikipedia standards.

::''1: GIVING THE UNWANTED MORE INFORMATION TRY TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION
::''2: SHORT THE STORIES INTO THE IMPORTANT LINES ONLY WHICH CAN HELPS US TO SEE THE MAIN POINTS

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is also its greatest strength - its inclusivity in that anyone can amend add information. A lot of people think that, therefore, the information on the site may not necessarily be accurate, and may even be deliberately misleading. For example : dates of death given for people who are still alive.
::''2. All information should be centrally vetted for accurate content. This should be highly publicized.

::''1. The length of the content, the huge history sections and irrelevant information.
::''2. Cut back on the history and the unneeded text sections, paraphrase.

::''1. Wikipedia describes every concept in a detailed manner; sometimes it is so deep that is confusing to layman.
::''2. This problem could be solved by adding pictorial representation of the data and also by using simple words and sentences.

::''1. Not articles on every person subject
::''2. Not everyone will write articles. Let people suggest articles that should be added, then hire people to write articles on the suggested subjects.

::''1. Anyone can edit the information so the content is unreliable.
::''2. Have a screening procedure by which people have to sign up, state credentials and a method of verifying them and be given a password in order to change or add information.

::''1. Wikipedia lacks in depth articles. Only the basics are available in many cases.
::''2. Could you link it with Google search's database somehow to get the specific result ?

::''1. Incorrect information
::''2. Restrict editing to qualified professionals in that field

::''1. The biggest problem of current Wikipedia is the absence of the staff. There are no persons from Wikipedia that have to verify authenticity of articles and correct misspellings. Wikipedia is a community-based website and that is not great.
::''2. You can solve the problem by hiring a couple of persons that can verify and correct the articles before they are stated on Wikipedia.

::''1. The biggest problem is that you can't confirm the information on there is true.
::''2. Things need to get approved and there needs to be constraints as to who can post

::''1. Whichever page you open , you have and "edit this page" and then "save this edited page" . If required anyone can edit it which can be used for actual editing the contents or otherwise prank.
::''2. I would want "edit this page" and contents to be saved in the page be given to a proper Moderator who can change the details in Wikipedia rather than allowing one and all without any proper control.

::''1. False information here and there.
::''2. Not much else you can do than increase moderation.

::''1. The fact that one still can never be completely sure if the information is correct or unbiased.
::''2. Hire historians, unbiased group to proof everything

::''1. Wikipedia has user edited information, which can sometimes lead to false information in an article. Wiki does check people's work but it may take some time before false information is removed.
::''2. To solve this problem, Wiki should have users go through a screening process before being allowed to add/edit an article.

::''1. Too little information is the problem
::''2. Provide more information on certain topics that have little information will make a huge difference

::''1. I THINK THAT WHEN IAM SEARCHING SOMETHING WIKIPEDIA DO NOT GIVES THE ORIGINAL DATA RELATING TO TOPIC
::''2. U CAN SOLV T THROUGH A BRIEF SURVEY AND STUDY ABT THE PROBLEM

::''1. Some articles seem biased
::''2. More oversight before changes are added/submitted

::''1. I think that it is extremely important to solve the problem of accuracy within the articles. This leads to Wikipedia not being a permissible source for any academic purposes.
::''2. There should be a kind of IQ test before editing is allowed. In fact, limiting editing to registered users only would be a huge step in the right direction! Good luck!

::''1. N/A
::''2. need to edit people postings information whether its is 100% real or not.

::''1. Infromation is too accurate. Sometimes only opinion of the writer is represneted. Some dates, facts may be fake.
::''2. Represent neuteral opinion. Correspond regrading dates/facts to paperback encyclopedias, they are more accurate.

::''1. the information shown in wikipedia for some particular data may not be true.that is there are false information.
::''2. it can be solved by studying more about those and putting the right information

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is a lot of people don't trust the validity of the answers found there.
::''2. In order to solve this problem you need to have accredited sources that provide the answers to the questions asked on the site.

::''1. The content was not updated.
::''2. Please review at least 1 month.

::''1. The biggest problem is accuracy of articles. Who knows what is fact and what is opinion.
::''2. Solving the problem can be partially done by stating Wikipedia does not guaranty the accuracy of an article.

::''1. The realiability of the information is still not where it needs to be. I have found that the information that can be found in Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable, however the website does have a reputation for having things that are not entirely true or correct.
::''2. I feel this can be solved is there are more articles on Wikipedia that are certified by professionals in the area or subject and that can vouch for the truthfulness of the information provided.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is the fact that they don't have a link available on major sites such as google or yahoo.com. Therefore, making people are less likely to use it.
::''2. We can solve that problem by providing a link to Wikipedia on sites such as yahoo, google, msn, and maybe even on facebook. The website of Wikipedia itself is excellent and very useful to everyday life. They should just make it easier to access it.

::''1. Readability.
::''2. Hire people like me to implement ABC's, accuracy, brevity and clarity!

::''1. The information given isn't always accurate. I am a college student and as a rule we are banned from using Wikipedia as a source for our papers.
::''2. The problem can be solved by ensuring that the information is correct.

::''1. Sometimes the stubs have no information
::''2. request that the stubs actually have at least a link to a site or something

:'''VANDALISM AND ATTRIBUTION:'''
::''1. The biggest problem is people can use anonymity to vandalize Wikipedia in both blatant and sneaky ways.
::''2. The best way to solve the problem is to ban anonymous edits and require a verified email address. This preserves the fundamental principle of allowing anyone to edit because anyone can get a free yahoo or hotmail account and use it to register. But it will deter a lot of the vandalism because signing up for a free email account and then registering a Wiki account is more trouble than it's worth if your intent is to vandalize (and get banned quickly). But if you want to make legitimate contributions, going through the process one time is only a minor inconvenience.

::''1. People vandalising pages or putting unsourced information.
::''2. Only allowing trusted members to add content or edit information on wikipedia's pages

::''1. The ability for someone on a local computer to mess around and change words on the site.
::''2. Make the user register to post comments instead of just letting them post it. As for as myself concerned Wikipedia is on the right path and if somebody feels any hardship it will gradually be eliminated.

::''1. Sometimes you cannot trust the person who gives the information it provides.
::''2. The solution here is to have a background of the person who gave the information in Wikipedia.

::''1. People putting in information that is not correct, when they know it's not correct, but because they think it's funny/amusing.
::''2. Require information be checked by a second person before it's put into an article.

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.
::''2. I think that those who edit the information on the site should have some sort of qualification and it should be subject to review before being displayed.

::''1. Wikipedia is open to have their definitions being changed and there have been charges that some of the definitions have been hacked and manipulated by people that want to have their version of an event validated on Wikipedia.
::''2. The solution might be to have a review panel to look over disputed items or complaints to see if the definition is valid.

::''1. Too much vandalism and unreliability of information.
::''2. Allow only registered members to edit/create pages. Make sure those registered members are confirmed through CAPTCHA, email, etc. And have more experienced moderators assigned to different categories to check page edits.

::''1. The biggest problem is that anyone can post whatever they want to the pages.
::''2. Have some way to fact-check the information before it is posted to the pages would solve the problem.

::''1. We are never sure the information are accurate.
::''2. Let members of Wikipedia Vote for article's accuracy and display on site the result out 100% (with number of votes).

::''1. There is no real control of who or what is posted.
::''2. There needs to be a "review" standard before items are published. I love to use wilipedia.

::''1. Malicious editing / reversions.
::''2. Require approval for edits e.g. at least 3 people should agree.

::''1. People can input incorrect information.
::''2. Have a review process before info is accepted

::''1. The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.
::''2. There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. somebody will sort it out.

::''1. The biggest problem is that any one can post information on a a subject that's not totally accurate or totally false information.
::''2. Needs a authenticate the information that was put on Wikipedia. Example a professional or some one that can do this.

::''1. There's no way to guarantee if the information is correct.
::''2. Have more reliable sources.

::''1. Quality control. While some entries are great, quality varies widely. Some articles are written by experts in the area, and while this is great, they're understood only by other experts. Then there are the articles that get vandalized constantly.
::''2. Assign admins specifically to different topics. This also means that they can concentrate on one area that they enjoy instead of worrying about the whole wiki.

::''1. The fact that information can be edited to easily.
::''2. Tighter security restrictions on who can edit/add what

::''1. There is too much information of questionable veracity.
::''2. Check the credentials of people posting/editing articles.

::''1. People vandalizing the articles, i.e chancing numbers presented in statistics and facts on various pages
::''2. Each revision should be voted on and checked by others before being shown to the public

::''1. That any one can change anything.
::''2. Have a stricter set of guidelines on who can edit what.

::''1. The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information.
::''2. I believe you could allow only people that work for the company or professors from colleges with proof of their work to be able to edit the pages. That way people wont go on and change things just to be funny.

:'''SEARCH AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE:'''
::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not being able to find the meanings to an given subject.
::''2. The solution is to make details more simpler for others to understand so that it will be easier for users to find the answers that they are seeking.

::''1. The main problem is answers are scattered.
::''2. By ordering it we can solve it.

::''1. Using javascript (extensions/UsabilityInitiative/*) causes certain browsers (Mozilla 1.7) to crash.
::''2. Re-write scripts so that they work.

::''1. in my point of view all the answers given by the Wikipedia is perfect. but the arrangement of all answers is not attractive.
::''2. for avoid this problem please make some attraction back round and tabulation usage also must. thank you.

::''1. if we try to search anything in wikipedia means its taking much longer time to load the page than othersites.
::''2. you can increase the bandwidth of the site,thus making it a fast one

::''1. The problem is we need seperate search Engine for all fields.
::''2. plz create an search Engine about all the fields.

::''1: In terms of search pages, if doesn`t find any match it is not even bringing any related topics to its users.
::''2: In cases of not finding any match for search result, it can atleast mention linked search result thru someother search websites.

::''1. PAGE LOADING TAKING LOT OF TIME IN WIKIPEDIA when compared to Google.
::''2. Please make the site in such a way that page loads quickly

::''1. The loading time are too long in some busy time such as 7-10 PM
::''2. I am not sure is the problem appear due to the network company or the Wikipedia. if the problem due to the Wikipedia's system, i think it should improve that problem to build a new system which have better quality system.

::''1. It loads slow. Wherever I have been around the world wikipedia always shows up near the top in search results but I avoid it because it's slow.
::''2. Use all that money that was recently collected and buy more capacity for the site.

::''1. There are too many results, and some of them are not matched with the actual search results. for eg -- zuerich = zurich.
::''2. A proper keywords search should be used, that matches word to word.

:'''GOVERNANCE:'''
::''1. Wikilawyering is the most frustrating part of working on Wikipedia. A casual user like me is easily intimated when more experienced members invoke seemingly obscure Wikipedia policies.
::''2. Simplify and reduce the number of Wikipedia policy pages.

:'''USER INTERFACE / WEBDESIGN:'''
::''1. Color of the website is boring.
::''2. changing the layout is the only solution

::''1. It needs more color.
::''2. Having a new logo might help this problem.

:'''MISCELLANEOUS:'''
::''1. Funding
::''2. Offer a premium upgrade with fuller content, additional resources (eb.com, hoovers.com, amazon.com, bankrate.com, *.edu, *.gov, *.org), integrated video with real-time RSS and twitter feeds. Set the price at something low to entice those who want the upgrade as easy as saying "yes". I recommend no more than $1.99/month * 1,000,000 users the first month = $1,990,000. This would alleviate Jimmy from having to beg 3 times a year for help and would immensely improve the quality of the information. mechturk@ymail.com

::''1. I feel there is no problem in the current wikipedia. Everything is fine and we get solution for everything for everything from Wiki.
::''2. Its better give a link on everypage of wiki for a feedback, that makes to improve the wiki better.

::''1. the big problem about wikipedia is that there is no mailing and chat options with the people who have submitted notes. we people sometimes have problem with notes, so we want to solve our problem. the second problem of wikipedia is that the grammar and words are not simple so only US and UK people can easily understand because its their own language. but its somewhat hard for other language people to understand it.
::''2. so make grammar and words simple for people to understand.

:'''OUTTAKES:''' [[Image:clapperboard.jpg]]
::''1. There aren't pictures of enough marvel comics characters.
::''2. Put more pictures up.

::''1. Global warming is the biggest problem of current Wikipedia.
::''2. It can be solve by growing more trees

::''1. I could not find any problem on Wikipedia. Many times, i am read Wikipedia frequently.
::''2. N/A

::''1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia! Please donot try to "fix" something that is not broken!!!
::''2. N/A

::''1. The current Wikipedia has nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia doesn't have problems to solve.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think there is no problem in the current Wikipedia. It is a very good source of information.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think Wikipedia is perfect.
::''2. N/A

::''1. sit survey very nice and good
::''2. N/A

= Analysis =
[Bruno and Franny to expand]
:* Must reach out to user base outside of Wikipedia's community; How does that user base perceive Wikipedia and its problems?
:* What demographic are we reaching out to? how will we reach that demographic?
:* Utilizing crowdsourcing techniques to highlight factual inaccuracies? How can we harness [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Talk:Future_of_Wikipedia voluntary contributory energies]?
:* Organization and filtering techniques will make it easier to match factual inaccuracies with editors (new or existing) willing and able to make corrections

= Proposed Solutions =
[Amanda to expand]

*Changing the production system from a decentralized to a semi-centralized one in respect to what would be considered an article approved for publication by Wikipedia. The aim would be to develop a culture of developing different versions of articles that are preceded by a beta versions before their official launch. Most of this is inspired by software production system.
*Develop an outreach campaign focused at both increasing Wikipedia's user base and improving the quality of user participation (e.g. Donate edits to Wikipedia)
:* Discuss promotional campaign to launch application
* Filtering/sorting mechanisms for the landing page - perhaps link to a re-organized Community Portal page
* Link landing page to a web initiative similar to Aardvark
* Integration with banner and other promotional tools on Wikipedia pages
* Strengthening relationship and partnering with secondary school systems (e.g. lesson plan proposal)
*Create a GreasyMonkey script for the purposes of:
::- highlighting incorrect/disputed/highly disputed information and creating an accessible database issues;
::- reaching out to readers of Wikipedia and drawing them into the Wikipedia editor community.

'''PRODUCT SPEC:'''

Wikipedia Educational Browser Extension

[[Image:Spec2.jpg]]

'''WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:'''

This browser extension serves many purposes: first, it is meant to facilitate the identification of factual errors within Wikipedia by creating a user-friendly way to catalog the errors using Wikipedia's taxonomy - which you can find under the open task bar in this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal>, second, it provides an inroad for new potential editors to interact with the site through micro-contributions and build familiarity with Wikipedia process, third it teaches users to do not completely rely on the text he/she is reading and to point him/her to which areas need contribution [?], fourth, it would also work as a way to bring the discussion page to the surface, teaching them to "discuss before editing".

What to Build (Description) â please forgive the non-technical nature of this spec. We are happy to provide additional information including more views if needed.

After the user installs the plugin, there should be a logo in the bottom right corner of the browser and an entry added to the âtoolsâ bar of the browser.

We imagine the interaction as follows:

When the user spots an error, he or she can click on our logo in the corner of the browser or click the entry in the Tools menu and a small window will pop up from the bottom of the browser (see below image for basic window design). Then, he or she would highlight the text that contains what the users suspects to be an error. The text would be auto-pasted into the text box. Then the user can add commentary and additional references. After the user adds commentary on the error and clicks submit the two text fields will be sent to two places â our database and a landing page where the accuracy flags will be delivered in real-time.

Moreover, the script would allow the user to see, if he/she desires which areas of the text are highly controversial and had many people commenting on them. This would be made by attributing hotter colors to more disputed/commented paragraphs and lighter colors to the others. This functionality is inspired by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 this tool] developed for the purpose of revising the GPL licenses.

The text should disappear from the two boxes and instead be replaced by a popup dialog box that says âthank you for your contribution.â

= Implementation =
:1. Name application
:2. Reach out to Mozilla community to build proposed FireFox application extension.
:3. Work with Wikimedia/Bridgespan to incorporate landing page and application with Wikipedia.

= Discussion Questions =
* How do we keep this tool from being an invitation to massively and scrupulously edit only topics like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift Taylor Swift] article?
* What should we name our application?
:* Wiki Peer Review
:* WikiNation; WikiWorld
:* Our Wikipedia
:* Wikipedia For Life (W4L)
* Compare the average discussion happening in a Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift talk page] and one happening on a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w Youtube video]. Which one is better?

File:Mturkpie02.jpg

2010-01-21T07:52:04Z

Yosuke:

File:Mturkpie01.jpg

2010-01-21T07:51:48Z

Yosuke:

Presentation

2010-01-21T07:27:47Z

Yosuke: /* Different Perspectives on the Key Problems */

Hello - we are Amanda, Bruno, Franny, Hector and Yosuke of the Cyberlaw: Difficult Problems course. Feedback from people who use and are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an extremely important part of formulating our proposed solution, and we thank you for your interest and contributions. We only ask that you direct your comments and input to the other Future of Wikipedia pages, and allow us to use this Presentation page to create our final class presentation. We look forward to hearing from you!

= Introduction =
It might border on banality for us to repeat many of the important criticisms of Wikipedia (and indeed some of the less important criticisms). Nevertheless, we here try to sketch out areas of concern, and in some parts, our rational for not so pursuing. Several sources provided us with different categories and examples of Wikipedia's criticisms: JZ's book, Wikimedia's [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Usability Initiative], Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump Village Pump], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Policies and guidelines] (which implicitly draw attention to the small and large frictions that can develop within the community), the enthusiastic critique from commentary such as the [http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review], and in the spirit of user generated content and mass public distribution, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY YouTube videos]. [Warning: contains mild profanity.]

== Picking Our Battles ==
=== On God-Kings and Governance ===
Problems along this vein include:
*The odd status and power of [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/jimbobling.jpg Jimbo Wales], a "God-king who may or may not be able to act unilaterally" (JZ 141)
*The reliance on consensus, not on democracy
*The curious nature of a ''highly'' developed collaborative project, which has very wonderfully developed a governance structure and a form of constitutionalism. The level of development, however, can be a hindrance to reform, given the Wikipedians' strong devotion to the project and once more the need for consensus.
For purposes of the project, our group decided that we weren't about to kick out Jimmy, and the Wikipedians themselves as well as other media do a decent job at pointing out his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales#Controversy controversies]. Furthermore, the open and consensus-based nature of the Wikipedia project has resulted in very strong and thoughtful (though at times idiosyncratic) arrangements such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Five Pillars] that guide the activity of the encyclopedia.
How can we ride on the strengths of such internal machinery while injecting new sources of strength? We believe that the strength, vibrancy, and growth of the Wikipedia community could bring new avenues of improvement.

=== Contradictory Missions? ===
This broad, rather generative project was kick-started with an outrageous idea and clever new (for 2001) web-publishing software. Other than a few key initial nudges (as well as the code behind the structure), the community was left to fill in the gaps on its own. Some of the resulting kinks include:
*The Inclusionism vs. Deletionism debate
*An interpretation of the banner project as an attempt to compile An Online Encyclopedia or The Sum of All Human Knowledge
*The stark differences in the vision and execution in the different language Wikipedias. (Compare the English and German sites)
Much has been written regarding the inclusionism/deletionism debate, from the popular media to the depths of obscure Wikipedia discussion pages. As strongly as some of us (Hector) may feel one way or the other (why exclude valuable information about minor Star Wars characters?!) about the matter, adding another voice to the shouting match would probably not settle most of the disagreements.

=== Quality===
Our visiting friends from the Wikipedia Review were quite keen to correctly point out the differences between '''perceived''' and '''actual''' accuracy within Wikipedia. And indeed, different challenges are at hand in allaying the different concerns of different readers, who might be using Wikipedia to
*study for a med school exam,
*learn more about their Senator,
*write a 6th grade history paper, or
*write an Associated Press fluff piece about quality concerns in Wikipedia.
Currently, the most powerful tool in Wikipedia's arsenal against vandalism and inaccuracy is its editing base and the large number of eyeballs the community provides. Once again, the health and growth of the Wikipedia community are vital factors, as are the current policies regarding sources, references, and neutrality. We think that good solutions can tap into the project's very strengths here.

=== Issues in Education ===
When schools and colleges express concern over their students using or possibly misusing Wikipedia in their academic work, Wikipedia's own response has generally taken the mildly surprising form of acknowledging its limitations and underlining its proper use as a teriary source. Even so, this tertiary source is one that dominates many a student's initial research paths and quite often ends up being the only source consulted.

Another manner of addressing this problem can be to engage the students to collaborate with the Wikipedia project themselves. In doing so, they might learn more about an assigned topic (given the increasingly stringent requirements of relevance and citation within Wikipedia), learn more about collaborative projects more generally (with the rules, benefits, and pratfalls of such a subculture), all the while helping with Wikipedia's overall aims of further compiling human knowledge.

Various articles and even Wikipedia pages document how others have scratched at this possibility. While our own group's proposal is not directly about classroom participation in the Wikipedia community, we think that our concerns with streamlining certain forms of community participation could easily be ported towards more specific pedagogical implementations.

=== Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community ===
==== Size ====
==== Readers, Casual Editors, and Experienced Editors ====
==== Subcultural Aspects ====
=== Financial Sustainability? ===

== Honing In ==
=== Interaction with the Community-Centric Nature of Wikipedia ===
* As it stands, Wikipedia does have a constitution, albeit a bit more like England's constitution
* What improvements could be consistent with Wikipedia's strengths, while providing forward-thinking alternatives?
* A choice to work within the hilarious environment that is a consensus-driven open collaboration
=== Regarding Deliverability ===
* Considering the reams of electronic text that have been written on the topic, we decided that a simple, ''actually'' implementable solution might fare better
* Wikipedia is quite open and quite dynamic. But one does get a sense that the experienced editors rule, with added clout stemming from knowing the levers and style of the community.
* Can we suggest a perspective or solution that can dovetail with the aims of the present ''and future'' Wikipedia community?

