Just five years ago, when Jimbo Wales founded Wikipedia, the project's goal of 100,000 articles [1] seemed ambitious. Yet today, the project, now one of the top 25 websites in the world according to Alexa, is nearing closer to 1,000,000 articles in English, and 3.5 million articles across all languages. This week, the Signpost interviewed Jimbo Wales, asking him questions that our readers have submitted.
Color-free version
Wikipedia Signpost: Raul654 asks: "Recently, there were revelations about organized attempts by US Congressmen to whitewash their articles. What is your take on this, as well as earlier reports of Corporate astroturfing?"
Jimbo Wales: The question is invalid. There were no revelations of organized attempts by US Congressmen to whitewash their articles. Not any evidence of "corporate astroturfing" of which I am aware. There was evidence that some congressional staffers edited Wikipedia in inappropriate ways. But the internal evidence of the type and style of these edits do not suggest "organized attempts".
WS: Nichalp asks: "Budget permitting, are there any plans to increase the number of Wikipedia servers, specifically into the less developed countries?"
JW: We are always buying new servers. There are no specific plans to add servers in less developed countries, but we have looked into it as a possibility. We are particularly interested in doing so if it helps increase access and reduce costs for those users.
WS: An anonymous reader asks: "How much of a role do you feel the Wikipedia community (and the communities of its sister projects) should have in the running of the Wikimedia Foundation? Do you see an increasing separation of the organization from the projects? If so, do you regard that as beneficial or a potential problem?"
JW: The community has always been and will always be absolutely crucial to the running of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are increasing the community input and activity in the foundation through a new series of committees to delegate things to community members which have traditionally been handled by me or the Board. I do not see any increasing separation of the organization from the projects, quite the opposite. I consider the increasing integration of the community and the foundation as overwhelmingly beneficial.
WS: ALoan asks: "English Wikipedia is approaching 1 million articles, but less than 1 in a thousand are Featured articles. The list of featured articles English Wikipedia should have has few featured articles, and recent surveys of articles chosen at random show that many articles are poorly written. How can we get from here to an encyclopedia of well-written articles? Or should we not worry too much about coverage and content?"
JW: We should be tightly focused on the quality of our coverage and content. The goal of Wikipedia is to create and distribute a freely licensed high quality encyclopedia. The path to that goal will require us to be flexible and thoughtful. The first steps will come soon with the article review system, which will initially be used simply to gather data. After we have data, we can begin to work on how we will focus our attention to improve quality.
WS: GeorgeStepanek asks: "You've said that 'Wikimedia's mission is to give the world's knowledge to every single person on the planet in their own language.' But very few of the wikipedias in the languages of third-world countries are seeing as much activity as the first-world language wikipedias. Do you have any ideas on how this could be turned around?"
JW: I am a believer in outreach. I would like for the Foundation to raise money specifically to pay one or more minority language co-ordinators. The goal would be to reach out in a more organized way to professors and graduate students and expat communities who have good Internet access, to seed projects for languages where the majority of speakers have poor internet access.
WS: Jacoplane asks: "How do you feel we will be able to reach Wikipedia 1.0? The tools currently available for vetting our articles are crude at best. The Featured article process seems too slow, and the article validation feature seems to have died a quiet death. Are you planning a big push on this front?"
JW: Isn't that the same question as the quality question? The article validation feature has not died a quiet death at all.
WS: Quadell asks: "Most important decisions on Wikimedia projects are handled with consensus. However, we sometimes have to deal with legal issues, especially related to copyright law. For instance, we as a community may need to decide whether to consider a certain use "fair", or how to deal with conflicting copyright claims. Dealing with this through consensus is problematic, since we can't do something illegal even if there is widespread misguided support for it. In general, how can we as a community deal with these issues?"
JW: I don't think there is any real problem with this. The community is strongly in support of following the law. I don't know of any particular cases of widespread misguided support for something illegal. In particular cases, there can of course be [dis]agreement, but I have never seen anyone in the community argue that we should not listen to the advice of our legal team.
WS: Raul654 asks: "Where do you see Wikipedia in 10 years?"
JW: I don't know. My favorite answer to this is to say, the real question is: where will the world be after 10 more years of Wikipedia. :) Seriously, I think we'll eventually see a tapering off of new article creation in the large language wikipedias as more and more "verifiable" topics are covered. At this point, most changes will be expansions and updates and quality improvements to existing articles. But in 10 years, it seems likely to me that many languages which are now quite small will have very large Wikipedia projects. Our community will continue to become more diverse as more and more people worldwide come online.
WS: Kevin Myers asks: "The values reflected in certain Wikipedia policies (anti-censorship, neutral point-of-view) are problematic in cultures where freedom of expression is limited, as the blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China and arguably the Muhammad cartoons controversy attest. As Wikipedia expands internationally, do you foresee Wikipedia becoming increasingly controversial in countries where "Western values" are seen as a potential threat?"
JW: I don't think that neutrality and objectivity are really controversial among most people of the world. It is true that the leadership in some places does not value these things, and may actually work against these things, but we can not deviate from our goals to accommodate them.
