Journalists are among the most enthusiastic users of the user-created encyclopedia Wikipedia. At the same time the press is often little nuances in his criticism of the service. It says Jimmy Wales, the man who in 2001 started it all.
- Some reference is unfair, for example, a part that deal with vandalism that sometimes happens. One of the most talked about cases occurred in connection with Anna Nicole Smith's death, even if it only lasted a few minutes, "said Wales.
- Some cases are still harder than others. Especially those who have a real agenda behind the vandalism.
While spam is considered to be a problem as it currently exists good tools to prevent, Wales admits that downright sabotage still can be a challenge.
- We look at how to provide better tools to stop this. The solution is not necessarily to make the service more closed.
There are also cases where the disagreement between the article authors can lead to very varied content.
- It is desirable that the version of an article the majority are, to be good, regardless of dispute, "said Wales, who believes that better training of the article author will be able to contribute to mitigating conflicts.
Wales says Wikipedia, which is now the world's fifth most visited website, has a great responsibility, now that everyone, including journalists, constantly refers to it.
- The challenge for journalists is that they must appear as experts on what it had to be. The important thing for journalists to be asking the right questions. They must not begin by making cases based solely on Wikipedia, Wales said.
Recently some researchers reported that they fear a weaker recruitment to Wikipedia because many recent authors find these changes and other contributions as they come with, very often deleted by the administrator corps. Scientists are afraid that it ends up that there is an elite who edit Wikipedia.
- I have seen cases of this, but not so much, "said Wales.
- We need to look systematically in the case of the problem. It may be interesting to look at history, what has happened over the last 100 changes to an article.
Wales says that the reset rate is higher than before, but do not necessarily mean that it is because the community has become more unfriendly, but rather because many more than previously are newcomers.
- Previously, it was mostly "nerds" who contributed in their areas. Now, there are also many others who contribute.
Wales is using nowadays much of their time to tell about the history of Wikipedia, to talk about free content and to guide the editor in this process lexicon. He says that he also is very active in the community and constantly respond to inquiries from other participants. He also runs the company Wikia, which offers free, commercial wiki services. The company has now begun to make a profit.
- There is no money in Google's size, but the enough to go around.
Wales is also helping to obtain Wikimedia, the foundation that hosts including Wikipedia, funds to keep services running.
- Most of the money comes from small donors. The average amounts is about $ 30. Some money for special projects, such as to improve the usability of Wikipedia comes from the fund. Moreover, there are some major donors, typically people in Silicon Valley with a lot of money and philanthropic interests.
But Wales said the foundation prefers to be supported by the public, not to be dependent on large contributors.
During the panel discussion yesterday Wales spoke about the opportunities to monetize free content.
- You can see the world for free software. There are many business models where that involves giving away the software and makes money on support contracts. I do not think that all types of content can be free. For example, I have little faith that you can finance a major Hollywood movie without taking ticket money. It would be bad if the product placements in the movie to finance it all, says Wales.
Asking if he has compassion toward the old giants, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wales said that he likes the quality of the famous encyclopedia, but that it is not Wikipedia alone has led to the problems that initially paper-based lexicon has long experienced.
- Britannica had problems already when Microsoft Encarta came on the scene. Time has moved on. I think its nice dinner over candlelight, but prefer electric light to normal.