= Selected Key Problems to Address =
[Yosuke to expand]
:1. Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
:2. Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)
::2.1 Deals with issues of:
:::- community
:::- motivations
:::- outreach and public relations

= Different Perspectives on the Key Problems =
[Bruno and Franny to expand]
:* Bridgespan
::- think of Wikipedia as a movement in addition to a non-profit organization under the direction of a board
:* Wikimedia
:: ''Wikimedia Usability Initiative''
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Usability_Initiative/Project_Scope Project Scope]
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study Usability and Experience Study]
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study Progress Study]
:* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 Wikipedia Review]
:* General public (primarily outside of Wikipedia editor community)
[[Image:Mturk01.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk02.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk03.jpg]]

:'''CONTENT:'''
::''1. Too many people are writing/editing the same article.
::''2. Limit the number of people who can work on one article at any given time, and lock down good articles that shouldn't be changed, or only give access to writers/editors that are trusted.

::''1. Some of the information presented is false.
::''2. A suggestion is to make the material go through a process where it is checked by individuals before it is posted.

::''1. A lot of the information is false or inaccurate.
::''2. Have editors that check information before it is published.

::''1. it is not considered a reliable source by educators
::''2. prove that the information is reliable so students will be able to use it for academic reasons

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that not all of the information is legitimate. Wikipedia is not a good source for papers and some of the information is false. Anyone can post information there.
::''2. You can solve the problem by having a team collaborate on user's information before it is posted.

::''1. The biggest problem is its trustworthyness. I'm never sure that I can trust the information on wikipeida.
::''2. This can be fixed by being more careful about putting in citations.

::''1. I think Wikipedia's lack of total credibility is its biggest problem. Many entries lack citations verifying the accuracy.
::''2. I think the problem can be solved by finding editors to check the accuracy of the entries made by people.

::''1. I think too many big information on a given topic. Information that is unnecessary for a common man.
::''2. Wikipedia can be made short perhaps a link for "advanced reading" given seperately and only the basic information in the main page.

::''1. The grammar and sentence structure is often wrong or confusing.
::''2. Use grammar check and make people edit the texts.

::''1. The biggest problem is some of it is more opinion than fact.
::''2. A way to solve this is just to have the writer mention facts, and not on opinion or speculation.

::''1: The biggest problem is that most of the articles lack references and professionalism.
::''2: One solution is not to allow just any user to edit or create an article with providing good and "quality" references first, and then having a professional to look over the article and make sure it meets high quality standards before being published.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with the current Wikipedia is that quite a few things, such as medical terms or conditions, are either not even listed or only have a very, very basic explanation.
::''2. I think you can solve those problems by working on collecting & posting more detailed information about topics you only have a brief description of or that there is currently no information about on the site.

::''1. non expert opinion of explanation about subjects which looks like an expert explanation.
::''2. just do a simple test before letting people to post articals

::''1. I believe there is some inconsistency in the correct knowledge about topics.
::''2. This could be changed by having more experts on topics reviewing the information before it is posted.

::''1. I think the biggest problem is that anybody can submit information, and there is no real way to verify if the information is even correct or not.
::''2. Wikipedia needs to start really investigating who is submitting information and makes sure that correct information isn't tampered with.

::''1. In many articles recent updations are not clear in wiki.Sometimes wrong informations are given or outdated informations.
::''2. Make a team for checking the article ,they can create updations if needed.

::''1. Not peer reviewed.
::''2. Have professionals review articles before posted.

::''1. Extreme left wing bias, as well as failure to monitor those who have extreme bias. The Climategate scientist who edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and wiped out all mention of the Medieval Warm Period and anything that included discussion of other causes of global warming (such as solar activity or continuation of human deforestation as agriculture advanced) were removed.
::''2. Allow those who report slander and abuse to have the editor's changes removed. Allow those who have credentials in their field to have a higher value in their edits than general off the street users.

::''1. People write things that aren't correct or accurate on Wikipedia.
::''2. To solve the problem, Wikipedia can hire professionals to verify all information posted on Wikipedia.

::''1. Unverified informatioin.
::''2. Require the production of the reference to support the information's accuracy.

::''1. There is no standard level education or research ability to those who edit it.
::''2. Allow only those who can provide necessary abilities and pass tests and reviews by wikipedia standards.

::''1: GIVING THE UNWANTED MORE INFORMATION TRY TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION
::''2: SHORT THE STORIES INTO THE IMPORTANT LINES ONLY WHICH CAN HELPS US TO SEE THE MAIN POINTS

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is also its greatest strength - its inclusivity in that anyone can amend add information. A lot of people think that, therefore, the information on the site may not necessarily be accurate, and may even be deliberately misleading. For example : dates of death given for people who are still alive.
::''2. All information should be centrally vetted for accurate content. This should be highly publicized.

::''1. The length of the content, the huge history sections and irrelevant information.
::''2. Cut back on the history and the unneeded text sections, paraphrase.

::''1. Wikipedia describes every concept in a detailed manner; sometimes it is so deep that is confusing to layman.
::''2. This problem could be solved by adding pictorial representation of the data and also by using simple words and sentences.

::''1. Not articles on every person subject
::''2. Not everyone will write articles. Let people suggest articles that should be added, then hire people to write articles on the suggested subjects.

::''1. Anyone can edit the information so the content is unreliable.
::''2. Have a screening procedure by which people have to sign up, state credentials and a method of verifying them and be given a password in order to change or add information.

::''1. Wikipedia lacks in depth articles. Only the basics are available in many cases.
::''2. Could you link it with Google search's database somehow to get the specific result ?

::''1. Incorrect information
::''2. Restrict editing to qualified professionals in that field

::''1. The biggest problem of current Wikipedia is the absence of the staff. There are no persons from Wikipedia that have to verify authenticity of articles and correct misspellings. Wikipedia is a community-based website and that is not great.
::''2. You can solve the problem by hiring a couple of persons that can verify and correct the articles before they are stated on Wikipedia.

::''1. The biggest problem is that you can't confirm the information on there is true.
::''2. Things need to get approved and there needs to be constraints as to who can post

::''1. Whichever page you open , you have and "edit this page" and then "save this edited page" . If required anyone can edit it which can be used for actual editing the contents or otherwise prank.
::''2. I would want "edit this page" and contents to be saved in the page be given to a proper Moderator who can change the details in Wikipedia rather than allowing one and all without any proper control.

::''1. False information here and there.
::''2. Not much else you can do than increase moderation.

::''1. The fact that one still can never be completely sure if the information is correct or unbiased.
::''2. Hire historians, unbiased group to proof everything

::''1. Wikipedia has user edited information, which can sometimes lead to false information in an article. Wiki does check people's work but it may take some time before false information is removed.
::''2. To solve this problem, Wiki should have users go through a screening process before being allowed to add/edit an article.

::''1. Too little information is the problem
::''2. Provide more information on certain topics that have little information will make a huge difference

::''1. I THINK THAT WHEN IAM SEARCHING SOMETHING WIKIPEDIA DO NOT GIVES THE ORIGINAL DATA RELATING TO TOPIC
::''2. U CAN SOLV T THROUGH A BRIEF SURVEY AND STUDY ABT THE PROBLEM

::''1. Some articles seem biased
::''2. More oversight before changes are added/submitted

::''1. I think that it is extremely important to solve the problem of accuracy within the articles. This leads to Wikipedia not being a permissible source for any academic purposes.
::''2. There should be a kind of IQ test before editing is allowed. In fact, limiting editing to registered users only would be a huge step in the right direction! Good luck!

::''1. N/A
::''2. need to edit people postings information whether its is 100% real or not.

::''1. Infromation is too accurate. Sometimes only opinion of the writer is represneted. Some dates, facts may be fake.
::''2. Represent neuteral opinion. Correspond regrading dates/facts to paperback encyclopedias, they are more accurate.

::''1. the information shown in wikipedia for some particular data may not be true.that is there are false information.
::''2. it can be solved by studying more about those and putting the right information

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is a lot of people don't trust the validity of the answers found there.
::''2. In order to solve this problem you need to have accredited sources that provide the answers to the questions asked on the site.

::''1. The content was not updated.
::''2. Please review at least 1 month.

::''1. The biggest problem is accuracy of articles. Who knows what is fact and what is opinion.
::''2. Solving the problem can be partially done by stating Wikipedia does not guaranty the accuracy of an article.

::''1. The realiability of the information is still not where it needs to be. I have found that the information that can be found in Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable, however the website does have a reputation for having things that are not entirely true or correct.
::''2. I feel this can be solved is there are more articles on Wikipedia that are certified by professionals in the area or subject and that can vouch for the truthfulness of the information provided.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is the fact that they don't have a link available on major sites such as google or yahoo.com. Therefore, making people are less likely to use it.
::''2. We can solve that problem by providing a link to Wikipedia on sites such as yahoo, google, msn, and maybe even on facebook. The website of Wikipedia itself is excellent and very useful to everyday life. They should just make it easier to access it.

::''1. Readability.
::''2. Hire people like me to implement ABC's, accuracy, brevity and clarity!

::''1. The information given isn't always accurate. I am a college student and as a rule we are banned from using Wikipedia as a source for our papers.
::''2. The problem can be solved by ensuring that the information is correct.

::''1. Sometimes the stubs have no information
::''2. request that the stubs actually have at least a link to a site or something

:'''VANDALISM AND ATTRIBUTION:'''
::''1. The biggest problem is people can use anonymity to vandalize Wikipedia in both blatant and sneaky ways.
::''2. The best way to solve the problem is to ban anonymous edits and require a verified email address. This preserves the fundamental principle of allowing anyone to edit because anyone can get a free yahoo or hotmail account and use it to register. But it will deter a lot of the vandalism because signing up for a free email account and then registering a Wiki account is more trouble than it's worth if your intent is to vandalize (and get banned quickly). But if you want to make legitimate contributions, going through the process one time is only a minor inconvenience.

::''1. People vandalising pages or putting unsourced information.
::''2. Only allowing trusted members to add content or edit information on wikipedia's pages

::''1. The ability for someone on a local computer to mess around and change words on the site.
::''2. Make the user register to post comments instead of just letting them post it. As for as myself concerned Wikipedia is on the right path and if somebody feels any hardship it will gradually be eliminated.

::''1. Sometimes you cannot trust the person who gives the information it provides.
::''2. The solution here is to have a background of the person who gave the information in Wikipedia.

::''1. People putting in information that is not correct, when they know it's not correct, but because they think it's funny/amusing.
::''2. Require information be checked by a second person before it's put into an article.

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.
::''2. I think that those who edit the information on the site should have some sort of qualification and it should be subject to review before being displayed.

::''1. Wikipedia is open to have their definitions being changed and there have been charges that some of the definitions have been hacked and manipulated by people that want to have their version of an event validated on Wikipedia.
::''2. The solution might be to have a review panel to look over disputed items or complaints to see if the definition is valid.

::''1. Too much vandalism and unreliability of information.
::''2. Allow only registered members to edit/create pages. Make sure those registered members are confirmed through CAPTCHA, email, etc. And have more experienced moderators assigned to different categories to check page edits.

::''1. The biggest problem is that anyone can post whatever they want to the pages.
::''2. Have some way to fact-check the information before it is posted to the pages would solve the problem.

::''1. We are never sure the information are accurate.
::''2. Let members of Wikipedia Vote for article's accuracy and display on site the result out 100% (with number of votes).

::''1. There is no real control of who or what is posted.
::''2. There needs to be a "review" standard before items are published. I love to use wilipedia.

::''1. Malicious editing / reversions.
::''2. Require approval for edits e.g. at least 3 people should agree.

::''1. People can input incorrect information.
::''2. Have a review process before info is accepted

::''1. The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.
::''2. There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. somebody will sort it out.

::''1. The biggest problem is that any one can post information on a a subject that's not totally accurate or totally false information.
::''2. Needs a authenticate the information that was put on Wikipedia. Example a professional or some one that can do this.

::''1. There's no way to guarantee if the information is correct.
::''2. Have more reliable sources.

::''1. Quality control. While some entries are great, quality varies widely. Some articles are written by experts in the area, and while this is great, they're understood only by other experts. Then there are the articles that get vandalized constantly.
::''2. Assign admins specifically to different topics. This also means that they can concentrate on one area that they enjoy instead of worrying about the whole wiki.

::''1. The fact that information can be edited to easily.
::''2. Tighter security restrictions on who can edit/add what

::''1. There is too much information of questionable veracity.
::''2. Check the credentials of people posting/editing articles.

::''1. People vandalizing the articles, i.e chancing numbers presented in statistics and facts on various pages
::''2. Each revision should be voted on and checked by others before being shown to the public

::''1. That any one can change anything.
::''2. Have a stricter set of guidelines on who can edit what.

::''1. The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information.
::''2. I believe you could allow only people that work for the company or professors from colleges with proof of their work to be able to edit the pages. That way people wont go on and change things just to be funny.

:'''SEARCH AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE:'''
::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not being able to find the meanings to an given subject.
::''2. The solution is to make details more simpler for others to understand so that it will be easier for users to find the answers that they are seeking.

::''1. The main problem is answers are scattered.
::''2. By ordering it we can solve it.

::''1. Using javascript (extensions/UsabilityInitiative/*) causes certain browsers (Mozilla 1.7) to crash.
::''2. Re-write scripts so that they work.

::''1. in my point of view all the answers given by the Wikipedia is perfect. but the arrangement of all answers is not attractive.
::''2. for avoid this problem please make some attraction back round and tabulation usage also must. thank you.

::''1. if we try to search anything in wikipedia means its taking much longer time to load the page than othersites.
::''2. you can increase the bandwidth of the site,thus making it a fast one

::''1. The problem is we need seperate search Engine for all fields.
::''2. plz create an search Engine about all the fields.

::''1: In terms of search pages, if doesn`t find any match it is not even bringing any related topics to its users.
::''2: In cases of not finding any match for search result, it can atleast mention linked search result thru someother search websites.

::''1. PAGE LOADING TAKING LOT OF TIME IN WIKIPEDIA when compared to Google.
::''2. Please make the site in such a way that page loads quickly

::''1. The loading time are too long in some busy time such as 7-10 PM
::''2. I am not sure is the problem appear due to the network company or the Wikipedia. if the problem due to the Wikipedia's system, i think it should improve that problem to build a new system which have better quality system.

::''1. It loads slow. Wherever I have been around the world wikipedia always shows up near the top in search results but I avoid it because it's slow.
::''2. Use all that money that was recently collected and buy more capacity for the site.

::''1. There are too many results, and some of them are not matched with the actual search results. for eg -- zuerich = zurich.
::''2. A proper keywords search should be used, that matches word to word.

:'''GOVERNANCE:'''
::''1. Wikilawyering is the most frustrating part of working on Wikipedia. A casual user like me is easily intimated when more experienced members invoke seemingly obscure Wikipedia policies.
::''2. Simplify and reduce the number of Wikipedia policy pages.

:'''USER INTERFACE / WEBDESIGN:'''
::''1. Color of the website is boring.
::''2. changing the layout is the only solution

::''1. It needs more color.
::''2. Having a new logo might help this problem.

:'''MISCELLANEOUS:'''
::''1. Funding
::''2. Offer a premium upgrade with fuller content, additional resources (eb.com, hoovers.com, amazon.com, bankrate.com, *.edu, *.gov, *.org), integrated video with real-time RSS and twitter feeds. Set the price at something low to entice those who want the upgrade as easy as saying "yes". I recommend no more than $1.99/month * 1,000,000 users the first month = $1,990,000. This would alleviate Jimmy from having to beg 3 times a year for help and would immensely improve the quality of the information. mechturk@ymail.com

::''1. I feel there is no problem in the current wikipedia. Everything is fine and we get solution for everything for everything from Wiki.
::''2. Its better give a link on everypage of wiki for a feedback, that makes to improve the wiki better.

::''1. the big problem about wikipedia is that there is no mailing and chat options with the people who have submitted notes. we people sometimes have problem with notes, so we want to solve our problem. the second problem of wikipedia is that the grammar and words are not simple so only US and UK people can easily understand because its their own language. but its somewhat hard for other language people to understand it.
::''2. so make grammar and words simple for people to understand.

:'''OUTTAKES:''' [[Image:clapperboard.jpg]]
::''1. There aren't pictures of enough marvel comics characters.
::''2. Put more pictures up.

::''1. Global warming is the biggest problem of current Wikipedia.
::''2. It can be solve by growing more trees

::''1. I could not find any problem on Wikipedia. Many times, i am read Wikipedia frequently.
::''2. N/A

::''1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia! Please donot try to "fix" something that is not broken!!!
::''2. N/A

::''1. The current Wikipedia has nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia doesn't have problems to solve.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think there is no problem in the current Wikipedia. It is a very good source of information.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think Wikipedia is perfect.
::''2. N/A

::''1. sit survey very nice and good
::''2. N/A

= Analysis =
[Bruno and Franny to expand]
:* Must reach out to user base outside of Wikipedia's community; How does that user base perceive Wikipedia and its problems?
:* What demographic are we reaching out to? how will we reach that demographic?
:* Utilizing crowdsourcing techniques to highlight factual inaccuracies? How can we harness [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Talk:Future_of_Wikipedia voluntary contributory energies]?
:* Organization and filtering techniques will make it easier to match factual inaccuracies with editors (new or existing) willing and able to make corrections

= Proposed Solutions =
[Amanda to expand]

*Changing the production system from a decentralized to a semi-centralized one in respect to what would be considered an article approved for publication by Wikipedia. The aim would be to develop a culture of developing different versions of articles that are preceded by a beta versions before their official launch. Most of this is inspired by software production system.
*Develop an outreach campaign focused at both increasing Wikipedia's user base and improving the quality of user participation (e.g. Donate edits to Wikipedia)
:* Discuss promotional campaign to launch application
* Filtering/sorting mechanisms for the landing page - perhaps link to a re-organized Community Portal page
* Link landing page to a web initiative similar to Aardvark
* Integration with banner and other promotional tools on Wikipedia pages
* Strengthening relationship and partnering with secondary school systems (e.g. lesson plan proposal)
*Create a GreasyMonkey script for the purposes of:
::- highlighting incorrect/disputed/highly disputed information and creating an accessible database issues;
::- reaching out to readers of Wikipedia and drawing them into the Wikipedia editor community.

'''PRODUCT SPEC:'''

Wikipedia Educational Browser Extension

[[Image:Spec2.jpg]]

'''WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:'''

This browser extension serves many purposes: first, it is meant to facilitate the identification of factual errors within Wikipedia by creating a user-friendly way to catalog the errors using Wikipedia's taxonomy - which you can find under the open task bar in this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal>, second, it provides an inroad for new potential editors to interact with the site through micro-contributions and build familiarity with Wikipedia process, third it teaches users to do not completely rely on the text he/she is reading and to point him/her to which areas need contribution [?], fourth, it would also work as a way to bring the discussion page to the surface, teaching them to "discuss before editing".

What to Build (Description) â please forgive the non-technical nature of this spec. We are happy to provide additional information including more views if needed.

After the user installs the plugin, there should be a logo in the bottom right corner of the browser and an entry added to the âtoolsâ bar of the browser.

We imagine the interaction as follows:

When the user spots an error, he or she can click on our logo in the corner of the browser or click the entry in the Tools menu and a small window will pop up from the bottom of the browser (see below image for basic window design). Then, he or she would highlight the text that contains what the users suspects to be an error. The text would be auto-pasted into the text box. Then the user can add commentary and additional references. After the user adds commentary on the error and clicks submit the two text fields will be sent to two places â our database and a landing page where the accuracy flags will be delivered in real-time.

Moreover, the script would allow the user to see, if he/she desires which areas of the text are highly controversial and had many people commenting on them. This would be made by attributing hotter colors to more disputed/commented paragraphs and lighter colors to the others. This functionality is inspired by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 this tool] developed for the purpose of revising the GPL licenses.

The text should disappear from the two boxes and instead be replaced by a popup dialog box that says âthank you for your contribution.â

= Implementation =
:1. Name application
:2. Reach out to Mozilla community to build proposed FireFox application extension.
:3. Work with Wikimedia/Bridgespan to incorporate landing page and application with Wikipedia.

= Discussion Questions =
* How do we keep this tool from being an invitation to massively and scrupulously edit only topics like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift Taylor Swift] article?
* What should we name our application?
:* Wiki Peer Review
:* WikiNation; WikiWorld
:* Our Wikipedia
:* Wikipedia For Life (W4L)
* Compare the average discussion happening in a Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift talk page] and one happening on a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w Youtube video]. Which one is better?

Presentation

2010-01-21T07:23:14Z

Yosuke: /* Different Perspectives on the Key Problems */

Hello - we are Amanda, Bruno, Franny, Hector and Yosuke of the Cyberlaw: Difficult Problems course. Feedback from people who use and are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an extremely important part of formulating our proposed solution, and we thank you for your interest and contributions. We only ask that you direct your comments and input to the other Future of Wikipedia pages, and allow us to use this Presentation page to create our final class presentation. We look forward to hearing from you!

= Introduction =
It might border on banality for us to repeat many of the important criticisms of Wikipedia (and indeed some of the less important criticisms). Nevertheless, we here try to sketch out areas of concern, and in some parts, our rational for not so pursuing. Several sources provided us with different categories and examples of Wikipedia's criticisms: JZ's book, Wikimedia's [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Usability Initiative], Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump Village Pump], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Policies and guidelines] (which implicitly draw attention to the small and large frictions that can develop within the community), the enthusiastic critique from commentary such as the [http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review], and in the spirit of user generated content and mass public distribution, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY YouTube videos]. [Warning: contains mild profanity.]