WS: On a similar topic, Vsion asks: "Are there currently any efforts being undertaken by the Foundation to address the People's Republic of China's blocking of Wikipedia or to alleviate its effect?"
JW: Beijing-area Wikipedians are working to have the block lifted. Our position is that the block is in error, even given China's normal policies. Wikipedia is not propaganda, it is basic information. We expect that the block will be lifted.
WS: David.Monniaux asks: "The Foundation receives daily accusations of libel from semi-well-known people who have an entry on Wikipedia or are mentioned in some Wikipedia entry. What do you propose? Would a strict application of the rule of citing controversial claims suffice, in your opinion?"
JW: Yes. I think that our current systems do a good job of addressing these sorts of complaints, although it is very time-consuming for us here in the office. What really works wonders is a very strict application of the rule of citing controversial claims particularly relating to biographies of living persons. The new policy on biographies of living persons is a very strong step in the right direction.
WS: Tony Sidaway asks: "In the past six weeks the number of userboxes on English Wikipedia has risen from 3500 to 6000 and, despite your appeals for restraint, the number pertaining to political beliefs has risen from 45 to 150. Can the problem of unsuitable userboxes still be resolved by debate?"
JW: My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable.
WS: Larsinio asks: "How can Wikipedia effectively explain to the public its open-contribution model without simultaneously worrying the public about inaccurate information?"
JW: I think we do a reasonably good job of that. The best thing is to point to our overall quality while at the same time pointing out that we are currently a work in progress. Over time, this answer will change as we move toward '1.0'. At that time, we can point to '1.0' for those who are made nervous by the live editing.
WS: Rob Church asks: "Do you consider the encyclopedia to be 'finished'? Do you think it ever can be?"
JW: Nothing is ever finished. Human knowledge is always growing.
WS: Raul654 and Pavel Vozenilek both asked, "What kind of cool new features/announcements can we expect to see in the next year or two?"
JW: I think this question is too hard for me to answer. I almost never "announce" anything, and features are developed publicly by the community. I think other people have a better idea than I do what will happen in the next year or two. :) Ask Brion [Vibber].
WS: Celestianpower asks: "If you had not founded Wikipedia, and had just been referred to it by a friend, how active a contributor do you think you would be?"
JW: [I] dream fondly of such a scenario. I might actually get to edit articles then. Instead of spend the morning (this morning) documenting transactions and taking phone calls.
WS: OpenToppedBus asks: "The last fundraising drive was less successful than had been anticipated. Do you see a shortage of money holding back Wikipedia/Wikimedia in the short-to-medium-term, and are there any plans to bring in income from sources other than individual donations?"
JW: The last fundraising drive was more successful than had been anticipated, by a long shot. It was the most successful fund drive in our history. [Regarding a quoted goal of $500,000], Mav wrote something like that somewhere, in a scratchpad kind of way. That number was just a placeholder and had nothing to do with me or the official view of the foundation. He's apologized repeatedly for it.
WS: Thryduulf asks: "What is your single greatest wish for Wikipedia?"
JW: I would have to just point back to our original goal: a freely licensed high quality encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. That's what I remain focused on daily.
|
Channel log from #wikipedia-signpost:
- [10:20:08] * jwales has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:20:16] <jwales> er, hi
- [10:20:20] <jwales> first news: Jimbo can't tell time
- [10:20:32] <rory096> we've noticed ;)
- [10:20:36] <hahnchen> :)
- [10:20:43] <pillipalli> :)
- [10:20:58] <Alphax> jwales in IN
- [10:21:03] <Ral315> Hi, Jimbo.
- [10:21:17] * Ral315 sets mode: +v jwales
- [10:21:20] <Alphax> Greetings our lord and founder
- [10:21:22] * ElliottHird has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:21:24] * AlvaroM has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:21:27] <Alphax> what happend to the ferrari?
- [10:21:47] <rory096> apparently he gave it away
- [10:21:47] * Alphax considers adding that as an interview question
- [10:21:49] <jwales> what is the plan here?
- [10:21:56] * Amgine has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:22:15] <Ral315> jwales: Basically, I'm going to ask you some questions that we've compiled from our readers.
- [10:22:30] * Daniel_Bush has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:22:33] <Ral315> jwales: If there's time at the end, we might open it up for any other questions.
- [10:22:35] * Biekko has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:22:37] * Ral315 sets mode: +m
- [10:23:16] * johnleemk has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:23:45] <Ral315> Ready, Jimbo? :)
- [10:24:15] <jwales> yes
- [10:24:37] <Ral315> Raul654 asks: "Recently, there were revelations about organized attempts by US Congressmen to whitewash their articles. What is your take on this, as well as earlier reports of Corporate astroturphing?"
- [10:24:52] * dungodung has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:24:57] * Submarine has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:25:21] * Commander_Keane has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:25:52] * galwaygirl has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:26:42] * qoreqyas has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:26:57] <jwales> The question is invalid.
- [10:27:26] <jwales> There were no revelations of organized attempts by US Congressmen to whitewash their articles. Not any evidence of "corporate astroturfing" of which I am aware.