== Picking Our Battles ==
=== On God-Kings and Governance ===
Problems along this vein include:
*The odd status and power of [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/jimbobling.jpg Jimbo Wales], a "God-king who may or may not be able to act unilaterally" (JZ 141)
*The reliance on consensus, not on democracy
*The curious nature of a ''highly'' developed collaborative project, which has very wonderfully developed a governance structure and a form of constitutionalism. The level of development, however, can be a hindrance to reform, given the Wikipedians' strong devotion to the project and once more the need for consensus.
For purposes of the project, our group decided that we weren't about to kick out Jimmy, and the Wikipedians themselves as well as other media do a decent job at pointing out his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales#Controversy controversies]. Furthermore, the open and consensus-based nature of the Wikipedia project has resulted in very strong and thoughtful (though at times idiosyncratic) arrangements such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Five Pillars] that guide the activity of the encyclopedia.
How can we ride on the strengths of such internal machinery while injecting new sources of strength? We believe that the strength, vibrancy, and growth of the Wikipedia community could bring new avenues of improvement.

=== Contradictory Missions? ===
This broad, rather generative project was kick-started with an outrageous idea and clever new (for 2001) web-publishing software. Other than a few key initial nudges (as well as the code behind the structure), the community was left to fill in the gaps on its own. Some of the resulting kinks include:
*The Inclusionism vs. Deletionism debate
*An interpretation of the banner project as an attempt to compile An Online Encyclopedia or The Sum of All Human Knowledge
*The stark differences in the vision and execution in the different language Wikipedias. (Compare the English and German sites)
Much has been written regarding the inclusionism/deletionism debate, from the popular media to the depths of obscure Wikipedia discussion pages. As strongly as some of us (Hector) may feel one way or the other (why exclude valuable information about minor Star Wars characters?!) about the matter, adding another voice to the shouting match would probably not settle most of the disagreements.

=== Quality===
Our visiting friends from the Wikipedia Review were quite keen to correctly point out the differences between '''perceived''' and '''actual''' accuracy within Wikipedia. And indeed, different challenges are at hand in allaying the different concerns of different readers, who might be using Wikipedia to
*study for a med school exam,
*learn more about their Senator,
*write a 6th grade history paper, or
*write an Associated Press fluff piece about quality concerns in Wikipedia.
Currently, the most powerful tool in Wikipedia's arsenal against vandalism and inaccuracy is its editing base and the large number of eyeballs the community provides. Once again, the health and growth of the Wikipedia community are vital factors, as are the current policies regarding sources, references, and neutrality. We think that good solutions can tap into the project's very strengths here.

=== Issues in Education ===
When schools and colleges express concern over their students using or possibly misusing Wikipedia in their academic work, Wikipedia's own response has generally taken the mildly surprising form of acknowledging its limitations and underlining its proper use as a teriary source. Even so, this tertiary source is one that dominates many a student's initial research paths and quite often ends up being the only source consulted.

Another manner of addressing this problem can be to engage the students to collaborate with the Wikipedia project themselves. In doing so, they might learn more about an assigned topic (given the increasingly stringent requirements of relevance and citation within Wikipedia), learn more about collaborative projects more generally (with the rules, benefits, and pratfalls of such a subculture), all the while helping with Wikipedia's overall aims of further compiling human knowledge.

Various articles and even Wikipedia pages document how others have scratched at this possibility. While our own group's proposal is not directly about classroom participation in the Wikipedia community, we think that our concerns with streamlining certain forms of community participation could easily be ported towards more specific pedagogical implementations.

=== Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community ===
==== Size ====
==== Readers, Casual Editors, and Experienced Editors ====
==== Subcultural Aspects ====
=== Financial Sustainability? ===

== Honing In ==
=== Interaction with the Community-Centric Nature of Wikipedia ===
* As it stands, Wikipedia does have a constitution, albeit a bit more like England's constitution
* What improvements could be consistent with Wikipedia's strengths, while providing forward-thinking alternatives?
* A choice to work within the hilarious environment that is a consensus-driven open collaboration
=== Regarding Deliverability ===
* Considering the reams of electronic text that have been written on the topic, we decided that a simple, ''actually'' implementable solution might fare better
* Wikipedia is quite open and quite dynamic. But one does get a sense that the experienced editors rule, with added clout stemming from knowing the levers and style of the community.
* Can we suggest a perspective or solution that can dovetail with the aims of the present ''and future'' Wikipedia community?

= Selected Key Problems to Address =
[Yosuke to expand]
:1. Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
:2. Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)
::2.1 Deals with issues of:
:::- community
:::- motivations
:::- outreach and public relations

= Different Perspectives on the Key Problems =
[Bruno and Franny to expand]
:* Bridgespan
::- think of Wikipedia as a movement in addition to a non-profit organization under the direction of a board
:* Wikimedia
:: ''Wikimedia Usability Initiative''
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Usability_Initiative/Project_Scope Project Scope]
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study Usability and Experience Study]
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study Progress Study]
:* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 Wikipedia Review]
:* General public (primarily outside of Wikipedia editor community)
[[Image:Mturk01.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk02.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk03.jpg]]

:'''CONTENT:'''
::''1. Too many people are writing/editing the same article.
::''2. Limit the number of people who can work on one article at any given time, and lock down good articles that shouldn't be changed, or only give access to writers/editors that are trusted.

::''1. Some of the information presented is false.
::''2. A suggestion is to make the material go through a process where it is checked by individuals before it is posted.

::''1. A lot of the information is false or inaccurate.
::''2. Have editors that check information before it is published.

::''1. it is not considered a reliable source by educators
::''2. prove that the information is reliable so students will be able to use it for academic reasons

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that not all of the information is legitimate. Wikipedia is not a good source for papers and some of the information is false. Anyone can post information there.
::''2. You can solve the problem by having a team collaborate on user's information before it is posted.

::''1. The biggest problem is its trustworthyness. I'm never sure that I can trust the information on wikipeida.
::''2. This can be fixed by being more careful about putting in citations.

::''1. I think Wikipedia's lack of total credibility is its biggest problem. Many entries lack citations verifying the accuracy.
::''2. I think the problem can be solved by finding editors to check the accuracy of the entries made by people.

::''1. I think too many big information on a given topic. Information that is unnecessary for a common man.
::''2. Wikipedia can be made short perhaps a link for "advanced reading" given seperately and only the basic information in the main page.

::''1. The grammar and sentence structure is often wrong or confusing.
::''2. Use grammar check and make people edit the texts.

::''1. The biggest problem is some of it is more opinion than fact.
::''2. A way to solve this is just to have the writer mention facts, and not on opinion or speculation.

::''1: The biggest problem is that most of the articles lack references and professionalism.
::''2: One solution is not to allow just any user to edit or create an article with providing good and "quality" references first, and then having a professional to look over the article and make sure it meets high quality standards before being published.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with the current Wikipedia is that quite a few things, such as medical terms or conditions, are either not even listed or only have a very, very basic explanation.
::''2. I think you can solve those problems by working on collecting & posting more detailed information about topics you only have a brief description of or that there is currently no information about on the site.

::''1. non expert opinion of explanation about subjects which looks like an expert explanation.
::''2. just do a simple test before letting people to post articals

::''1. I believe there is some inconsistency in the correct knowledge about topics.
::''2. This could be changed by having more experts on topics reviewing the information before it is posted.

::''1. I think the biggest problem is that anybody can submit information, and there is no real way to verify if the information is even correct or not.
::''2. Wikipedia needs to start really investigating who is submitting information and makes sure that correct information isn't tampered with.

::''1. In many articles recent updations are not clear in wiki.Sometimes wrong informations are given or outdated informations.
::''2. Make a team for checking the article ,they can create updations if needed.

::''1. Not peer reviewed.
::''2. Have professionals review articles before posted.

::''1. Extreme left wing bias, as well as failure to monitor those who have extreme bias. The Climategate scientist who edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and wiped out all mention of the Medieval Warm Period and anything that included discussion of other causes of global warming (such as solar activity or continuation of human deforestation as agriculture advanced) were removed.
::''2. Allow those who report slander and abuse to have the editor's changes removed. Allow those who have credentials in their field to have a higher value in their edits than general off the street users.

::''1. People write things that aren't correct or accurate on Wikipedia.
::''2. To solve the problem, Wikipedia can hire professionals to verify all information posted on Wikipedia.

::''1. Unverified informatioin.
::''2. Require the production of the reference to support the information's accuracy.

::''1. There is no standard level education or research ability to those who edit it.
::''2. Allow only those who can provide necessary abilities and pass tests and reviews by wikipedia standards.

::''1: GIVING THE UNWANTED MORE INFORMATION TRY TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION
::''2: SHORT THE STORIES INTO THE IMPORTANT LINES ONLY WHICH CAN HELPS US TO SEE THE MAIN POINTS

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is also its greatest strength - its inclusivity in that anyone can amend add information. A lot of people think that, therefore, the information on the site may not necessarily be accurate, and may even be deliberately misleading. For example : dates of death given for people who are still alive.
::''2. All information should be centrally vetted for accurate content. This should be highly publicized.

::''1. The length of the content, the huge history sections and irrelevant information.
::''2. Cut back on the history and the unneeded text sections, paraphrase.

::''1. Wikipedia describes every concept in a detailed manner; sometimes it is so deep that is confusing to layman.
::''2. This problem could be solved by adding pictorial representation of the data and also by using simple words and sentences.

::''1. Not articles on every person subject
::''2. Not everyone will write articles. Let people suggest articles that should be added, then hire people to write articles on the suggested subjects.

::''1. Anyone can edit the information so the content is unreliable.
::''2. Have a screening procedure by which people have to sign up, state credentials and a method of verifying them and be given a password in order to change or add information.

::''1. Wikipedia lacks in depth articles. Only the basics are available in many cases.
::''2. Could you link it with Google search's database somehow to get the specific result ?

::''1. Incorrect information
::''2. Restrict editing to qualified professionals in that field

::''1. The biggest problem of current Wikipedia is the absence of the staff. There are no persons from Wikipedia that have to verify authenticity of articles and correct misspellings. Wikipedia is a community-based website and that is not great.
::''2. You can solve the problem by hiring a couple of persons that can verify and correct the articles before they are stated on Wikipedia.

::''1. The biggest problem is that you can't confirm the information on there is true.
::''2. Things need to get approved and there needs to be constraints as to who can post

::''1. Whichever page you open , you have and "edit this page" and then "save this edited page" . If required anyone can edit it which can be used for actual editing the contents or otherwise prank.
::''2. I would want "edit this page" and contents to be saved in the page be given to a proper Moderator who can change the details in Wikipedia rather than allowing one and all without any proper control.

::''1. False information here and there.
::''2. Not much else you can do than increase moderation.

::''1. The fact that one still can never be completely sure if the information is correct or unbiased.
::''2. Hire historians, unbiased group to proof everything

::''1. Wikipedia has user edited information, which can sometimes lead to false information in an article. Wiki does check people's work but it may take some time before false information is removed.
::''2. To solve this problem, Wiki should have users go through a screening process before being allowed to add/edit an article.

::''1. Too little information is the problem
::''2. Provide more information on certain topics that have little information will make a huge difference

::''1. I THINK THAT WHEN IAM SEARCHING SOMETHING WIKIPEDIA DO NOT GIVES THE ORIGINAL DATA RELATING TO TOPIC
::''2. U CAN SOLV T THROUGH A BRIEF SURVEY AND STUDY ABT THE PROBLEM

::''1. Some articles seem biased
::''2. More oversight before changes are added/submitted

::''1. I think that it is extremely important to solve the problem of accuracy within the articles. This leads to Wikipedia not being a permissible source for any academic purposes.
::''2. There should be a kind of IQ test before editing is allowed. In fact, limiting editing to registered users only would be a huge step in the right direction! Good luck!

::''1. N/A
::''2. need to edit people postings information whether its is 100% real or not.

::''1. Infromation is too accurate. Sometimes only opinion of the writer is represneted. Some dates, facts may be fake.
::''2. Represent neuteral opinion. Correspond regrading dates/facts to paperback encyclopedias, they are more accurate.

::''1. the information shown in wikipedia for some particular data may not be true.that is there are false information.
::''2. it can be solved by studying more about those and putting the right information

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is a lot of people don't trust the validity of the answers found there.
::''2. In order to solve this problem you need to have accredited sources that provide the answers to the questions asked on the site.

::''1. The content was not updated.
::''2. Please review at least 1 month.

::''1. The biggest problem is accuracy of articles. Who knows what is fact and what is opinion.
::''2. Solving the problem can be partially done by stating Wikipedia does not guaranty the accuracy of an article.

::''1. The realiability of the information is still not where it needs to be. I have found that the information that can be found in Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable, however the website does have a reputation for having things that are not entirely true or correct.
::''2. I feel this can be solved is there are more articles on Wikipedia that are certified by professionals in the area or subject and that can vouch for the truthfulness of the information provided.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is the fact that they don't have a link available on major sites such as google or yahoo.com. Therefore, making people are less likely to use it.
::''2. We can solve that problem by providing a link to Wikipedia on sites such as yahoo, google, msn, and maybe even on facebook. The website of Wikipedia itself is excellent and very useful to everyday life. They should just make it easier to access it.

::''1. Readability.
::''2. Hire people like me to implement ABC's, accuracy, brevity and clarity!

::''1. The information given isn't always accurate. I am a college student and as a rule we are banned from using Wikipedia as a source for our papers.
::''2. The problem can be solved by ensuring that the information is correct.

::''1. Sometimes the stubs have no information
::''2. request that the stubs actually have at least a link to a site or something

:'''VANDALISM AND ATTRIBUTION:'''
::''1. The biggest problem is people can use anonymity to vandalize Wikipedia in both blatant and sneaky ways.
::''2. The best way to solve the problem is to ban anonymous edits and require a verified email address. This preserves the fundamental principle of allowing anyone to edit because anyone can get a free yahoo or hotmail account and use it to register. But it will deter a lot of the vandalism because signing up for a free email account and then registering a Wiki account is more trouble than it's worth if your intent is to vandalize (and get banned quickly). But if you want to make legitimate contributions, going through the process one time is only a minor inconvenience.

::''1. People vandalising pages or putting unsourced information.
::''2. Only allowing trusted members to add content or edit information on wikipedia's pages

::''1. The ability for someone on a local computer to mess around and change words on the site.
::''2. Make the user register to post comments instead of just letting them post it. As for as myself concerned Wikipedia is on the right path and if somebody feels any hardship it will gradually be eliminated.

::''1. Sometimes you cannot trust the person who gives the information it provides.
::''2. The solution here is to have a background of the person who gave the information in Wikipedia.

::''1. People putting in information that is not correct, when they know it's not correct, but because they think it's funny/amusing.
::''2. Require information be checked by a second person before it's put into an article.

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.
::''2. I think that those who edit the information on the site should have some sort of qualification and it should be subject to review before being displayed.

::''1. Wikipedia is open to have their definitions being changed and there have been charges that some of the definitions have been hacked and manipulated by people that want to have their version of an event validated on Wikipedia.
::''2. The solution might be to have a review panel to look over disputed items or complaints to see if the definition is valid.

::''1. Too much vandalism and unreliability of information.
::''2. Allow only registered members to edit/create pages. Make sure those registered members are confirmed through CAPTCHA, email, etc. And have more experienced moderators assigned to different categories to check page edits.

::''1. The biggest problem is that anyone can post whatever they want to the pages.
::''2. Have some way to fact-check the information before it is posted to the pages would solve the problem.

::''1. We are never sure the information are accurate.
::''2. Let members of Wikipedia Vote for article's accuracy and display on site the result out 100% (with number of votes).

::''1. There is no real control of who or what is posted.
::''2. There needs to be a "review" standard before items are published. I love to use wilipedia.

::''1. Malicious editing / reversions.
::''2. Require approval for edits e.g. at least 3 people should agree.

::''1. People can input incorrect information.
::''2. Have a review process before info is accepted

::''1. The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.
::''2. There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. somebody will sort it out.

::''1. The biggest problem is that any one can post information on a a subject that's not totally accurate or totally false information.
::''2. Needs a authenticate the information that was put on Wikipedia. Example a professional or some one that can do this.

::''1. There's no way to guarantee if the information is correct.
::''2. Have more reliable sources.

::''1. Quality control. While some entries are great, quality varies widely. Some articles are written by experts in the area, and while this is great, they're understood only by other experts. Then there are the articles that get vandalized constantly.
::''2. Assign admins specifically to different topics. This also means that they can concentrate on one area that they enjoy instead of worrying about the whole wiki.

::''1. The fact that information can be edited to easily.
::''2. Tighter security restrictions on who can edit/add what

::''1. There is too much information of questionable veracity.
::''2. Check the credentials of people posting/editing articles.

::''1. People vandalizing the articles, i.e chancing numbers presented in statistics and facts on various pages
::''2. Each revision should be voted on and checked by others before being shown to the public

::''1. That any one can change anything.
::''2. Have a stricter set of guidelines on who can edit what.

::''1. The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information.
::''2. I believe you could allow only people that work for the company or professors from colleges with proof of their work to be able to edit the pages. That way people wont go on and change things just to be funny.

:'''SEARCH AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE:'''
::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not being able to find the meanings to an given subject.
::''2. The solution is to make details more simpler for others to understand so that it will be easier for users to find the answers that they are seeking.

::''1. The main problem is answers are scattered.
::''2. By ordering it we can solve it.

::''1. Using javascript (extensions/UsabilityInitiative/*) causes certain browsers (Mozilla 1.7) to crash.
::''2. Re-write scripts so that they work.

::''1. in my point of view all the answers given by the Wikipedia is perfect. but the arrangement of all answers is not attractive.
::''2. for avoid this problem please make some attraction back round and tabulation usage also must. thank you.

::''1. if we try to search anything in wikipedia means its taking much longer time to load the page than othersites.
::''2. you can increase the bandwidth of the site,thus making it a fast one

::''1. The problem is we need seperate search Engine for all fields.
::''2. plz create an search Engine about all the fields.

::''1: In terms of search pages, if doesn`t find any match it is not even bringing any related topics to its users.
::''2: In cases of not finding any match for search result, it can atleast mention linked search result thru someother search websites.

::''1. PAGE LOADING TAKING LOT OF TIME IN WIKIPEDIA when compared to Google.
::''2. Please make the site in such a way that page loads quickly

::''1. The loading time are too long in some busy time such as 7-10 PM
::''2. I am not sure is the problem appear due to the network company or the Wikipedia. if the problem due to the Wikipedia's system, i think it should improve that problem to build a new system which have better quality system.

::''1. It loads slow. Wherever I have been around the world wikipedia always shows up near the top in search results but I avoid it because it's slow.
::''2. Use all that money that was recently collected and buy more capacity for the site.

::''1. There are too many results, and some of them are not matched with the actual search results. for eg -- zuerich = zurich.
::''2. A proper keywords search should be used, that matches word to word.

:'''GOVERNANCE:'''
::''1. Wikilawyering is the most frustrating part of working on Wikipedia. A casual user like me is easily intimated when more experienced members invoke seemingly obscure Wikipedia policies.
::''2. Simplify and reduce the number of Wikipedia policy pages.

:'''USER INTERFACE / WEBDESIGN:'''
::''1. Color of the website is boring.
::''2. changing the layout is the only solution

::''1. It needs more color.
::''2. Having a new logo might help this problem.

:'''MISCELLANEOUS:'''
::''1. Funding
::''2. Offer a premium upgrade with fuller content, additional resources (eb.com, hoovers.com, amazon.com, bankrate.com, *.edu, *.gov, *.org), integrated video with real-time RSS and twitter feeds. Set the price at something low to entice those who want the upgrade as easy as saying "yes". I recommend no more than $1.99/month * 1,000,000 users the first month = $1,990,000. This would alleviate Jimmy from having to beg 3 times a year for help and would immensely improve the quality of the information. mechturk@ymail.com

::''1. I feel there is no problem in the current wikipedia. Everything is fine and we get solution for everything for everything from Wiki.
::''2. Its better give a link on everypage of wiki for a feedback, that makes to improve the wiki better.

::''1. the big problem about wikipedia is that there is no mailing and chat options with the people who have submitted notes. we people sometimes have problem with notes, so we want to solve our problem. the second problem of wikipedia is that the grammar and words are not simple so only US and UK people can easily understand because its their own language. but its somewhat hard for other language people to understand it.
::''2. so make grammar and words simple for people to understand.

:'''OUTTAKES:''' [[Image:clapperboard.jpg]]
::''1. There aren't pictures of enough marvel comics characters.
::''2. Put more pictures up.

::''1. Global warming is the biggest problem of current Wikipedia.
::''2. It can be solve by growing more trees

::''I could not find any problem on Wikipedia. Many times, i am read Wikipedia frequently.
::''2. N/A

::''There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia! Please donot try to "fix" something that is not broken!!!
::''2. N/A

::''1. The current Wikipedia has nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia doesn't have problems to solve.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think there is no problem in the current Wikipedia. It is a very good source of information.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think Wikipedia is perfect.
::''2. N/A

::''1. sit survey very nice and good
::''2. N/A

= Analysis =
[Bruno and Franny to expand]
:* Must reach out to user base outside of Wikipedia's community; How does that user base perceive Wikipedia and its problems?
:* What demographic are we reaching out to? how will we reach that demographic?
:* Utilizing crowdsourcing techniques to highlight factual inaccuracies? How can we harness [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Talk:Future_of_Wikipedia voluntary contributory energies]?
:* Organization and filtering techniques will make it easier to match factual inaccuracies with editors (new or existing) willing and able to make corrections

= Proposed Solutions =
[Amanda to expand]

*Changing the production system from a decentralized to a semi-centralized one in respect to what would be considered an article approved for publication by Wikipedia. The aim would be to develop a culture of developing different versions of articles that are preceded by a beta versions before their official launch. Most of this is inspired by software production system.
*Develop an outreach campaign focused at both increasing Wikipedia's user base and improving the quality of user participation (e.g. Donate edits to Wikipedia)
:* Discuss promotional campaign to launch application
* Filtering/sorting mechanisms for the landing page - perhaps link to a re-organized Community Portal page
* Link landing page to a web initiative similar to Aardvark
* Integration with banner and other promotional tools on Wikipedia pages
* Strengthening relationship and partnering with secondary school systems (e.g. lesson plan proposal)
*Create a GreasyMonkey script for the purposes of:
::- highlighting incorrect/disputed/highly disputed information and creating an accessible database issues;
::- reaching out to readers of Wikipedia and drawing them into the Wikipedia editor community.

'''PRODUCT SPEC:'''

Wikipedia Educational Browser Extension

[[Image:Spec2.jpg]]

'''WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:'''

This browser extension serves many purposes: first, it is meant to facilitate the identification of factual errors within Wikipedia by creating a user-friendly way to catalog the errors using Wikipedia's taxonomy - which you can find under the open task bar in this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal>, second, it provides an inroad for new potential editors to interact with the site through micro-contributions and build familiarity with Wikipedia process, third it teaches users to do not completely rely on the text he/she is reading and to point him/her to which areas need contribution [?], fourth, it would also work as a way to bring the discussion page to the surface, teaching them to "discuss before editing".

What to Build (Description) â please forgive the non-technical nature of this spec. We are happy to provide additional information including more views if needed.

After the user installs the plugin, there should be a logo in the bottom right corner of the browser and an entry added to the âtoolsâ bar of the browser.

We imagine the interaction as follows:

When the user spots an error, he or she can click on our logo in the corner of the browser or click the entry in the Tools menu and a small window will pop up from the bottom of the browser (see below image for basic window design). Then, he or she would highlight the text that contains what the users suspects to be an error. The text would be auto-pasted into the text box. Then the user can add commentary and additional references. After the user adds commentary on the error and clicks submit the two text fields will be sent to two places â our database and a landing page where the accuracy flags will be delivered in real-time.

Moreover, the script would allow the user to see, if he/she desires which areas of the text are highly controversial and had many people commenting on them. This would be made by attributing hotter colors to more disputed/commented paragraphs and lighter colors to the others. This functionality is inspired by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 this tool] developed for the purpose of revising the GPL licenses.

The text should disappear from the two boxes and instead be replaced by a popup dialog box that says âthank you for your contribution.â

= Implementation =
:1. Name application
:2. Reach out to Mozilla community to build proposed FireFox application extension.
:3. Work with Wikimedia/Bridgespan to incorporate landing page and application with Wikipedia.

= Discussion Questions =
* How do we keep this tool from being an invitation to massively and scrupulously edit only topics like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift Taylor Swift] article?
* What should we name our application?
:* Wiki Peer Review
:* WikiNation; WikiWorld
:* Our Wikipedia
:* Wikipedia For Life (W4L)
* Compare the average discussion happening in a Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift talk page] and one happening on a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w Youtube video]. Which one is better?

File:Mturk03.jpg

2010-01-21T07:21:31Z

Yosuke:

File:Mturk02.jpg

2010-01-21T07:21:21Z

Yosuke:

File:Mturk01.jpg

2010-01-21T07:20:56Z

Yosuke:

Presentation

2010-01-21T07:16:01Z

Yosuke: /* Different Perspectives on the Key Problems */

Hello - we are Amanda, Bruno, Franny, Hector and Yosuke of the Cyberlaw: Difficult Problems course. Feedback from people who use and are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an extremely important part of formulating our proposed solution, and we thank you for your interest and contributions. We only ask that you direct your comments and input to the other Future of Wikipedia pages, and allow us to use this Presentation page to create our final class presentation. We look forward to hearing from you!

= Introduction =
It might border on banality for us to repeat many of the important criticisms of Wikipedia (and indeed some of the less important criticisms). Nevertheless, we here try to sketch out areas of concern, and in some parts, our rational for not so pursuing. Several sources provided us with different categories and examples of Wikipedia's criticisms: JZ's book, Wikimedia's [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Usability Initiative], Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump Village Pump], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Policies and guidelines] (which implicitly draw attention to the small and large frictions that can develop within the community), the enthusiastic critique from commentary such as the [http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review], and in the spirit of user generated content and mass public distribution, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY YouTube videos]. [Warning: contains mild profanity.]

== Picking Our Battles ==
=== On God-Kings and Governance ===
Problems along this vein include:
*The odd status and power of [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/jimbobling.jpg Jimbo Wales], a "God-king who may or may not be able to act unilaterally" (JZ 141)
*The reliance on consensus, not on democracy
*The curious nature of a ''highly'' developed collaborative project, which has very wonderfully developed a governance structure and a form of constitutionalism. The level of development, however, can be a hindrance to reform, given the Wikipedians' strong devotion to the project and once more the need for consensus.
For purposes of the project, our group decided that we weren't about to kick out Jimmy, and the Wikipedians themselves as well as other media do a decent job at pointing out his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales#Controversy controversies]. Furthermore, the open and consensus-based nature of the Wikipedia project has resulted in very strong and thoughtful (though at times idiosyncratic) arrangements such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Five Pillars] that guide the activity of the encyclopedia.
How can we ride on the strengths of such internal machinery while injecting new sources of strength? We believe that the strength, vibrancy, and growth of the Wikipedia community could bring new avenues of improvement.

=== Contradictory Missions? ===
This broad, rather generative project was kick-started with an outrageous idea and clever new (for 2001) web-publishing software. Other than a few key initial nudges (as well as the code behind the structure), the community was left to fill in the gaps on its own. Some of the resulting kinks include:
*The Inclusionism vs. Deletionism debate
*An interpretation of the banner project as an attempt to compile An Online Encyclopedia or The Sum of All Human Knowledge
*The stark differences in the vision and execution in the different language Wikipedias. (Compare the English and German sites)
Much has been written regarding the inclusionism/deletionism debate, from the popular media to the depths of obscure Wikipedia discussion pages. As strongly as some of us (Hector) may feel one way or the other (why exclude valuable information about minor Star Wars characters?!) about the matter, adding another voice to the shouting match would probably not settle most of the disagreements.

=== Quality===
Our visiting friends from the Wikipedia Review were quite keen to correctly point out the differences between '''perceived''' and '''actual''' accuracy within Wikipedia. And indeed, different challenges are at hand in allaying the different concerns of different readers, who might be using Wikipedia to
*study for a med school exam,
*learn more about their Senator,
*write a 6th grade history paper, or
*write an Associated Press fluff piece about quality concerns in Wikipedia.
Currently, the most powerful tool in Wikipedia's arsenal against vandalism and inaccuracy is its editing base and the large number of eyeballs the community provides. Once again, the health and growth of the Wikipedia community are vital factors, as are the current policies regarding sources, references, and neutrality. We think that good solutions can tap into the project's very strengths here.

=== Issues in Education ===
When schools and colleges express concern over their students using or possibly misusing Wikipedia in their academic work, Wikipedia's own response has generally taken the mildly surprising form of acknowledging its limitations and underlining its proper use as a teriary source. Even so, this tertiary source is one that dominates many a student's initial research paths and quite often ends up being the only source consulted.

Another manner of addressing this problem can be to engage the students to collaborate with the Wikipedia project themselves. In doing so, they might learn more about an assigned topic (given the increasingly stringent requirements of relevance and citation within Wikipedia), learn more about collaborative projects more generally (with the rules, benefits, and pratfalls of such a subculture), all the while helping with Wikipedia's overall aims of further compiling human knowledge.

Various articles and even Wikipedia pages document how others have scratched at this possibility. While our own group's proposal is not directly about classroom participation in the Wikipedia community, we think that our concerns with streamlining certain forms of community participation could easily be ported towards more specific pedagogical implementations.

=== Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community ===
==== Size ====
==== Readers, Casual Editors, and Experienced Editors ====
==== Subcultural Aspects ====
=== Financial Sustainability? ===

== Honing In ==
=== Interaction with the Community-Centric Nature of Wikipedia ===
* As it stands, Wikipedia does have a constitution, albeit a bit more like England's constitution
* What improvements could be consistent with Wikipedia's strengths, while providing forward-thinking alternatives?
* A choice to work within the hilarious environment that is a consensus-driven open collaboration
=== Regarding Deliverability ===
* Considering the reams of electronic text that have been written on the topic, we decided that a simple, ''actually'' implementable solution might fare better
* Wikipedia is quite open and quite dynamic. But one does get a sense that the experienced editors rule, with added clout stemming from knowing the levers and style of the community.
* Can we suggest a perspective or solution that can dovetail with the aims of the present ''and future'' Wikipedia community?

= Selected Key Problems to Address =
[Yosuke to expand]
:1. Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
:2. Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)
::2.1 Deals with issues of:
:::- community
:::- motivations
:::- outreach and public relations

= Different Perspectives on the Key Problems =
[Bruno and Franny to expand]
:* Bridgespan
::- think of Wikipedia as a movement in addition to a non-profit organization under the direction of a board
:* Wikimedia
:: ''Wikimedia Usability Initiative''
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Usability_Initiative/Project_Scope Project Scope]
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study Usability and Experience Study]
:::[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study Progress Study]
:* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 Wikipedia Review]
:* General public (primarily outside of Wikipedia editor community)
[[Image:Mturk2.jpg]]

:'''CONTENT:'''
::''1. Too many people are writing/editing the same article.
::''2. Limit the number of people who can work on one article at any given time, and lock down good articles that shouldn't be changed, or only give access to writers/editors that are trusted.

::''1. Some of the information presented is false.
::''2. A suggestion is to make the material go through a process where it is checked by individuals before it is posted.

::''1. A lot of the information is false or inaccurate.
::''2. Have editors that check information before it is published.

::''1. it is not considered a reliable source by educators
::''2. prove that the information is reliable so students will be able to use it for academic reasons

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that not all of the information is legitimate. Wikipedia is not a good source for papers and some of the information is false. Anyone can post information there.
::''2. You can solve the problem by having a team collaborate on user's information before it is posted.

::''1. The biggest problem is its trustworthyness. I'm never sure that I can trust the information on wikipeida.
::''2. This can be fixed by being more careful about putting in citations.

::''1. I think Wikipedia's lack of total credibility is its biggest problem. Many entries lack citations verifying the accuracy.
::''2. I think the problem can be solved by finding editors to check the accuracy of the entries made by people.

::''1. I think too many big information on a given topic. Information that is unnecessary for a common man.
::''2. Wikipedia can be made short perhaps a link for "advanced reading" given seperately and only the basic information in the main page.

::''1. The grammar and sentence structure is often wrong or confusing.
::''2. Use grammar check and make people edit the texts.

::''1. The biggest problem is some of it is more opinion than fact.
::''2. A way to solve this is just to have the writer mention facts, and not on opinion or speculation.

::''1: The biggest problem is that most of the articles lack references and professionalism.
::''2: One solution is not to allow just any user to edit or create an article with providing good and "quality" references first, and then having a professional to look over the article and make sure it meets high quality standards before being published.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with the current Wikipedia is that quite a few things, such as medical terms or conditions, are either not even listed or only have a very, very basic explanation.
::''2. I think you can solve those problems by working on collecting & posting more detailed information about topics you only have a brief description of or that there is currently no information about on the site.

::''1. non expert opinion of explanation about subjects which looks like an expert explanation.
::''2. just do a simple test before letting people to post articals

::''1. I believe there is some inconsistency in the correct knowledge about topics.
::''2. This could be changed by having more experts on topics reviewing the information before it is posted.

::''1. I think the biggest problem is that anybody can submit information, and there is no real way to verify if the information is even correct or not.
::''2. Wikipedia needs to start really investigating who is submitting information and makes sure that correct information isn't tampered with.

::''1. In many articles recent updations are not clear in wiki.Sometimes wrong informations are given or outdated informations.
::''2. Make a team for checking the article ,they can create updations if needed.

::''1. Not peer reviewed.
::''2. Have professionals review articles before posted.

::''1. Extreme left wing bias, as well as failure to monitor those who have extreme bias. The Climategate scientist who edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and wiped out all mention of the Medieval Warm Period and anything that included discussion of other causes of global warming (such as solar activity or continuation of human deforestation as agriculture advanced) were removed.
::''2. Allow those who report slander and abuse to have the editor's changes removed. Allow those who have credentials in their field to have a higher value in their edits than general off the street users.

::''1. People write things that aren't correct or accurate on Wikipedia.
::''2. To solve the problem, Wikipedia can hire professionals to verify all information posted on Wikipedia.

::''1. Unverified informatioin.
::''2. Require the production of the reference to support the information's accuracy.

::''1. There is no standard level education or research ability to those who edit it.
::''2. Allow only those who can provide necessary abilities and pass tests and reviews by wikipedia standards.

::''1: GIVING THE UNWANTED MORE INFORMATION TRY TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION
::''2: SHORT THE STORIES INTO THE IMPORTANT LINES ONLY WHICH CAN HELPS US TO SEE THE MAIN POINTS

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is also its greatest strength - its inclusivity in that anyone can amend add information. A lot of people think that, therefore, the information on the site may not necessarily be accurate, and may even be deliberately misleading. For example : dates of death given for people who are still alive.
::''2. All information should be centrally vetted for accurate content. This should be highly publicized.

::''1. The length of the content, the huge history sections and irrelevant information.
::''2. Cut back on the history and the unneeded text sections, paraphrase.

::''1. Wikipedia describes every concept in a detailed manner; sometimes it is so deep that is confusing to layman.
::''2. This problem could be solved by adding pictorial representation of the data and also by using simple words and sentences.

::''1. Not articles on every person subject
::''2. Not everyone will write articles. Let people suggest articles that should be added, then hire people to write articles on the suggested subjects.

::''1. Anyone can edit the information so the content is unreliable.
::''2. Have a screening procedure by which people have to sign up, state credentials and a method of verifying them and be given a password in order to change or add information.

::''1. Wikipedia lacks in depth articles. Only the basics are available in many cases.
::''2. Could you link it with Google search's database somehow to get the specific result ?

::''1. Incorrect information
::''2. Restrict editing to qualified professionals in that field

::''1. The biggest problem of current Wikipedia is the absence of the staff. There are no persons from Wikipedia that have to verify authenticity of articles and correct misspellings. Wikipedia is a community-based website and that is not great.
::''2. You can solve the problem by hiring a couple of persons that can verify and correct the articles before they are stated on Wikipedia.

::''1. The biggest problem is that you can't confirm the information on there is true.
::''2. Things need to get approved and there needs to be constraints as to who can post

::''1. Whichever page you open , you have and "edit this page" and then "save this edited page" . If required anyone can edit it which can be used for actual editing the contents or otherwise prank.
::''2. I would want "edit this page" and contents to be saved in the page be given to a proper Moderator who can change the details in Wikipedia rather than allowing one and all without any proper control.

::''1. False information here and there.
::''2. Not much else you can do than increase moderation.

::''1. The fact that one still can never be completely sure if the information is correct or unbiased.
::''2. Hire historians, unbiased group to proof everything

::''1. Wikipedia has user edited information, which can sometimes lead to false information in an article. Wiki does check people's work but it may take some time before false information is removed.
::''2. To solve this problem, Wiki should have users go through a screening process before being allowed to add/edit an article.

::''1. Too little information is the problem
::''2. Provide more information on certain topics that have little information will make a huge difference

::''1. I THINK THAT WHEN IAM SEARCHING SOMETHING WIKIPEDIA DO NOT GIVES THE ORIGINAL DATA RELATING TO TOPIC
::''2. U CAN SOLV T THROUGH A BRIEF SURVEY AND STUDY ABT THE PROBLEM

::''1. Some articles seem biased
::''2. More oversight before changes are added/submitted

::''1. I think that it is extremely important to solve the problem of accuracy within the articles. This leads to Wikipedia not being a permissible source for any academic purposes.
::''2. There should be a kind of IQ test before editing is allowed. In fact, limiting editing to registered users only would be a huge step in the right direction! Good luck!

::''1. N/A
::''2. need to edit people postings information whether its is 100% real or not.

::''1. Infromation is too accurate. Sometimes only opinion of the writer is represneted. Some dates, facts may be fake.
::''2. Represent neuteral opinion. Correspond regrading dates/facts to paperback encyclopedias, they are more accurate.

::''1. the information shown in wikipedia for some particular data may not be true.that is there are false information.
::''2. it can be solved by studying more about those and putting the right information

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is a lot of people don't trust the validity of the answers found there.
::''2. In order to solve this problem you need to have accredited sources that provide the answers to the questions asked on the site.

::''1. The content was not updated.
::''2. Please review at least 1 month.

::''1. The biggest problem is accuracy of articles. Who knows what is fact and what is opinion.
::''2. Solving the problem can be partially done by stating Wikipedia does not guaranty the accuracy of an article.

::''1. The realiability of the information is still not where it needs to be. I have found that the information that can be found in Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable, however the website does have a reputation for having things that are not entirely true or correct.
::''2. I feel this can be solved is there are more articles on Wikipedia that are certified by professionals in the area or subject and that can vouch for the truthfulness of the information provided.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is the fact that they don't have a link available on major sites such as google or yahoo.com. Therefore, making people are less likely to use it.
::''2. We can solve that problem by providing a link to Wikipedia on sites such as yahoo, google, msn, and maybe even on facebook. The website of Wikipedia itself is excellent and very useful to everyday life. They should just make it easier to access it.

::''1. Readability.
::''2. Hire people like me to implement ABC's, accuracy, brevity and clarity!

::''1. The information given isn't always accurate. I am a college student and as a rule we are banned from using Wikipedia as a source for our papers.
::''2. The problem can be solved by ensuring that the information is correct.

::''1. Sometimes the stubs have no information
::''2. request that the stubs actually have at least a link to a site or something

:'''VANDALISM AND ATTRIBUTION:'''
::''1. The biggest problem is people can use anonymity to vandalize Wikipedia in both blatant and sneaky ways.
::''2. The best way to solve the problem is to ban anonymous edits and require a verified email address. This preserves the fundamental principle of allowing anyone to edit because anyone can get a free yahoo or hotmail account and use it to register. But it will deter a lot of the vandalism because signing up for a free email account and then registering a Wiki account is more trouble than it's worth if your intent is to vandalize (and get banned quickly). But if you want to make legitimate contributions, going through the process one time is only a minor inconvenience.

::''1. People vandalising pages or putting unsourced information.
::''2. Only allowing trusted members to add content or edit information on wikipedia's pages

::''1. The ability for someone on a local computer to mess around and change words on the site.
::''2. Make the user register to post comments instead of just letting them post it. As for as myself concerned Wikipedia is on the right path and if somebody feels any hardship it will gradually be eliminated.

::''1. Sometimes you cannot trust the person who gives the information it provides.
::''2. The solution here is to have a background of the person who gave the information in Wikipedia.

::''1. People putting in information that is not correct, when they know it's not correct, but because they think it's funny/amusing.
::''2. Require information be checked by a second person before it's put into an article.

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.
::''2. I think that those who edit the information on the site should have some sort of qualification and it should be subject to review before being displayed.

::''1. Wikipedia is open to have their definitions being changed and there have been charges that some of the definitions have been hacked and manipulated by people that want to have their version of an event validated on Wikipedia.
::''2. The solution might be to have a review panel to look over disputed items or complaints to see if the definition is valid.

::''1. Too much vandalism and unreliability of information.
::''2. Allow only registered members to edit/create pages. Make sure those registered members are confirmed through CAPTCHA, email, etc. And have more experienced moderators assigned to different categories to check page edits.

::''1. The biggest problem is that anyone can post whatever they want to the pages.
::''2. Have some way to fact-check the information before it is posted to the pages would solve the problem.

::''1. We are never sure the information are accurate.
::''2. Let members of Wikipedia Vote for article's accuracy and display on site the result out 100% (with number of votes).

::''1. There is no real control of who or what is posted.
::''2. There needs to be a "review" standard before items are published. I love to use wilipedia.

::''1. Malicious editing / reversions.
::''2. Require approval for edits e.g. at least 3 people should agree.

::''1. People can input incorrect information.
::''2. Have a review process before info is accepted

::''1. The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.
::''2. There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. somebody will sort it out.

::''1. The biggest problem is that any one can post information on a a subject that's not totally accurate or totally false information.
::''2. Needs a authenticate the information that was put on Wikipedia. Example a professional or some one that can do this.

::''1. There's no way to guarantee if the information is correct.
::''2. Have more reliable sources.

::''1. Quality control. While some entries are great, quality varies widely. Some articles are written by experts in the area, and while this is great, they're understood only by other experts. Then there are the articles that get vandalized constantly.
::''2. Assign admins specifically to different topics. This also means that they can concentrate on one area that they enjoy instead of worrying about the whole wiki.

::''1. The fact that information can be edited to easily.
::''2. Tighter security restrictions on who can edit/add what

::''1. There is too much information of questionable veracity.
::''2. Check the credentials of people posting/editing articles.

::''1. People vandalizing the articles, i.e chancing numbers presented in statistics and facts on various pages
::''2. Each revision should be voted on and checked by others before being shown to the public

::''1. That any one can change anything.
::''2. Have a stricter set of guidelines on who can edit what.

::''1. The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information.
::''2. I believe you could allow only people that work for the company or professors from colleges with proof of their work to be able to edit the pages. That way people wont go on and change things just to be funny.

:'''SEARCH AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE:'''
::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not being able to find the meanings to an given subject.
::''2. The solution is to make details more simpler for others to understand so that it will be easier for users to find the answers that they are seeking.

::''1. The main problem is answers are scattered.
::''2. By ordering it we can solve it.

::''1. Using javascript (extensions/UsabilityInitiative/*) causes certain browsers (Mozilla 1.7) to crash.
::''2. Re-write scripts so that they work.

::''1. in my point of view all the answers given by the Wikipedia is perfect. but the arrangement of all answers is not attractive.
::''2. for avoid this problem please make some attraction back round and tabulation usage also must. thank you.

::''1. if we try to search anything in wikipedia means its taking much longer time to load the page than othersites.
::''2. you can increase the bandwidth of the site,thus making it a fast one

::''1. The problem is we need seperate search Engine for all fields.
::''2. plz create an search Engine about all the fields.

::''1: In terms of search pages, if doesn`t find any match it is not even bringing any related topics to its users.
::''2: In cases of not finding any match for search result, it can atleast mention linked search result thru someother search websites.

::''1. PAGE LOADING TAKING LOT OF TIME IN WIKIPEDIA when compared to Google.
::''2. Please make the site in such a way that page loads quickly

::''1. The loading time are too long in some busy time such as 7-10 PM
::''2. I am not sure is the problem appear due to the network company or the Wikipedia. if the problem due to the Wikipedia's system, i think it should improve that problem to build a new system which have better quality system.

::''1. It loads slow. Wherever I have been around the world wikipedia always shows up near the top in search results but I avoid it because it's slow.
::''2. Use all that money that was recently collected and buy more capacity for the site.

::''1. There are too many results, and some of them are not matched with the actual search results. for eg -- zuerich = zurich.
::''2. A proper keywords search should be used, that matches word to word.

:'''GOVERNANCE:'''
::''1. Wikilawyering is the most frustrating part of working on Wikipedia. A casual user like me is easily intimated when more experienced members invoke seemingly obscure Wikipedia policies.
::''2. Simplify and reduce the number of Wikipedia policy pages.

:'''USER INTERFACE / WEBDESIGN:'''
::''1. Color of the website is boring.
::''2. changing the layout is the only solution

::''1. It needs more color.
::''2. Having a new logo might help this problem.

:'''MISCELLANEOUS:'''
::''1. Funding
::''2. Offer a premium upgrade with fuller content, additional resources (eb.com, hoovers.com, amazon.com, bankrate.com, *.edu, *.gov, *.org), integrated video with real-time RSS and twitter feeds. Set the price at something low to entice those who want the upgrade as easy as saying "yes". I recommend no more than $1.99/month * 1,000,000 users the first month = $1,990,000. This would alleviate Jimmy from having to beg 3 times a year for help and would immensely improve the quality of the information. mechturk@ymail.com

::''1. I feel there is no problem in the current wikipedia. Everything is fine and we get solution for everything for everything from Wiki.
::''2. Its better give a link on everypage of wiki for a feedback, that makes to improve the wiki better.

::''1. the big problem about wikipedia is that there is no mailing and chat options with the people who have submitted notes. we people sometimes have problem with notes, so we want to solve our problem. the second problem of wikipedia is that the grammar and words are not simple so only US and UK people can easily understand because its their own language. but its somewhat hard for other language people to understand it.
::''2. so make grammar and words simple for people to understand.

:'''OUTTAKES:''' [[Image:clapperboard.jpg]]
::''1. There aren't pictures of enough marvel comics characters.
::''2. Put more pictures up.

::''1. Global warming is the biggest problem of current Wikipedia.
::''2. It can be solve by growing more trees

::''I could not find any problem on Wikipedia. Many times, i am read Wikipedia frequently.
::''2. N/A

::''There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia! Please donot try to "fix" something that is not broken!!!
::''2. N/A

::''1. The current Wikipedia has nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia doesn't have problems to solve.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think there is no problem in the current Wikipedia. It is a very good source of information.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think Wikipedia is perfect.
::''2. N/A

::''1. sit survey very nice and good
::''2. N/A

= Analysis =
[Bruno and Franny to expand]
:* Must reach out to user base outside of Wikipedia's community; How does that user base perceive Wikipedia and its problems?
:* What demographic are we reaching out to? how will we reach that demographic?
:* Utilizing crowdsourcing techniques to highlight factual inaccuracies? How can we harness [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Talk:Future_of_Wikipedia voluntary contributory energies]?
:* Organization and filtering techniques will make it easier to match factual inaccuracies with editors (new or existing) willing and able to make corrections

= Proposed Solutions =
[Amanda to expand]

*Changing the production system from a decentralized to a semi-centralized one in respect to what would be considered an article approved for publication by Wikipedia. The aim would be to develop a culture of developing different versions of articles that are preceded by a beta versions before their official launch. Most of this is inspired by software production system.
*Develop an outreach campaign focused at both increasing Wikipedia's user base and improving the quality of user participation (e.g. Donate edits to Wikipedia)
:* Discuss promotional campaign to launch application
* Filtering/sorting mechanisms for the landing page - perhaps link to a re-organized Community Portal page
* Link landing page to a web initiative similar to Aardvark
* Integration with banner and other promotional tools on Wikipedia pages
* Strengthening relationship and partnering with secondary school systems (e.g. lesson plan proposal)
*Create a GreasyMonkey script for the purposes of:
::- highlighting incorrect/disputed/highly disputed information and creating an accessible database issues;
::- reaching out to readers of Wikipedia and drawing them into the Wikipedia editor community.

'''PRODUCT SPEC:'''

Wikipedia Educational Browser Extension

[[Image:Spec2.jpg]]

'''WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:'''

This browser extension serves many purposes: first, it is meant to facilitate the identification of factual errors within Wikipedia by creating a user-friendly way to catalog the errors using Wikipedia's taxonomy - which you can find under the open task bar in this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal>, second, it provides an inroad for new potential editors to interact with the site through micro-contributions and build familiarity with Wikipedia process, third it teaches users to do not completely rely on the text he/she is reading and to point him/her to which areas need contribution [?], fourth, it would also work as a way to bring the discussion page to the surface, teaching them to "discuss before editing".

What to Build (Description) â please forgive the non-technical nature of this spec. We are happy to provide additional information including more views if needed.

After the user installs the plugin, there should be a logo in the bottom right corner of the browser and an entry added to the âtoolsâ bar of the browser.

We imagine the interaction as follows:

When the user spots an error, he or she can click on our logo in the corner of the browser or click the entry in the Tools menu and a small window will pop up from the bottom of the browser (see below image for basic window design). Then, he or she would highlight the text that contains what the users suspects to be an error. The text would be auto-pasted into the text box. Then the user can add commentary and additional references. After the user adds commentary on the error and clicks submit the two text fields will be sent to two places â our database and a landing page where the accuracy flags will be delivered in real-time.

Moreover, the script would allow the user to see, if he/she desires which areas of the text are highly controversial and had many people commenting on them. This would be made by attributing hotter colors to more disputed/commented paragraphs and lighter colors to the others. This functionality is inspired by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 this tool] developed for the purpose of revising the GPL licenses.

The text should disappear from the two boxes and instead be replaced by a popup dialog box that says âthank you for your contribution.â

= Implementation =
:1. Name application
:2. Reach out to Mozilla community to build proposed FireFox application extension.
:3. Work with Wikimedia/Bridgespan to incorporate landing page and application with Wikipedia.

= Discussion Questions =
* How do we keep this tool from being an invitation to massively and scrupulously edit only topics like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift Taylor Swift] article?
* What should we name our application?
:* Wiki Peer Review
:* WikiNation; WikiWorld
:* Our Wikipedia
:* Wikipedia For Life (W4L)
* Compare the average discussion happening in a Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift talk page] and one happening on a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w Youtube video]. Which one is better?

Talk:Future of Wikipedia

2010-01-20T18:15:43Z

Yosuke: /* Final list of Problems for the Group */

'''Meta info:'''

We welcome external participation in our wiki. We are already grateful for the contributions people have been doing especially in the sorts of problems Wikipedia is facing. We have been reading some of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 the comments some people are making about our course] and we would like to have everybody's help giving feedback on some of the ideas we had to address the problems listed.

Our first challenge is to pick a manageable set of problems to work. If we don't focus we run the risk of not achieving anything by trying to solve too many issues. Tonight and tomorrow we'll be posting our ideas of what issues we'd like to tackle and what the potential solutions would look like. Your feedback here would be more than welcome.

==Final list of Problems for the Group==
We focus on these two problems:
*Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
*Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)

==Background on Wikipedia==

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia],History of Wikipedia.</ref> It represented a new development in the collaborative, web-based creation of bodies of knowledge. Initially it was a complement to the expert-written encyclopedia project âNupedia,â<ref name="Nupedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia], Wikipedia Entry on Nupedia.</ref> in order to provide an additional source of articles. Wikipedia soon outpaced Nupedia and grew to be arguably the most successful example of collaborative content creation. Today Wikipedia boasts that it contains several million articles and pages in hundreds of languages worldwide contributed by millions of users.

Wikipedia is arguably the most successful online collaboration but it is not the first. One early predecessor was Interpedia, initiated in 1993,<ref name="Interpedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpedia], Wikipedia Entry on Interpedia</ref> although the project never fully left the planning stages.<ref name="Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background">[http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/historical/digital-works.html#heading5], Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background.</ref> Free Software Foundationâs Richard Stallman described the need for a free universal encyclopedia in 1999, although the Free Software Foundation didnât launch its GNUPedia to compete with Nupedia until January 17, 2001, two days after the start of Wikipedia.<ref name="The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource">[http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html],The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource.</ref> And Wikipedia itself grew out of Nupedia, an online collaborative encyclopedia. On January 10, 2001, Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki, but reputedly Nupediaâs expert volunteers did not want to participate, so Wikipedia was established as a separate site.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> Wikipediaâs vision: ''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Thatâs our commitment.''<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation</ref>

===Growth of Wikipedia===

The growth of Wikipedia depended on the contribution of numerous lay users, a departure from the Nupedia tradition of using expert contributors. Nupedia was founded upon the use of highly qualified expert contributors and a multi-step peer review process, but despite its interested editors, the process was slow, and only 12 articles were written in the first year.<ref name="Early History of Nupedia">[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9], The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir - Part I" and "Part II", Slashdot, April 2005.</ref> Wikipedia, in contrast, generated over 1,000 articles in its first month of operation and over 20,000 articles in its first yearâa rate of 1,500 articles per month.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> In March, 2001, Wikipedia expanded into multilingual sites, beginning the development of Wikipedias for all major languages.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-March/000049.html</ref>

===Wikimedia===

Initially, Wikipedia was managed by Bomis, a commercial web portal headed by Jimmy Wales. In March 2002, during the dot-com bust, Bomis withdrew funding for Wikipedia.<ref name="Schiff, Stacy">[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact].(July 31, 2006). Schiff, Stacy. "Know It All". The New Yorker.</ref> At that time, Larry Sanger left both Nupedia and Wikipedia. He returned briefly to academia, then joined the Digital Universe Foundation and founded Citizendium, an alternative open encyclopedia that uses real names for contributors to discourage vandalism and expert guidance to ensure accuracy of information.<ref name="Anderson, Nate">[http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars], Anderson, Nate (February 25, 2007). "Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia". Ars Technica.</ref>

Meanwhile, after substantial consultation with Alex Roshuk, Jimmy Wales created the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), a non-profit charitable organization headquartered in St. Petersburg, FL, later moved to San Francisco, CA.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation.</ref> Announced on June 20, 2003, the WMF serves as an umbrella body that includes several other types of wiki collaborative information sharing sites:

* Wikipedia
* [http://www.wiktionary.org/ Wiktionary]
* [http://www.wikiquote.org/ Wikiquote]
* [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikibooks] (including [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior Wikijunior])
* [http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource]
* [http://commons.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Commons]
* [http://species.wikimedia.org/ Wikispecies]
* [http://en.wikinews.org/ Wikinews]
* [http://en.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity]
* [http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Incubator]
* [http://meta.wikimedia.org/ Meta-Wiki]

The foundation's by-laws declare a statement of purpose of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminate it effectively and globally.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation bylaws">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws&oldid=20641#ARTICLE_II_-_STATEMENT_OF_PURPOSE], Wikimedia Foundation bylaws. Archived from the original on 2007-04-20.</ref> Wikimedia is managed by a Board of Trustees. The Foundation and a team of local volunteers also organize [http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Portal Wikimania] every year, a conference for users of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.

==Academic Studies of Wikipedia==

Academic studies of Wikipedia have mainly used Wikipedia as a tool to analyze other phenomena. The users on Wikipedia provide a large database of subjects which the researchers use to test their hypotheses or as a social network which can be manipulated and observed. The majority of studies focus on either semantic relatedness<ref>M Strube et al,[http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-223.pdf WikiRelate!], Computer Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2006)</ref><ref>E Gabrilovich et al, [http://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-259.pdf Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia-Based Explicit Semantic Analysis](2007)</ref><ref>Zesch et al, Analyzing and Accessing WIkipedia as a Lexical Semantic Resource, Data Structures for Linguistic Resources (2007).</ref> or online coordination and conflict resolution techniques.<ref name="Coordination">Viegas et al, [[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.6907&rep=rep1&type=pdf Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia], Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007)</ref><ref name ="Kittur">Kittur et al, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240698 He Says, She Says; Conflict and Coordination in Wikipedia], Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Computing (2007)</ref><ref name="Wilkonson">D Wilkonson & B Huberman, [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0702140 Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia, Computers and Society], arXiv:cs/0702140v1 [cs.DL] (2007).</ref>

There is a persistent and widespread failure of academic studies to address the realities of Wikipedia, as opposed to the wishful pipe-dreams of armchair speculators and the uncritical recycling of Wikipedian promotional claims. There is a pressing need for the application of disciplined field study methods and qualitative research based on systematic participant observation.

==Academic Reflections on Wikipedia==

* Cummings, Robert E. (12 Mar 2009), "Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing?", ''Inside Higher Ed''. [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings Online].

* Jaschik, Scott (26 Jan 2007), "A Stand Against Wikipedia", ''Inside Higher Ed''. [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki Online].

* Lih, Andrew (16 Dec 2009), "Ron Livingston, Growth, and Wikipedia". [http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/12/16/ron-livingston-growth-and-wikipedia/ Online].

* Matetsky, Ira (May 2009), "Thoughts on Wikipedia", ''The Volokh Conspiracy''. [http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1242098183.shtml Online].

* Schumacher, Mary Louise (30 Apr 2009), "Deconstructing Wikipedia", ''Milwaukee Journal Sentinel''. [http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/44035017.html Online].

* Wilson, Mark A. (01 Apr 2008), "Professors Should Embrace Wikipedia", ''Inside Higher Ed''. [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/04/01/wilson Online].

==List of Potential Problems and discussion==

===Difficult Problems : Three Big Questions===

This section addresses the following questions:

# What is the mission of the Wikipedia project?
# What are the methods of the Wikipedia project?
# Are the methods adequate to the mission?

====What is the Mission?====

=====Education=====

======Aspects of Education======

* Education in Citizenship

* Education in Scholarship

======Issues in Education======

What are the effects of the Wikipedia environment on the critical thinking, information literacy, and research skills of its participants?

'''Critical Reflective Thinking'''

'''Balancing Content and Process'''

Too much commentary on what students learn from Wikipedia stops with the content of articles and fails to examine what students learn from participating in the culture of Wikipedia. Educators know that education is as much about process as it is about product. They understand that students âlearn by doingâ, by taking part in communities of practice. What do students learn by playing the Wikipedia online game?

=====Information=====

* The role of an informed citizenry in democratic societies

=====Socialization=====

* The preservation and transmission of culture

====What are the Methods?====

====Are the Methods Adequate to the Mission?====

===Difficult Problems : Effects of Wikipedia Subculture on the External Society===

What are the effects of the Wikipedia environment on the critical thinking, information literacy, and research skills of its participants?

Too much commentary on what students learn from Wikipedia stops with the content of articles and fails to examine what students learn from participating in the culture of Wikipedia.

Educators know that education is as much about process as it is about product. They understand that students âlearn by doingâ, by taking part in communities of practice. What do students learn by playing the Wikipedia online game?

The effects of using Wikipedia as a source of information is a research question.

The effects of participating more broadly in Wikipedian activities, from the editing game to the policy-making game, is another research question.

Even a bad source of information and a bad guide to the norms of research methodology can serve the ends of critical thinking and information literacy — '''''if''''' the user is afforded the opportunity to reflect on its deficiencies.

Whether Wikipedia helps or hinders the user in gaining that capacity is yet another research question.

Educators are aware that learners have many different paths to knowledge. Among the most obvious are these:

# Learning by being told.
# Learning by doing things for oneself.
# Learning by watching what others do.

What do people learn from participating in the full range of activities provided by the Wikipedia website, considered with regard to each of these modes?

Some of the questions that educational researchers would naturally think to ask about the Wikipedia experience are these:

# What do people learn about the ethical norms of journalism, research, and scholarship?
# What do people learn about the intellectual norms of journalism, research, and scholarship?

For example, questions that one might ask under the indicated headings are these:

# What do people learn about the relative values of primary and secondary sources from reading the relevant policy pages in Wikipedia?
# What do people learn about plagiarism from watching what others do in Wikipedia?

===Difficult Problems : The Bridgespan Strategy===

Following Wikimania 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation (in cooperation with The Bridgespan Group) created a [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page strategy wiki] that identifies major concerns for the future of the WMF and its projects, and this wiki permits users to contribute and comment on proposed solutions, so long as the contributions meet with approval. A number of contributors have been blocked.<ref>[http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&type=block&user=Philippe&month=&year= Block log] of coordinator Philippe Beaudette</ref> The problems presented below have been highlighted as the most significant and challenging problems facing the WMF and its projects.

====Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community====

There are three main concerns relating to the contributing community that sustains Wikipedia:

# Size of the contributing community — is it sustainable and is it sufficient?
# Identity of the contributing community — does population bias create content bias?
# Inequality within contributing community — does Wikipedia really represent contributions of the many, or is it moving towards an elite system?

It needs to be appreciated that no statement about the demographics of Wikipedia editors is verifiable according to the usual standards of statistical research. The relationship between real people and editor accounts is known to be many-to-many, but the extent of its deviation from a one-to-one correspondence is simply not assessable on the grounds rules of the site. Furthermore, many editors are actively deceptive about their identities.

=====Size=====

Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see [http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; or "[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain its contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."

=====Identity and Bias=====

Studies on Wikipedia's contributing population determine that the majority are white males (Oded Nov says 92.7% male, another [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/31/only-13-of-wikipedia-contributors-are-women-study-says/ 87%]). If this is the case, does Wikipedia truly represent an unbiased cross-section of global (or even American) knowledge? How does the identity of the contributing community bias Wikipedia regarding politics? Consider claims that Wikipedia needs to be further censored or is being [http://state-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/07/censoring-wikipedia-2.html manipulated by Nazis] seeking to control the flow of information in Germany, or that its editors are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia far more liberal than the American public].

=====Inequality=====

Within the Wikipedia contributing community, there has been a rapid divide between "contributors" and "editors", with editors determining much of the style, tone and occasionally content of articles. One study found that âelite usersâ were pushing out new contributors, with 25% of occasional wiki editorsâ changes being erased or reverted by established editors. This was up from 10% in 2003.<ref>[http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2008.333 Editors as Elite Users]</ref>.

Once again, Wikipedia has editor accounts only. It is possible to predicate properties of editor accounts based on their contribution histories, but it is not possible to extrapolate those predicates to real persons with any degree of verifiability. The accountability of the distinction claimed above is thoroughly undermined by the fact the same person may be editing under many accounts and many persons may be editing under the same account.

====Quality Control : Perceived and Actual====

It is important to distinguish between concerns about the actual quality of Wikipedia articles and concerns about the perceived quality of the articles. The one should be approached as a contributor and technical problem, and the other should be addressed as a publicity problem. Also, the concept of quality is intentionally broad and includes everything from accuracy of information, to degree of citation provided, to the quality of images and prose.

=====Actual Quality of Wikipedia=====

On October 24, 2005, ''The Guardian'' published an article entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a panel of experts were asked to critically review seven entries related to their fields.<ref name="Guardian">[http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html], Can you trust Wikipedia?, ''The Guardian'', 2008.</ref> One article was deemed to have made "every value judgement … wrong", the others receiving marks from 5 to 8 out of a notional ten. Of the other six articles reviewed and critiqued, the most common criticisms were:

# Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)
# Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)
# Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention)
The most common praises were:
# Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies (4 mentions)
# Much useful information, including well-selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)

''Nature'' reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those on ''Encyclopedia Britannica'''s web site. Out of 42 articles, only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', although more than a hundred lesser errors and omissions were found in each and Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured."<ref>P.D. Magnus, [http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/36449903/On-Trusting-WIKIPEDIA On Trusting Wikipedia], Britannica.</ref>

On March 24, 2006, ''Britannica'' provided a rebuttal of this article, labeling it "fatally flawed",<ref name="Nature Flawed BE">[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Journal_Nature_study_%27fatally_flawed%27%2C_says_Britannica], Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica, March 24, 2006, Wikinews. </ref> to which ''Nature'' responded.<ref name="Nature Responds">[http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf], Encyclopedia Britannica and Nature: A Response, March 23, 2006.</ref>

Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that Nature composited parts of different Britannica texts to make a text for review in one case, that Nature did not check the factual assertions of its reviewers, and that many points which the reviewers labeled as errors were differences of editorial opinion. Nature responded that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia, that in some cases it used excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particular concerns with Nature before publishing its "open letter" rebuttal.

Three subsequent studies -- a 2006 web-based survey,<ref>[http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval], Larry Press, Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness, Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University (2006)</ref> a 2004 comparison of ''Brockhaus Multimedial'', ''Microsoft Encarta'', and the German Wikipedia, <ref>Michael Kurzidim: Wissenswettstreit. Die kostenlose Wikipedia tritt gegen die MarktfÃ¼hrer Encarta und Brockhaus an, in: ''c't'' 21/2004, October 4, 2004, S. 132-139.</ref> (repeated in 2007 <ref>Dorothee Wiegand: "Entdeckungsreise. Digitale EnzyklopÃ¤dien erklÃ¤ren die Welt." c't 6/2007, March 5, 2007, p. 136-145.</ref>), and a 2007 review by Australian magazine ''PC Authority''<ref>[http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/93908,wikipedia-uncovered.aspx/1], PC Authority:'Wikipedia Uncovered'.</ref> -- concluded that Wikipedia was generally as reliable as other traditional encyclopedias.

However, Wikipedia may not be as reliable in technical or specialized fields. A peer-reviewed 2008 study<ref>[http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/aph.1L474v1.pdf] KA Clauson et al., Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug Iinformation in Wikipedia, 42 Annals Pharmacotheraphy 1814 (2008).</ref>examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The research team found few factual errors but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like contraindications and drug interactions. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur." The researchers also compared Wikipedia to Medscape Drug Reference (MDR), by looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, including adverse drug events, dosages, and mechanism of action. They have determined that MDR provided answers to 82.5 percent of the questions, while Wikipedia could only answer 40 percent, and that answers were less likely to be complete for Wikipedia as well. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The study noted that Wikipedia articles improved significantly over time. The lead investigator concluded: "I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]", and he pointed out that drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe.
:However, omission of drug information is intended by Wikipedia's style guidelines to specifically prevent articles being used for medication advice. This shows that the scope of Wikipedia's intended content may not be realised, so it may be at fault with an outside view, but correct within its own guidelines. <ref>[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medmos#Drugs]]</ref>

Another informal but systematic study of one calendar quarter's worth of edits to Wikipedia's one hundred articles about the 100 senators of the United States determined that these articles were interspersed with incorrect information or defamation about 6.8% of the time.<ref>[http://www.mywikiâbiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study Vandalism study of U.S. senators], analyzing data from 4th Quarter, 2007.</ref>

In addition to these potential omissions (or purposeful deletions), the structure of Wikipedia lends itself to several [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#cite_note-50 potential vulnerabilities]:

#Information citation loops
#Vandalism
#Anonymity of authors lending to false information (see e.g. the [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1062 Essjay controversy])

In 2007, XKCD created a humorous [http://xkcd.org/285/ comic] illustrating a feature (references and citations) designed to ensure greater accuracy in articles.

=====Perceived Quality of Wikipedia=====

Whether or not Wikipedia actually is accurate, its reception as a trusted source has been plagued by doubts regarding the trustworthiness of its content as the product of mass collaboration by anonymous authors.

Years ago, the perception of Wikipedia in the average population was relatively high. In a web-based survey conducted in spring 2006, fifty participants rated Wikipedia articles: 76% agreed that the article was accurate, and 46% agreed it was complete. The same survey compared Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica: of 18 responses, 6 favored Britannica, 7 favored Wikipedia, and 11 found Wikipedia more complete.<ref>Larry Press, "[http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval/ Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness]," Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University (2006).</ref>

However, Wikipedia's '''reception by academia''' has been less than stellar, and current popular perception of the compendium is on the decline. (Note the January 10 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Rollercoaster_%28The_Cleveland_Show%29 episode] of ''The Cleveland Show'', where Cleveland Brown, Jr. asks his sister (disguised as "Tyra Obama") if it's true "you guys can clap your breasts together like a seal", and when she says "No", he deadpans to the camera, "Thanks a lot, Wikipedia".)

Even if Wikipedia itself doesnât intend to be used as a course for academic works, it is often used by students and researchers as a starting point. However, the open-source collaborative and anonymous efforts that produce Wikipedia have led to wide-spread skepticism of its accuracy. Most of the angry responses targeted at Wikipedia have been aimed at its claim to be an encyclopedia. Such claims are thought to establish greater expectations of accuracy than are or possibly can be achieved by non-expert collaboration. Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source, and because Wikipedia editors may not have degrees or other credentials generally recognized in academia.

Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief for the Encyclopedia Britannica, describes Wikipedia as the âFaith-Based Encyclopedia.â He describes the âcrucial and entirely faith-based stepâ in the Wikipedia process: âSome unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.â This step, he argues, is a completely unwarranted leap of faith. Rather, âContrary to the faith, the article has, in fact, been edited into mediocrity.â<ref name=McHenry>[http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A], Robert McHenry, The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks, Dec 14, 2005 (2008).</ref>

Andrew Orlowski accuses Wikipedia of being a âvanity exerciseâ for calling itself an encyclopedia, and writes that the use of the term "encyclopedia" to describe Wikipedia may lead users into believing it is more reliable than it may be. He points out (describing a libel case against Wikipedia) that âIf what we today know as "Wikipedia" had started life as something called, let's say - "Jimbo's Big Bag O'Trivia" - we doubt if it would be the problem it has become.â The public begins to expect trustworthy information from Wikipedia and instead gets a âking-sized cocktailâ of bureaucracy and âspontaneous graffiti.â <ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/page2.html], Andrew Orlowski, "Who's responsible for Wikipedia?" The Register, Dec 12, 2005.</ref>

Middlebury College went so far as to [http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html?pr=jah931 ban the citation of Wikipedia] in papers in its history department. On this note, however, consider the fact that Wikipedia itself states in its guidelines that Wikipedia is not suitable for academic citation because Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.<ref name=Duke>[http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/03/28/News/Several.Colleges.Push.To.Ban.Wikipedia.As.Resource-2809247.shtml], Lysa Chen, "Several colleges push to ban Wikipedia as resource," Duke Chronicle, March 28, 2007</ref><ref>"[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia]", ''Inside Higher Ed'' (January 26, 2007). Retrieved on January 27, 2007.</ref><ref name=McHenry>

Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but do not elevate it to the same level as traditional references. For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced as "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science. The publisher of Science states that these enhanced perspectives "include hypernotes - which link directly to websites of other relevant information available online - beyond the standard bibliographic references."<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI/PDFs/01_D_Perspectives.pdf], Yolanda S. George & Shirley S.Malcolm, "Perspectives from AAAS|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science."</ref>

=====Improving Wikipedia's Perceived Accuracy=====
One study presented at the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Work explored whether a visualizations system could improve readersâ perceptions of trustworthiness in a wiki by exposing hidden article information.<ref>
Kittur, Suh & Chi, Can You Ever Trust a Wiki?: Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM 2008 CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK (2008) 477-480. [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460639&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=56978117&CFTOKEN=87505552Abstract].</ref> The results suggest that surfacing information that is relevant to the stability of the article and patterns of editor behavior can have a significant impact on usersâ trust. This should be considered in conjunction for proposals on color-coding articles by age, editing contribution etc that are being considered to improve article accuracy.

Other suggestions include:

*Reputation-based text coloring. Each article could display a button labeled "check text reputation": upon clicking the button, a user would be led to a copy of the page, where the text background color reflects the reputation of the author of each portion of text, as well as the reputation of authors who vetted the text, editing the page while leaving the text in place. The appeal of this method is that reputation is displayed in an anonymous way, associated to the article text. This avoids placing blame or praise directly on the authors: the impersonal character of this feedback could be well-suited to a collaborative forum such as the Wikipedia.<ref>T. Cross. Puppy smoothies: Improving the reliability of open, collaborative wikis. First Monday, 11(9), September 2006.</ref>
*Restricting edits. Highly controversial articles could be protected, so that only authors with sufficiently high reputation are able to edit them. This is currently employed by Wikipedia as part of its [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_policy Protection Policy] but it could be expanded.
*Reputation-based alert system. Wikipedia Editors keep a watchful eye on most controversial articles, and in fact, on a large portion of the Wikipedia, improving content and undoing poor-quality revisions. A reputation system could be used to alert them whenever a crucial or controversial article is modified by a low-reputation author. A reputation system provides an incentive for high-quality contributions. A reputation system could provide an additional incentive for authors to provide high quality contributions to the Wikipedia.<ref>P. Resnick, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, and K. Kiwabara. Reputation systems. Comm. ACM, 43(12):45{48, 2000. C. Dellarocas. The digitization of word-ofmouth: Promises and challenges of online reputation systems. Management Science, October 2003.</ref>
*Content-Driven Reputation system. Study by Adler & de Alfaro proposes a content-driven reputation system for Wikipedia to allow readers to determine reliability of an article based on the reputation of the contributors and editors. The reputation of authors would be based on how their contribution to Wikipedia fares: the longer an article or edit remains un-edited or un-altered, the better the authorâs reputation. This can be, however, much less accurate than a user-driven reputation system. Author contributions can be deleted for a variety of reasons, including reorganizations and thorough rewrites of the articles. Alder & Alfaro address these issues in that the reputation of authors whose edits are reverted to the original text suffers; reputation of authors whose edits are further refined later on do not suffer.<ref>B. Thomas Adler & Luca de Alfaro, [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=luca_de_alfaro A Content-Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia].</ref>
*Zeng et al. also propose a mechanism wherein the revision history of the Wikipedia article is used to compute a trust value for the article.<ref>H. Zeng, M.A. Alhoussaini, L. Ding, R. Fikes, and D.L. McGuinness. Computing trust from revision history. In Intl. Conf. on Privacy, Security and Trust, 2006.</ref>

* It could also prove interesting to explore combinations of user and content reputation devices.

====Sustainability of the Wikimedia Model====

The strategy discussions at Wikimania 2009 raised the question of whether Wikimedia, as it stands today, is sustainable: both from a technological and organizational standpoint.

* Is a platform that both supports numerous users and serves less tech savvy contributors possible?

* How can Wikimedia ensure its financial stability?

* How can Wikimedia re-structure its institutional organization to allow oversight without creating too many levels of hierarchy such that the bureaucracy becomes ungainly?

=====Emerging Strategic Priorities=====

* Optimize Wikimediaâs operations

* Identify roles volunteers are best suited to perform and what are the most effective uses of paid staff

* Create alliances and partnerships with other institutions and organizations to advance the mission: also, what are the necessary preconditions to such alliances? How support similar projects?

=====Obstacles to Sustainability=====

* Persistent lack of accountability

* Inability to respond to widespread critical feedback

====Expansion and Questions of Scope====

Since the founding of Wikipedia in 2001, there has been substantial growth in user-generated online content.<ref>Geist, M. Mapping the digital future. OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 254 (2006), 36â37.</ref><ref>Dunn, J., Byrd, D., Notess, M., Riley, J., and Scherle, R. Variations2: Retrieving and using music in an academic setting. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (Aug. 2006) 53â58.</ref> According to one Nielsen rating, user-generated content drives 50% of the top fastest growing internet brands.<ref>Nielsen NetRating. [www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/PR_060810.PDF User-generated content drives half of U.S. top 10 fastest growing Web brands], (Aug. 10, 2006).</ref> Consider just the popularity of collaborative site such as YouTube, Flickr, or Slashdot.org. Traditional media outlets such as BBC News.com have also added areas for collaboration.<ref>Eltringham, M. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4900000/newsid_4900400/4900444.stm Citizen journalists challenge BBC], BBC NewsWatch (2006).</ref> User-generated content appears to be the way forward â but is Wikipedia a good model upon which to base that progress? Can the system used for Wikipedia be applied in other scenarios?

==Lay Questions for Scholars Concerned with the Role of Law in Society==

The Law of any given Land is frequently out of sync — now leading, now lagging — the collective common sense of what it takes to constitute a just society. With that in mind, let us address the questions of justification:

# What is and what should be the obligations of interactive media site owners and interactive media site participants toward their fellow citizens, toward the larger communities of inquiry from which they derive their justification, and toward the world at large?
# It is possible to debate the current dictates of the Law at great length — this has already been done at great length and will no doubt continue to be done at even greater length. But the ordinary citizen in danger of becoming roadkill on the Internet Autobahn will be concerned with the broader horizon, longer haul issues of where the Law is bound to go if it is designed to achieve and maintain a just society.

===Freedom of Speech, False Witness, Truth in Advertising===

===Legal and Social Justification for Tax Incentives===

===Unsafe @ Any Speed?===

* Need to consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia is an inherently defective social-technical product that cannot be fixed by any means even remotely feasible given the present conditions of its existence.
* Technical infrastructure needs to be improved

===Critical Reflective Self-Study and Institutional Research?===

* The difficulties, if not impossibilities, of continuous quality improvement in a system that is hostile to critical feedback and resistant to the principles of learning organizations. It would be possible to make a very long list of previous efforts along these lines that have been aborted or gutted by the prevailing dynamics of the Wikipedian subculture.

* If crowdsourcing is so great, why does the Wikimedia Foundation need to hire professional strategic planning ''cum'' public representation agencies like the Bridgespan Group to do its institutional research?

=== The Laborious Way That Decisions Are Made? ===

* Process vs. Substance

=== Newbies? Editing Interface ===

:* Is maintaining a higher complexity level in the editing interface a mechanism for quality control? (e.g. users needs to be at least nominally computer literate to be able to edit/operate within wikipedia)
:* Breaking through the glass ceiling - how can newbies be encouraged to contribute?

=== Online harassment or defamation problem in Wikipedia? ===

* Ron LIvingston v. Mark Binmore
* Star Wars Kid
* ReputationDefender
** Maybe this is not a problem of Wikipedia, this is a problem in the internet generally

=== Getting Educational Institutions to Explicitly Participate ===

* Partnership Program w/ Schools-Teachers?
*:Need to identify what benefits, if any, would accrue to teachers, students, or Wikipedia by such a partnership.
*:: zing! [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing?]
::: [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings#Comments Just be sure to read all the comments, too].
::: From the standpoint of the purpose identified in the Cummings blogicle, I question whether teaching students how to succeed in Wikipedia's dysfunctional rhetorical environment, or learning Wikipedia's preferred style of authorship, which is difficult to distinguish from organized, sanctioned plagiarism, is of any benefit to students or to teachers. Wikipedia also has a tendency to be resistant to such efforts; I recall several instances of students having been assigned to edit Wikipedia and subsequently being blocked on the grounds that their assignment created a "conflict of interest" (a term of art within Wikipedia's idiosyncratic jargon which means something other than what an ordinary person would think it means). [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
*:: so "Partnership" was thrown around incredibly loosely
* Getting students to flag hotspots (see flagging proposal)
* Getting students to learn about how projects like Wikipedia work
*: A proper study of how Wikipedia works, and more importantly how Wikipedia fails, could possibly be of interest for students in social psychology, abnormal psychology, political science, marketing, and other related fields. Marketing people, especially, should be very interested in learning how to exploit Wikipedia more effectively. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
** Clarifying how '''not''' to use Wikipedia
** Addressing institutions' views on sources, primary and secondary
** Addressing Wikipedian's concerns on newbies
**: A recent attempt at a quality control study (the "NEWT project") on the treatment of editors perceived to be newbies by managers of Wikipedia's speedy deletion process was met with strong disapproval by the community. Wikipedia's community actively resists efforts, either internal or external, to examine its internal processes and behaviors, except when the purpose is clearly structured from the beginning to be adulatory.
* Keeping in mind all of this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_and_universities_project Wikipedia school and university projects]

==Resources==

* [http://akahele.org/ Akahele]

* [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/ Augmented Social Cognition Blog]

* The Wikipedia Review : [http://wikipediareview.com/ Forum], [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/ Op-Ed Blog]

* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352 Wikipedia Timeline]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism Wikipedia Vandalism]

==References==
<references/>

Day 9 Predictions

2010-01-14T04:26:38Z

Yosuke: New page: Here is a related youtube video, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDNKhAIOww CouchSurfing: What one website reveals about the future of the net]. ~~~

Here is a related youtube video, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDNKhAIOww CouchSurfing: What one website reveals about the future of the net]. [[User:Yosuke|Yosuke]]

Main Page

2010-01-13T23:21:16Z

Yosuke: /* WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES */

Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and Elizabeth Stark, co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School.

In addition to this wiki, this class maintains a [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/difficultprobs/ blog] and [http://twitter.com/DifficultProbs twitter feed]. Check them out!

If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]]. For admins looking for details on field trips, please visit [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/Main_Page#Field_Trip_Logistic here]. All regular class meetings will be at '''Stanford Law School Classroom 280B'''.

This [http://www.law.stanford.edu/contact/#maps map site] has a map of the [http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ca/bayarea Bay Area], [http://ucomm.stanford.edu/map/ Stanford campus], and [http://transportation.stanford.edu/images/visitor-bus.pdf visitor parking] at Stanford.

The four main difficult problems to be addressed are:
*[[Global Network Initiative]]
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]]
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]
*[[Cybersecurity]] ([[Cybersecurity Brainstorming |Group Page]])

Cross-cutting themes include:
*[[Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs]]
*[[The role of intermediaries]]
*[[Motivating good and bad actors]]
*[[Collaborating and relying on masses]]
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]

Group presentation schedule:
*Friday the 15th: Ubiquitous Human Computing
*Tuesday the 19th: Cybersecurity
*Wednesday the 20th: Global Network Initiative
*Thursday the 21st: Future of Wikipedia

==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==

<center> '''Monday, January 4th''' </center>

'''LUNCH''': 12-2pm SLS, Room 280B
:Student introductions

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B
:A brief overview of the course, its goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.
:A quiz on Zittrain's book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It] will be given.
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative

''Readings For Class'':
*Read [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Initiative] website
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]

''Assignments'': Before next class, post [[Day 2 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 1 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 5th''' </center>

'''CYBERSECURITY BACKGROUND: ''BONUS''''': 2-4pm SLS Room 280B
: Professor Zittrain will interview Professor [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=559 Jack Goldsmith] as an overview of cybersecurity as it has evolved and as it can potentially be addressed.

*''Bonus Writing Opportunity'': produce a summary of the cybersecurity event, to be used as background reading for Thursday

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken.
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.

''Guests:''
*Mark Chandler, CISCO
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft
*Dunstan Hope, BSR

''Readings:''
*Read Rhys Blakely, ''[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],'' TimesOnline, Feb. 9, 2006.
*Read Colin Maclay, "[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online]," ''in'' Access Controlled (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Ubiquitous_Human_Computing UbiComp Wiki Primer]

''Assignments'': Before next class, post [[Day 3 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 2 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 6th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers.
:Introduction to cybersecurity.

''Guests'':
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]
*Aaron Koblin, see his [http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work.html Ten Thousand Cents and Sheep Market projects]

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.mturk.com/ Mechanical Turk], [http://www.liveops.com/ LiveOps], [http://www.crowdflower.com CrowdFlower] or other human computing site
**Watch the [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2167086 12-minute video] of Lukas' CrowdFlower presentation at TechCrunch
*Skim Nancy R. Mansfield, ''[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]'', American Business Law Journal (2003).
*Kate Thomas, ''[http://www.seiu.org/2009/12/insurers-hire-mafia-to-spam-congress.php Insurers Hire Mafia to Spam Congress]'', SEIU.org Blog, Dec. 10, 2009.
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]'', SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008).
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Wiki Primer]

'''ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice'''

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 4 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 3 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 7th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia

''Guests'':
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft

''Readings'':
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].
*Col. Allen & Lt. Col Demchak, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]'', Military Review (2003).
*Kim Zetter, ''[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet's Biggest Security Hole]'', Wired (2008).
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 3
*Skim CENTRA Technology, [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Cyber Compendium] Workshop, Nov. 2009.
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near & Mid-Term Action Plans.
*Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Future_of_Wikipedia Future of Wikipedia] wiki background paper

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 5 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 4 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Friday, January 8th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': 10:30 am eBay office visit (shuttle from SLS), including JZ talk and meeting with eBay lawyers and security experts
*If you're unable to attend, you might want to watch JZ's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo Minds for Sale talk].

'''CLASS''': 3:00-5:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 3:30pm
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model? and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?
:Brief introduction of next week's cross-cutting themes

''Guests'':
*Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member
*Mike Godwin, Wikimedia General Counsel
*Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia volunteer

''Readings'':
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 6
*Peruse Wikipedia's [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]
*Strona, ''[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]'', The Economist, March 6, 2008.
*''[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]'', Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 26, 2007.
*Browse [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia]
*''[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]'', Wall Street Journal.
*''[http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/ New editors are joining English Wikipedia in droves?]'', Infodisiac, Dec. 6, 2009.

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 6 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 5 Thoughts]]

'''EVENING EVENT: ''BONUS''''': Cocktails and hors d'oeuvres at David Hornik's office in Palo Alto after class.

----

<center> '''Saturday, January 9th''' </center>

Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details TBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].

==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==

<center> '''Monday, January 11th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:50pm
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied? Change the technology, save the world.
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet

''Guests'':
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NggzBHSXdCo Video explanation of Herdict] (student suggested)
*Zittrain's [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)
*Visit [https://www.new.net/ New.net]
**How can .church domain names exist when it does not exist? Look at the new.net domain decoder
**Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains List of Internet Domains]
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, ''[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]'', 32 Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 383 (2009).

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 7 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 6 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 12th''' </center>

'''WORKSHOP: ''BONUS''''': 1-2pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]
Hosted by Carl Malamud
:Some students attend the entire workshop, 10am-3pm

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online? Consider the Drumbeat privacy project and creative commons issues.
:Introduction to the cross-cutting theme of due process and dispute resolution on the internet.

''Guests'':
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow
*Ebele Okobi-Harris, Yahoo! Director of Business and Human Rights
*Mark Surman, Mozilla
*Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender
*Carl Malamud
*Julie Martin, Mozilla
*Aza Raskin, Mozilla

''Readings'':
*Browse [http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons] for discussion
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 9 on Data Genealogy
*Odia Kagan, ''[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],'' Int'l Business Law Services, November 26, 2007.
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]
*[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat privacy icon challenge] backgrounder

''Additional Materials'' (suggested by student):
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ Message from Anonymous to the Church of Scientology];
*Skim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 Wikipedia's article about Anonymous Group];
*Read about (and use!) [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 8 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 7 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 13th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:How do our due process concerns translate to the internet and online communities? Should due process exist on the internet? Is the internet public or private space and under what terms do we have the privilege or right to access?
:Consider, for example, how much due process should be required to remove an account from Facebook, Google or Twitter. How much due process is necessary for a take-down on YouTube and what right of appeal do you have in any of these circumstances?
:Introduction to online collaboration and group motivation strategies

''Guests'':

* Kim Scott, Google

''Readings'':

* Skim Elizabeth Thornburg, ''[http://faculty.smu.edu/ethornbu/Thornburg%20Macro.doc Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution]'', 34 Univ. Cal. Davis 151 (2000).
* Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service (see the primer above)
* Recall Zittrain, Chapter 7, on [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/18#48 Private Sheriffs]
* Terri Wells, ''[http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Beware-the-Google-Death-Penalty/ Beware the Google 'Death Penalty']'',Search Engine News (2006).

''Additional Materials Note - Added by an outsider; not part of the official syllabus''

* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211/its-the-casting-director-lee-dennison-story/ It's the Casting Director Lee Dennison Story], ''Wikipedia Review Editorials''.

* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091230/ron-livingston-wikipedia-google-and-the-sourness-of-grapes/ Ron Livingston, Wikipedia, Google, and the Sourness of Grapes], ''Wikipedia Review Editorials''.

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 9 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 8 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 14th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Online collaboration projects require internet organizations to motivate and coordinate large groups of people. This requires both motivating good actors to participate and motivating bad actors either to not participate or to conform to the rules/standards of the site. How can website hosts face these challenges? How involved should the users of cooperatively developed sites be in their governments?

''Guests'':
*Daniel Hoffer, [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing]
*Micah Schaffer
*Dan Scholnick

''Readings'':
*F. Gino, Jun Gu, & Chen-Bo Zhong, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Contagion or Restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior]'', 45 J. Experimental Social Psychology 1299-1302 (2009).
*Browse [http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ OpenCouchSurfing.org] posts and complaints
*Review readings from Friday, January 8th on Wikipedia and motivation of contributors

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 9 Thoughts]]

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Bonus, evening, details TBD

----

<center> '''Friday, January 15th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 1:00-3:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 1:30pm
:Ubiquitous Human Computing presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Maynard Webb, LiveOps
*Fabio Rosati, Elance

==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==

<center> '''Monday, January 18th''' </center>

'''NO CLASS''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 19th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': Reputation Defender, 1pm

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': Google, 3pm

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B or Google (TBC), guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm
:Cybersecurity presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Mitchell Baker

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 20th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS'':''' Facebook, 12:30-2pm (TBC)

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:Global Network Initiative presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 21st''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Future of Wikipedia presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Craig Newmark
*Edward Wes

'''WRAP-UP DINNER''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Student Lounge

----

<center> '''January 31st''' </center>

'''FINAL PROJECTS DUE'''

Talk:Future of Wikipedia

2010-01-13T22:44:46Z

Yosuke: /* The Quality Issue? */

== Background ==

* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352 Wikipedia Timeline]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism Wikipedia Vandalism]

== Potential Problems to be Explored ==

===Unsafe @ Any Speed?===

* Need to consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia is an inherently defective social-technical product that cannot be fixed by any means even remotely feasible given the present conditions of its existence.
* Technical infrastructure needs to be improved

===Critical Reflective Self-Study and Institutional Research?===

* The difficulties, if not impossibilities, of continuous quality improvement in a system that is hostile to critical feedback and resistant to the principles of learning organizations. It would be possible to make a very long list of previous efforts along these lines that have been aborted or gutted by the prevailing dynamics of the Wikipedian subculture.

* If crowdsourcing is so great, why does the Wikimedia Foundation need to hire professional strategic planning ''cum'' public representation agencies like the Bridgespan Group to do its institutional research?

=== The Laborious Way That Decisions Are Made? ===

* Process vs. Substance

=== Newbies? Editing Interface ===

:* Is maintaining a higher complexity level in the editing interface a mechanism for quality control? (e.g. users needs to be at least nominally computer literate to be able to edit/operate within wikipedia)

=== Demographics and Gender Issues===

* Numerous discussions of Population Models can be found among the articles and comments at the [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/search/label/wikipedia Augmented Social Cognition Blog # Wikipedia].

* It is extremely doubtful that meaningful statistics about demographics can be derived from database records and self-reports that maintain no real accountability of Person Data.

* Horror stories of massive deception in this arena can be compiled and multiplied at will.

=== The View (or lack thereof) of Wikipedia in the Institution/Institutions? ===

:* Fleshing out references to bolster things?
:* There has been a decrease in volume of editor base and outreach initiatives have historically not been a priority

=== Not using all of its potential? ===

=== The Quality Issue? ===
:* Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
:* Using Mechanical Turks for editing
:* Gate keepers
:* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1502759 Wikipedia in Court: When and How Citing Wikipedia and Other Consensus Websites is Appropriate]

=== Online harassment or defamation problem in Wikipedia? ===

* Ron LIvingston v. Mark Binmore
* Star Wars Kid
* ReputationDefender
** Maybe this is not a problem of Wikipedia, this is a problem in the internet generally

== Solutions Looking for Problems ==

=== Getting Educational Institutions to Explicitly Participate ===

* Partnership Program w/ Schools-Teachers?
*:Need to identify what benefits, if any, would accrue to teachers, students, or Wikipedia by such a partnership.
*:: zing! [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing?]
::: [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings#Comments Just be sure to read all the comments, too].
::: From the standpoint of the purpose identified in the Cummings blogicle, I question whether teaching students how to succeed in Wikipedia's dysfunctional rhetorical environment, or learning Wikipedia's preferred style of authorship, which is difficult to distinguish from organized, sanctioned plagiarism, is of any benefit to students or to teachers. Wikipedia also has a tendency to be resistant to such efforts; I recall several instances of students having been assigned to edit Wikipedia and subsequently being blocked on the grounds that their assignment created a "conflict of interest" (a term of art within Wikipedia's idiosyncratic jargon which means something other than what an ordinary person would think it means). [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
*:: so "Partnership" was thrown around incredibly loosely
* Getting students to flag hotspots (see flagging proposal)
* Getting students to learn about how projects like Wikipedia work
*: A proper study of how Wikipedia works, and more importantly how Wikipedia fails, could possibly be of interest for students in social psychology, abnormal psychology, political science, marketing, and other related fields. Marketing people, especially, should be very interested in learning how to exploit Wikipedia more effectively. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
** Clarifying how '''not''' to use Wikipedia
** Addressing institutions' views on sources, primary and secondary
** Addressing Wikipedian's concerns on newbies
**: A recent attempt at a quality control study (the "NEWT project") on the treatment of editors perceived to be newbies by managers of Wikipedia's speedy deletion process was met with strong disapproval by the community. Wikipedia's community actively resists efforts, either internal or external, to examine its internal processes and behaviors, except when the purpose is clearly structured from the beginning to be adulatory.
* Keeping in mind all of this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_and_universities_project Wikipedia school and university projects]

=== Flagging for Engagement, Second Look ===

=== Zittrain's highlighting proposal ===
:Firefox Add-on like DisputeFinder?

== Meta!Meta! Time Frame ==

=== HW due Jan. 13, 2010 ===

*Go get your hands dirty in Wikipedia
*Rank biggest Problems
*Get Wikipedia Review guys to give us their thoughts
**Hello and Welcome!

=== In-Class Presentation Thurs. Jan 21, 2010 ===

User:Yosuke

2010-01-13T22:23:38Z

Yosuke: New page: == About me == Hi! I'm Yosuke Koike. Very nice to meet you.

== About me ==
Hi! I'm Yosuke Koike. Very nice to meet you.

Talk:Future of Wikipedia

2010-01-13T00:56:57Z

Yosuke: /* Online harassment or defamation problem in Wikipedia? */

== Potential Problems to be Explored ==

=== Newbies? Editing Interface ===

=== Demographics ===

=== Gender Issues ===

=== The View of Wikipedia in the Institution/Institutions? ===
:Fleshing out references to bolster things?

=== Not using all of its potential? ===

=== The Quality Issue? ===
:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
:Using Mechanical Turks for editing
:gate keeper

=== Online harassment or defamation problem in Wikipedia? ===
:Star wars kid
:ReputationDefender
::Maybe this is not a problem of Wikipedia, this is a problem in the internet generally

== Solutions Looking for Problems ==

=== Getting Educational Institutions to Explicitly Participate ===
*Partnership Program w/ Schools-Teachers?
*Getting students to flag hotspots (see flagging proposal)
*Getting students to learn about how projects like Wikipedia work
**Clarifying how '''not''' to use Wikipedia
**Addressing institutions' views on sources, primary and secondary
**Addressing Wikipedian's concerns on newbies

=== Flagging for Engagement, Second Look ===

=== Zittrain's highlighting proposal ===
:Firefox Add-on like DisputeFinder?

== Meta!Meta! Time Frame ==

=== HW due Jan. 13, 2009 ===

- Go get your hands dirty in Wikipedia

Talk:Future of Wikipedia

2010-01-13T00:55:31Z

Yosuke: /* Potential Problems to be Explored */

== Potential Problems to be Explored ==

=== Newbies? Editing Interface ===

=== Demographics ===

=== Gender Issues ===

=== The View of Wikipedia in the Institution/Institutions? ===
:Fleshing out references to bolster things?

=== Not using all of its potential? ===

=== The Quality Issue? ===
:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
:Using Mechanical Turks for editing
:gate keeper

=== Online harassment or defamation problem in Wikipedia? ===
:Star wars kid
:ReputationDefender

== Solutions Looking for Problems ==

=== Getting Educational Institutions to Explicitly Participate ===
:Partnership Program w/ Schools-Teachers?
: Getting students to flag hotspots (see flagging proposal)
: Getting students to learn about how projects like Wikipedia work
:: Clarifying how '''not''' to use Wikipedia
:: Addressing institutions' views on sources, primary and secondary
:: Addressing Wikipedian's concerns on newbies

=== Flagging for Engagement, Second Look ===

=== Zittrain's highlighting proposal ===
:Firefox Add-on like DisputeFinder?

== Meta!Meta! Time Frame ==

=== HW due Jan. 13, 2009 ===

- Go get your hands dirty in Wikipedia

Talk:Future of Wikipedia

2010-01-13T00:44:22Z

Yosuke: /* The Quality Issue? */

Wikipedia Notes Jan 12, 2009; Stanford Law School

== Potential Problems to be Explored ==

=== Newbies? Editing Interface ===

=== Demographics ===

=== Gender Issues ===

=== The View of Wikipedia in the Institution/Institutions? ===
:Fleshing out references to bolster things?

=== Not using all of its potential? ===

=== The Quality Issue? ===
:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
:Using Mechanical Turks for editing
:gate keeper

== Solutions Looking for Problems ==

=== Getting Educational Institutions to Explicitly Participate ===
:Partnership Program w/ Schools-Teachers?

=== Flagging for Engagement, Second Look ===

=== Zittrain's highlighting proposal ===
:Firefox Add-on like DisputeFinder?

Talk:Future of Wikipedia

2010-01-13T00:42:23Z

Yosuke:

Wikipedia Notes Jan 12, 2009; Stanford Law School

== Potential Problems to be Explored ==

=== Newbies? Editing Interface ===

=== Demographics ===

=== Gender Issues ===

=== The View of Wikipedia in the Institution/Institutions? ===
:Fleshing out references to bolster things?

=== Not using all of its potential? ===

=== The Quality Issue? ===

== Solutions Looking for Problems ==

=== Getting Educational Institutions to Explicitly Participate ===
:Partnership Program w/ Schools-Teachers?

=== Flagging for Engagement, Second Look ===

=== Zittrain's highlighting proposal ===
:Firefox Add-on like DisputeFinder?

Day 6 Predictions

2010-01-12T03:16:02Z

Yosuke:

Daniel: Our guests will probably discuss at length the challenges that Dispute Finder and most web-based cooperative tools bump into while attempting to harness input from virtual crowds. I guess they will talk about Dispute Finderâs design difficulties, such as costs and trade-offs (between precision and recall, between user-friendliness and number / quality of features, etc). Theyâll most likely also summon stories from the interviews discussed in the document we received, perhaps to illustrate content-layer problems with measurement of "information sources reliability"; usersâ misunderstandings / trouble with logic operations; and group biases.
I would love to hear their views on the [http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i256/f09/lectures/RobEnnalsGuestLecture.ppt proposed use of Turks] to improve the database of disputed claims and arguments, as well as on the current biases of the disputed facts / arguments presently listed by the software.

:Jason: I predict that there will be a good deal of discussion of what Daniel calls the "user-friendliness" aspect of these tools - and I hope there is, because it's critical. Specifically, what is the necessary ratio between DisputeFinder or Herdict "passive users" and "active reporters" to make a project successful? I say this because both Herdict and DisputeFinder look somewhat sparsely-populated for them to be maximally-useful right now. For example, Herdict is [http://www.herdict.org/web/explore/country/CN;jsessionid=4A2D95D3EB7A8F96B073DE77D3654D53 reporting] that 2 Chinese users have reported YouTube as inaccessible. How do I interpret that? What percent of people who might know about and like Herdict in China are reporting back to Herdict? We know that Wikipedia is successful in spite of the fact that only a very small portion of readers become really regular editors - but Wikipedia is also one of the most visited sites in the world. I hope we discuss what strategies these organizations are employing to build participation for these more niche offerings. [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

:Reuben: When Daniel talks about the challenges of web-based cooperative tools, my first thought is about the challenge of a achieving a critical mass. I poked around with Dispute Finder for just over an hour this morning and during the entirety of my browsing the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, and Slate I only came across one disputed claim. No offense to America's news media, but my guess is that what I read is more disputed than that, but that there just aren't enough people trolling the news sites and adding claims to the dispute finder database for the service to actually be that helpful yet. Jason's point about passive users versus active reporters is important. I too would like to hear about how to reach a critical mass and how many active users are needed in order to have a useful service. I'd also like to hear about the potential for users to participate in a more passive manner - notwithstanding the privacy issues, if Herdict could just monitor my browsing and automatically send a report whenever I come across an inaccessible website, something akin to a Last.fm for my click stream, the data would seem to be much more complete than simply recording whatever I choose to report. Never underestimate the laziness of the average person. My prediction is that our guests acknowledge the shortcomings in their current offerings while remaining optimistic about the possibilities of community based technology. [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

:Amanda:Totally agree with Jason and Reuben here on hoping to hear Daniel's definition of what it means to have "critical mass." This is a huge challenge in much of the UGC world - how many people you need to really establish credibility, and at what point you start to become relevant. Attracting users is probably the largest hurdle I can think of for any site that relies on user content - so how they do it and what strategies have worked would be very helpful.

::Ramesh: I agree with Reuben on the usefulness of Dispute Finder and Herdict. While Wikipedia (and Yelp, and a few other sites) show that sometimes, you can get useful content for free, that's not always the case. DisputeFinder didn't find many disputes when I did my regular scan of news websites, even when reading articles on topics like medical marijuana and same-sex marriage. It seems like applications like DisputeFinder and Herdict would be better if they were more automated -- if DisputeFinder automatically attached itself to controversial terms, and especially, as Reuben suggested, if Herdict was not based on self-reporting.

:: Franny: I agree that a threshold level of dedicated trusted users (see Vicki's comments below) resolves many problems. I hope our guests will discuss the strategies used by DisputeFinder, or any other website initiatives dependent on a large and broad variety of user input: (1) to attract that user base; and (2) to cope during the interim period while they continue to try to attract that user base. For example, I wonder to what extent DisputeFinder has considered building in redundancy as a means of increasing the accuracy of its results (to borrow a strategy from CrowdFlower), or perhaps some combination of automation and redundancy.

::Andrew: I hope the discussion of how to achieve critical mass focuses as much on instilling/spreading an ethos as it does on ways to automate the DF system. Tools don't work without the accompanying human motivation: the wiki architecture is awesome, but (see our Predictions pages) they don't necessitate anything about a page's structure, and that's where the Wikipedian ethos steps in. No matter how passive DF/Herdict eventually allow their users to be, those users will (probably) still have to take the first step of registering, installing the plug-in etc. To do that, they have to be persuaded of the importance of the problem the tools are meant to address. Until the supposed echo chamber, "daily me" effect of Internet discourse becomes a mainstream concern, DF will not be a mainstream tool.

::Sheel: I agree that critical mass is a huge issue, but I think validity is more of an issue; Reuben's description of his searches on the NY Times infer that many statements that most of us would claim to be disputed are simply not being caught by the program. I think DisputeFinder, while trying to make its technology stronger, should focus on instituting some sort of citations for all the information it crawls. In other words, whether the statement is 'disputed' or not, the plugin should (perhaps in the form of clickable footnotes), find citations for them; these can be links to 'valid' websites, scientific papers, press releases, etc. I'd be interested in asking whether DisputeFinder thinks it could move into the citation space and expand its scope. [[User:Style|Style]] 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:Tyler: I completely agree with above thoughts about Herdict and DisputeFinder needing to collect a critical mass of users before becoming useful. This seems to echo the idea that wikipedia was not useful for its first several years because it did not possess a critical mass of articles. However, I think there are some differences because individual pieces of wikipedia could become useful before wikipedia as a whole in that individual articles could become independantly useful before wikipedia became as comprehensive as it is today. I don't see that Herdict or DisputeFinder have the same capability to be useful while scaling because they require users to explicitly decide to install plugins and begin using their services before any benefit can be gained by that user. Wikipedia was able to gradually grow in prominence as users occasionally found information on wikipedia that they wanted through web searches. I am wondering if Herdict or DisputeFinder can take advantage of automated solutions to increase their seemingly as-yet sparsely populated databases? For example, could web crawling robots be used to identify at least some inaccesible sites with the expectation that this list could then be pruned by users rather than expecting it to materialize entirely by user submissions? Could DisputeFinder use a web crawling robot, in conjunction with sophisticated text parsers to begin identifying at least some topics that clearly involve dispute? I expect and hope that the guests will discuss some strategies for increasing the datasets of their projects to the point that they can obtain their critical mass of users and data more quickly. [[User:TylerLacey|TylerLacey]] 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

::Michael: In terms of achieving critical mass for utility, herdict seems to have an additional challenge to wikipedia and DisputeFinder. When users make contributions to wikipedia or DisputeFinder, the information they provide remains useful indefinitely (for the most part). Herdict, on the other hand requires constant updating. This is entirely possible (as twitter and facebook demonstrate), but it reflects an additional challenge. I would be curious to hear if there is any data to determine what the different requirements of such different sites would be. [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
:: I'm also wandering whether DisputeFinder might face the same problem as Wikipedia as the the composition of the DisputeFinder community (if there is one?). Do the guests have only clue on who the people are that are flagging certain statements? Do these people reflect the different composition of society?

:: Daniel: Tyler has a great point here, so maybe we should ask if the Dispute Finder team has thought of an interesting dispute to explore well enough in terms of paraphrases / arguments, so that users could experience the full potential of the software and then be lured into becoming frequent contributors. [[User:Darbix|darbix]] 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

: Yosuke:One of the biggest problems in the internet is the trustworthiness of the articles. DisputeFinder is attacking this problem directly, so I'm very excited to hear what is going on there. As you pointed out here, there are few users and it is hard to say it's really useful right now, but I guess the critical mass is coming around the corner. For example, social bookmark webservice users (like diggers) could begin using DisputeFinder, because they like to comment on the issue in the meta-pages. Personally, when Japanese version of the DisupteFinder has launched, I'd love to install it. [[User:Yosuke|Yosuke]] 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Emily:
Dispute Finder bears an inherent flaw: individuals, not algorithms, decide whom and what to trust for information. Consider the watch on your wrist. If your watch starts to get the time wrong, you might try to fix the watch. You hope and pray your watch starts giving you accurate, dependable information because you like your watch. You might even love your watch. But, if it continues to betray your trust, and the people in your trusted circle insist your watch is wrong, you give up. You decide to trust a new watch, but your new watch will probably be reminiscent of your old watch with respect to personal taste, experience, and preferences. Most people are intuitive enough (though they donât necessarily convert insights into complex conclusions about source x versus source y) to know that 120 seconds of live, relatively unedited sound on Fox News Live or MSNBC Dayside is less likely to contain factually accurate information â even if relatively unimportant, like the location of a fire, or the total number of casualties in a mass shootingâ than a compulsively edited, fact-checked tome in the Sunday NY Times magazine, the Economist, or the New Yorker.

Article 3.5 of the Dispute Finder document, âDetermining Trustworthy Sources,â seems a bit absurd. It actually acknowledges the marketability challenges of its own software: âUnfortunatelyâ¦the sites people actually trust are often those that share the personâs own point of view.â So, again, what is this software and what, really, is the point? Segway into âCross-cutting themes.â Save the world. How? Is Dispute Finder intended to help people sue other people for libel? Richard Jewel (now deceased) had a reasonably compelling case. Thatâs probably why he successfully sued (for libel) every organization, from CNN, to NBC, to the NY Post. All settled. He collected from each of them. But Richard Jewel didnât need help from Dispute Finder. Richard Jewel had a case.

Cross-cutting themes: âChange the technology, save the world.â Okay, why not? Isnât there something else smart people at Intel and UC Berkeley could be doing to make the world better? Last November, the New York Times produced an alarming story [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html] about the food stamp program in America(ânow expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.â) Also no shortage of children in custody. Last December, the New York Times obtained â and reported on [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=new%20york%20family%20court%20juvenile%20department%20of%20justice%20youth&st=cse]â a âconfidential draft reportâ prepared by a task force appointed by NY gov David Paterson: âNew York Stateâs current approach fails the young people who are drawn into the system, the public whose safety it is intended to protect, and the principles of good governance that demand effective use of scarce state resources.â Story also says the situation was so bad that the DOJ, at one point, was threatening to âtake over.â

So, if Intel is interested in contributing, how about addressing real problemsâhelping real peopleâ that could affect real, collective societal change and improvement? Children and education seem like obvious places to start. Basics like hardware and mentors could go a long way. Children in poverty struggle with range of issues, including asthma, low self-esteem, obesity, and depression. Consider children in places like the South Bronx (Jonathan Kozolâs children [http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-Children-Conscience-Nation/dp/0060976977]): allocation of resources in places like this (and/or lower-middle class communities), especially from companies like Intel, could change lives; give voices to people from whom we do not often hear.

Interested to hear thoughts on Internet privacy, though I'm not sure adults have an expectation of privacy anywhere [http://gawker.com/5444885/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-on-your-erased-privacy-these-are-the-social-norms-now] on the Internet. If you want privacy, don't put yourself on the Internet. Finally, on the subject of online harassment, if we accept that the Internet is a public place, to what extent is it acceptable to regulate online communication, including but not limited to comments deemed 'offensive' on blogs?

: Lien: Although this is not the subject of today, I do believe we can still exceptations about privacy on the net. It is not because this is a difficult issue and the level of privacy goes down as more and more people also post personal information about others on the net, that we cannot have expectations anymore. The same is true for the regulation of online communication, it is not because the Internet is a public space, that even public speech cannot be regulated in one way or another.

Predictions. Guests will be nice. Class will be nice. Hope to hear more about Dispute Finder's business model.

Tyler: I would like an explanation for why the contributor of a disputed claim on DisputeFinder needs to provide a link to an article that illustrates the opposing point of view. If there are no article, isn't it still valuable to identify a claim as disputed, especially since this could break DisputeFinder's dataset building-process into two parts? I could enter a disputed claim without a link to another source and then another user, once alerted to the potential dispute could track down and enter the article. I see the argument that an issue is not actually in dispute if there is no contradictory reports of it, but I wonder if an entry into DisputeFinder should be enough to create a "dispute", rather than requiring a link. I agree that even a blog post outlining the opposing point of view would be more helpful than a "dispute" without any link, but I'm not sure that it should be a requirement. Today I entered a disputed claim as "Works prepared by amazon mechanical turkers are considered works for hire under the United States Copyright Act" to see if DisputeFinder would highlight portions of our wiki (which does not currently have any disputed claims, according to DisputeFinder) but I was stalled when it asked for a link to a web location outlining this dispute. Should I have entered the page on this wiki where we discuss the issue? I hope that the guests discuss this aspect of the DisputeFinder process. [[Special:Contributions/68.65.169.179|68.65.169.179]] 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

:Tyler: Another question that came up during my lunchtime discussion of DisputeFinder with some of our classmates: is there a practical way that DisputeFinder could leverage the existing collection of topics that wikipedia has flagged as a "point of view" or "non-neutral" to boost DisputeFinder's database of disputes?

: Elisabeth: Actually, I tend to think the need to cite an article is a useful safeguard. It mirrors Wikipedia's rule that contributors can't do original research, and I think it exists for the same reason: to keep spammer-activists from simply flinging their views into these trusted systems. It's just to easy to go around labeling hundreds of things as disputed. Now, you could just go write a wiki on Amazon Mechanical Turk and then cite to it on dispute finder, much as anyone can publish an article on SSRN and then write a Wikipedia page, but it does provide some measure of protection (it stopped Tyler). One alternative solution is for DisputeFinder to flag in a lighter color, or a different color, claims that are marked disputed but have no article support.

Victoria: I completely agree with the former point that DisputeFinder's success is dependent on gaining a critical mass of end users. In addition to the need for more users, I think the platform is very trusting of the end users themselves. DisputeFinder allows for a lot of users to subjectively claim anything is disputed even when it begins to reach the absurd. One EscapistMagazine.com posted in June ," "" and "." Although theoretically the idea of a marketplace of ideas works - without the appropriate robust marketplace DisputeFinder becomes a caricature of the truth-seeking function of free speech.

:Michael: I am interested to hear the speakers from DisputeFinder describe why they believe the simple knowledge of a dispute is socially valuable. The extent to which a statement is disputed seems like it would be more valuable. I'd be interested to hear if our speakers expect to include a scale of dispute to their software, such as that used in Herdict (the different colored sheep).
:I predict that DisputeFinder will view one of its most difficult challenges to be determining the trustworthiness of sources. Unlike CrowdFlower, DisputeFinder may not be able to simply use agreement as an accurate rubric for which user-supplied links are trustworthy and which are spam. Since the nature of the site is to highlight disagreement, it doesn't seem possible to use user agreement as the benchmark of useful data for their service. I would be interested to hear what DisputeFinder uses as its criteria for determining which data is reliable (meaning non-spam). [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
:: Elisabeth: I'm not sure why a crowd-voting system isn't appropriate--after all, people on both sides of a given debate can vote up sources they consider most trustworthy--but I'd be interested to hear how our speakers think it has worked.

Juan: I'm interested in hearing their thoughts on the collection of disputed claims. As the material mentioned, most people who were interviewed are interested in applying Dispute Finder to particular areas that affect them. Thus, how will they collect data for areas not that popular or useful to most people, especially there are no other incentives to encourage claim creation. I guess building up community as wikipedia or herdict did might be one solution. The question is how this community can be built up. Also, I kind of feel Dispute Finder overlaps with the search services provided by Google and other search engines. If people are interested in one topic, they can always use Google or other search services to find the corroborations or objections on it. By determining trustworthy resources, can I say Dispute Finder sort of limited the available resources to people? To me, "trustworthy resources" is more like a subjective concept, everyone can has his/her own trustworthy resources. Is there a need to have a website telling us which resource is trustworthy, especially the site itself said it is a difficult tradeoff to determine the trustworthy resources.

Sharona: I totally agree with everyone's comments about the lack of a critical mass, and I would be curious to hear how they think they could theoretically gain one. Would people actually be drawn to this the way they are to edit wikipedia pages? Is it simply a matter of a marketing strategy? Another question I had while reading the website and the other document was regarding the phrase "trusted source." Who defines that? The users? What if people start claiming that what DisputeFinder may deem "unreliable" is a trusted source in their view? Who will stop them, and will that be antithetical to DisputeFinder's ethos?

Emily: Sharona, not sure anyone needs to "stop them." Even a cursory search for articles on the Internet citing "Dispute Finder" suggests this thing hasn't picked up much steam: 0 results in google news; 1 at NYT.com (but the story was produced out of the recently launched Bay Area blog!). Curious to hear if others, including guests, have responses to your "marketing strategy" question.

Elisabeth: looking at all of our readings together--on Dispute Finder, new.net, and Herdict--makes me think about how we're creating an increasingly atomized web, where users have remarkably different experiences in the Internet space. It's not just that people are accessing different content. Some people are passively consuming stories from CNN, others are carefully sculpting an information diet from RSS feeders and DisputeFinder trusted sources, and still others are contributing to all different kinds of tasks, from tracking filtering around the world to working on SETI. Even "contribution" work can be active or passively happening in the background (Wikipedia is active; SETI is background, and DisputeFinder and Herdict are active now but could be passive if some of the tech suggestions above are implemented). Extensions like Readability and the popularity of mobile phone browsers make the web look totally different for different users, and if new.net takes off, it won't even be interoperable between ISPs! The question of "how we interact with the internet" thus will become even more complex as the user experience splinters even further. And so (dragging this mediation back to class), I would like to hear how Herdict and DisputeFinder see their audiences. Is the vision global acceptance? Or is it a critical mass large enough to get the job done--to identify most blocked sites and most disputes claims--and specialized use only by those who are particularly interested in the topic?

: Elisabeth: and one theme that connects all of these services is the need for active users. How do we foster a culture in which people think they have a responsibility to contribute to the web (beyond even contributing pure content), instead of just using it?

Lien: Although there aren't any guests of HerdictWeb, I think it would be interested to see on the website as to why a certain site is blocked. Sometimes, there might be legitimate reasons of a government to blog a certain site. In Belgium, e.g., a site that indicated what the exact address is of people convicted for paedophilia, was blocked by the government for privacy reasons.

: Bruno: actually there is [http://www.herdict.org/web/about someone from Herdict], although he is not exactly a guest ;)

Bruno: Achieving a critical mass of users is really essential for such kind of projects. In order to scale up participation a project manager should be concerned about what are the motivations for users to participate and focus the initial marketing strategies on certain groups to which the project can be more appealing. Just like the experience of our wiki has shown, as well as Wikipedia's experience also seems to corroborate, initial participation tends to become an example for future participation. In this sense, I would be curious to learn whether the analysis of users participation to this moment would reveal the existence of an identifiable group(s) to which outreach efforts should be focused and whether there has been an activity directed at community building.

Day 5 Predictions

2010-01-08T23:24:36Z

Yosuke:

Victoria: My prediction is that the speakers are going to be extolling the virtues of Wikipedia and explaining that although the site has gone under some transformations it is still a vibrant force. I would concede that I think it is. Most people I know still immediately turn to Wikipedia for a quick run down of a topic or an answer to a quick question. However, as time moves on the site is becoming less innovative and more standard. I would like to ask them about their understanding and personal experiences in trying to keep Wikipedia young. Moreover, having read that 85% of the contributors to Wikipedia are male I'd specifically love to ask Phoebe whether she feels that the articles are written from the male gaze and lack the other gender's perspective.

:: Sharona: Like Vickie, I was also struck by the statistics on the demographic breakdown, and I would love to hear their thoughts on whether they feel wikipedia really does represent a wide range of views, or more specifically (especially in the US) that of a white male. Another thing I think they will likely discuss - and probably not have a good answer for - is the question of privacy and defamation on wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. Can, or should, the website and/or its users or editors be held accountable if allegedly defamatory posts are not removed? Who makes that call? And what standards are used? It seems to me that there's no easy answer to this: while they may not run into strictly legal issues, it could definitely affect reader's trust in the information or fear that they too are vulnerable.

::: Ramesh: I was struck by the Economist's comparison of the number of articles about Pokemon and the Solidarity movement on English Wikipedia. I expect the Wikipedians will admit that they are disproportionately white, young, male, more interested in science fiction than what others might consider more interesting forms of culture, etc, and that's a problem, but that there's really no better solution. They may be right; is there a better internet resource in English on Solidarity than Wikipedia? Maybe when Google Books is fully up and running, it would be a better resource (or just co-opted and summarized by Wikipedia).

Bruno: I expect our guests to focus their comments on the strategies Wikipedia is adopting to address two of what seems to be the main problems of the project: (i) quality/accuracy of its articles, and (ii) issues concerning vandalism. After reading the materials, I was struck by the fact that Wikipedia doesn't seem to be worried about increasing its user base. The increasing amount of rules, the hostility of veteran users to newbies and the efforts to attract more scientists to participate in the project suggest that in fact they would be interested in less, but more qualified participation. Just like the attitude of our guest from CrowdFlower, perhaps a sort of procrastination to address a problem that is not yet so concrete might be operating here: with over 40 thousand contributors it's not clear when more means actually less.

:: Sheel: I'd be interested in hearing Wikimedia's reaction to this: what if people started using CrowdFlower or MechanicalTurk, if they don't already, to pay people 10 cents or so to go edit Wikipedia pages? I know they weren't okay with MyWikiBiz, but this is much more under the radar. Finally, I'd like to hear where the debate is on inclusionists v. exclusionists (meaning those who want to produce the 'integrity' of the encyclopedia and shy away from what may be deemed as frivolous by some portion of editors). My guess is that there is still no concrete answer---if enough editors are passionate about editing/creating a new page, then it'll stay.

::: Andrew: I also hope to hear some discussion about the intersection between Wikipedia and paid crowdsourcing. The possibilities here aren't all nefarious (what about an mturk task to fix Wikitypos?)

:::: I also would like to hear whether wikipedia would think of reconsidering their (business) model and e.g. use paid crowdsourcing or let people pay a small subscribtion fee to consult Wikipedia.

Daniel: In addition to the topics above, I expect a discussion about the possible increase in vulnerability Wikipedia faces at the content layer, on par with a less dynamic environment. Since most pages are already done, at least in the English version, editors may feel less motivated to monitor existing, but seldom edited pages which are not on the "watch list". As a consequence, they can be more easily twisted by outsiders. In connection with that issue, I guess that our guests will raise the question "how does it feel to be a Wikipedian?" - and try to describe the community feeling from the perspective of insiders, and the challenges to bring more people in.

Franny: Main problems within the wikipedia bubble are summarized well above - I think that we also need to examine the problem of how to improve/encourage the transfer of wikipedia's benefits (e.g. generativity and sense of community) outside of the wikipedia microcosm. To that end, I hope that our guests will discuss their experiences with similar applications and initiatives (e.g. citizendium, etc.), and provide their views of the successes or weaknesses.

:Jason: Great point by Franny; I too hope they address how Wikipedia's success can to other initiatives. After all, I've been struck by just how ''sui generis'' Wikipedia seems to be, and now that we are in 2010, I think we need to start asking whether Wikipedia is an outlier or whether its principles of both creation and governance can really generalize to other projects. Of course, as I write that, I find myself wondering whether free and open source software is another example of the Wikipedia model. Further, I wonder what they think of as other really good candidates for adopting Wikipedia's new form of participatory self-government. For instance, some of us have been laughing about Stanford's new, fairly permissive policies when it comes to handing in papers at the end of the semester (you can still pass the . Could these new policies have been created by the Stanford community via wiki? What would the outcome have been?

Juan: I would like to hear their opinions on
1. How to deal with vandalism and spams while keeping the generativity of Wikipedia as much as possible. Now they've created several restrictions to lower of the possibility of attacks by vandals and spams, such as blocking IP addresses of repeat offenders, using full protection and semi-protection functions to restrict editing of certain pages. However, these restrictions limits free editability and thus seems jeopardize its generativity.
2. The prospect of wikipedia in China. How will it compete with its local counterpart Hudong. Unlike wikipedia, Hudong rewards top contributors with gifts ranging from post cards to MP3 players, and offers some features that complies with Chinese users' habits. Recently, it even launched it partnership with some popular overseas Chinese website, making its first steps to expand into overseas Chinese market. What is wikipedia's strategy facing this situation? Is there any possibility to establish some cooperation or strategic partnership between these two on-line encyclopedias?
3. Sustainable problem. Dedicated editor may leave because of life cycle change, motivation by other UGC websites, tire of anti-threat work, and etc. How will wikipedia attract new editors and keep them?

Ethan: In addition to all the issues mentioned above, I'd like to know how Wikipedia addresses censorship efforts from various governments. We talked about how the Chinese government forced Google to remove certain search results (e.g. falun gong) and I'm wondering if Wikipedia receives such requests. Censorship doesn't necessarily have to be so nefarious-- it's illegal to deny holocaust in 13 countries according to Wikipedia, truth is not an absolute defense to defamation in Korea, etc. How will Wikipedia abide by local laws when pressed?

:Tyler: Check out this story for an actual example of this happening: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/wikipedia_murder/

Elisabeth: I predict we'll hear that Wikipedia's editor corp is either growing or sufficiently large already. But I'd like to solicit some ideas on how active editors' time could be better leveraged if numbers do start dropping. Some of the articles we read suggested that editors spent a lot of time bickering over minor points--perfecting one page while ignoring a slew of others. Are there ways to eliminate the bureaucracy and consciously turn to a state that maximizes pages edited at least once vs. pages edited by 100 people? On the subject of growing pains more generally, can they point to examples of online communities that have overcome the problem they're having -- an influx of newcomers -- that inspire them?
I'd also like to hear whether the donation strategy is feasible for funding Wikipedia long-term, or if they're planning on using other Wikimedia projects to fund some of it, or if there's some other theory.

Michael: I predict that (once we get past extolling the virtues of Wikipedia) one of the major problems Wikimedia will see in itself is a problem of Public Relations. While some [http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html studies] have shown that Wikipedia is consistently as or more accurate than standard encyclopedias, the public perception of Wikipedia is as inaccurate and unreliable. Also, since Wikipedia's business model depends on the incentives for keeping Wikipedia clean outweighing the incentives for vandalizing it, I think Wikipedia may be worried that the incentives may change as the cost of vandalizing goes down with tools like Mechanical turk.

Hector: I strongly hope to hear some clarification between the goals of the project as the sum of all human knowledge or as an online encyclopedia/reference bookshelf. The differences between these two stated outcomes color how the content and editorial problems--and indeed whether some of the media's concerns are actually problems at all, in the view of Wikipedians. In several articles, Wikipedians will rebut complaints by saying something along the lines of "Wikipedia isn't about that in the first place!" I personally would agree but this approach can completely go against the portrait that Jimbo presents of the project at times.

Reuben: The battle for Wikipedia's soul is between the inclusionists and the deletionists. I'm interested to see how the people who run Wikipedia see its future.

Yosuke: I'm also interested in how to deal with vandalism and spams while keeping the generativity of Wikipedia as much as possible, as Juan stated.

Day 3 Predictions

2010-01-06T20:50:24Z

Yosuke:

Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:

1- ''labor rights'' â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].

2- workersâ new ''expectation of complete anonymity'', that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones). Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked.

3- the ''use of UHC for complex, creative tasks'', analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the tasks].
: Andrew: Since at least some of our guests tonight are "creatives", I hope to hear some discussion about the relationship between full-time freelancers and websites that crowdsource complex, creative tasks (e.g. Worth1000, [http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php iStockPhoto]). At a Berkman lunch last spring, [http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/ Jeff Howe] cited a [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1122462 study] that showed only 4% of iStockPhoto sellers derived their primary income from the site. As the site and its peers begin to dominate the market for stock photography, what happens to the livelihoods of those who depended on stock photography for a living? Protectionist worries like this parallel those about outsourcing more generally and are vulnerable to the same counters about progress and efficient markets; I hope some of those arguments play out tonight.

My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.

Ramesh: I predict that the founders of human computing websites will be more focused on the technology and potential of the websites and may have a blind spot for the legal issues that may be raised by UHC (applicability of minimum wage and other laws) while as law students, we may naturally focus on the legal issues implicated.

Alternatively, perhaps the founders of UHC websites will see them simply as a continuation of current trends, especially the increasing numbers of contractors in the labor force of large companies and governments and the outsourcing of call-center (and increasingly higher-skilled) jobs overseas. Does UHC present any problems that are different from the current trends? What role can employment and labor law play in a world where increasing numbers of workers are "independent contractors" or even Mechanical Turks? Will technology re-enact Lochner?

Franny:

Given the guest list, I diplomatically disagree with Daniel (and agree with Ramesh) and would expect these guests to address the positive potential and advantages of human computing applications into business, arts and culture, as well as the benefits available through this new type of labour force with built-in autonomy. As libertarian as I may be in my views, I agree with Daniel that there is a real possibility that UHC can develop into a last resort for unskilled workers to earn income in order to survive. I just don't think that the negative aspects will be the focus of today's session.

I would also be interested to hear our guests' thoughts on whether UHC can be applied to tasks in which sensitive information is involved, and if so, how could private content be protected?

:Jason: Totally agree with Franny here. I was at first somewhat surprised that in the talk that Lukas gave at TechCruch 50 there was zero discussion of any of the legal aspects of this (no one asked, "Um, do you have to withhold taxes from the workers?" or "What if it turned out that someone was a child?" or "Won't your business model be ruined if it turns out you have to pay taxes for not providing health insurance to these people?" or anything along those lines) - but, of course, I forgot that I'm a law student and that's not the lens through which they are viewing this technology. Faced with a room of (mostly) lawyers, these questions will obviously come more the fore than they were there, but I suspect that the considerable advantages and potential of this type of work will dominate the discussion.

Juan:

By doing quality control and tracking the quality history of workers, Crowdflower moves one step closer to a real employer. How will it and other human computing websites deal with labor law issues, such as employment relationship, jurisdiction conflict, non-compete agreement, anti-discrimination, disability, leave time, wage and hour requirements, and etc. Also, building up workers' career path, balancing between monitoring and privacy intrusion, disclosing information for workers to evaluate the moral value and giving them the opportunity to opt out, shall be new problems in the cyberspace. Besides, this paid work on-line may have an impact on those contributions without payments. How will we address this issue to make sure people will have incentives to embark on free works.

Another thing I want to hear is whether UHC will develop verticals like the traditional industries. How will it develop those verticals not suitable for on-line outsourcing per its nature?

Sharona: I agree with Franny and Ramesh - I think the speakers will generally focus more on the positive contributions these types of sites can offer - the innovation from crowd sourcing, the efficiency, the specialization - and less concern over the legal issues. One thing I would like to hear is whether they think these tasks will continue to be performed by US residents, or how quickly they will also be outsourced to English speaking (or non-English speaking) people across the world looking for menial labor especially. Another thing to consider is how or if people could actually make a career out of doing tasks online, or whether it is just something to supplement another job. How will things like health benefits or insurance policies come into play for these kinds of workers?

Yosuke:
I agree with the majority opinion, I think guests will not really focus on negative aspects of ubiquitous human computing, such as potential problems of child labors in developing countries, as JZ stated in [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/21#41 this paragraph in his book]. While I guess they will address some amazingly positive aspects of UHC.