- [10:27:50] <jwales> There was evidence that some congressional staffers edited Wikipedia in inappropriate ways.
- [10:28:05] <jwales> But the internal evidence of the type and style of these edits do not suggest "organized attempts".
- [10:28:45] * Tony_Sidaway has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:28:49] <Ral315> Nichalp asks: "Budget permitting, are there any plans to increase the number of Wikipedia servers, specifically into the less developed countries?"A
- [10:28:52] * Ausir has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:28:56] * sanbec has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:29:17] * LordViD has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:29:42] * domas has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:30:45] * ErnestoGraf has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:30:53] * mclane has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:31:05] * Hraban has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:32:02] * LordViD has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:34:09] * fuzheado has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:34:49] * F-AR has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:35:51] <jwales> We are always buying new servers. There are no specific plans to add servers in less developed countries, but we have looked into it as a possibility. We are particularly interested in doing so if it helps increase access and reduce costs for those users.
- [10:36:04] <jwales> (sorry I'm slow, many things going on at the same time here :))
- [10:36:23] <Ral315> jwales: Understandable
- [10:36:47] <Ral315> An anonymous reader asks: "How much of a role do you feel the Wikipedia community (and the communities of its sister projects) should have in the running of the Wikimedia Foundation? Do you see an increasing separation of the organization from the projects? If so, do you regard that as beneficial or a potential problem?"
- [10:38:16] * tsca has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:41:01] * FireFox has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:41:42] <jwales> The community has always been and will always be absolutely crucial to the running of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are increasing the community input and activity in the foundation through a new series of committees to delegate things to community members which have traditionally been handled by me or the Board. I do not see any increasing separation of the organization from the projects, quite the opposite.
- [10:42:28] <jwales> I consider the increasing integration of the community and the foundation as overwhelmingly beneficial.
- [10:43:02] <Ral315> ALoan asks: "English Wikipedia is approaching 1 million articles, but less than 1 in a thousand are Featured articles. The list of featured articles English Wikipedia should have has few featured articles, and recent surveys of articles chosen at random show that many articles are poorly written. How can we get from here to an encyclopedia of well-written articles? Or should we not worry too much about coverage and content?"
- [10:44:20] <jwales> What surveys?
- [10:44:48] <Ral315> jwales: There were links associated with that
- [10:45:07] <Ral315> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100 , for one.
- [10:49:43] <jwales> We should be tightly focussed on the quality of our coverage and content. The goal of Wikipedia is to create and distribute a freely licensed high quality encyclopedia. The path to that goal will
- [10:51:42] <jwales> require us to be flexible and thoughtful. The first steps will come soon with the article review system, which will initially be used simply to gather data. After we have data, we can begin to work on how we will focus our attention to improve quality.
- [10:52:20] * Alfa_Scorpii has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:52:37] <Ral315> GeorgeStepanek asks: "You've said that 'Wikimedia's mission is to give the world's knowledge to every single person on the planet in their own language.' But very few of the wikipedias in the languages of third-world countries are seeing as much activity as the first-world language wikipedias. Do you have any ideas on how this could be turned around?"
- [10:54:44] * Marshau has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:54:54] * Stv has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [10:57:19] * _sj_ has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:00:53] * Dave2 has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:05:49] * pillipalli has quit IRC (Client Quit)
- [11:05:55] * mclane has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:06:14] * jmcclane has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:06:37] <jwales> I am a believer in outreach. I would like for the Foundation to raise money specifically to pay one or more minority language co-ordinators. The goal would be to reach out in a more organized way to professors and graduate students and expat communities who have good Internet access, to seed projects for languages where the majority of speakers have poor internet access.
- [11:07:31] <Ral315> Jacoplane asks: "How do you feel we will be able to reach Wikipedia 1.0? The tools currently available for vetting our articles are crude at best. The Featured article process seems too slow, and the article validation feature seems to have died a quiet death. Are you planning a big push on this front?"
- [11:09:23] * Ausir has quit IRC (Connection timed out)
- [11:09:52] * Alfa_Scorpii has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:12:59] * AlvaroM has quit IRC (Client Quit)
- [11:15:11] <jwales> Isn't that the same question as the quality question?
- [11:15:35] <jwales> the article validation feature has not died a quiet death at all
- [11:16:25] * Hraban has quit IRC (Client Quit)
- [11:16:56] <Ral315> Next question, then.
- [11:16:58] <Ral315> Quadell asks: "Most important decisions on Wikimedia projects are handled with consensus. However, we sometimes have to deal with legal issues, especially related to copyright law. For instance, we as a community may need to decide whether to consider a certain use "fair", or how to deal with conflicting copyright claims. Dealing with this through consensus is problematic, since we can't do something illegal even if there is widespread misguided support for it. In general, how can we as a community deal with these issues?"
- [11:17:40] * RXStrangelove has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:19:35] <jwales> it looks like the end of the question was cut off for me?
- [11:19:43] <jwales> "widespread misq" is the end of what I saw :)
- [11:19:56] <Ral315> widespread misguided support for it. In general, how can we as a community deal with these issues?"
- [11:20:21] <Ral315> (Sorry about that)
- [11:20:21] * Chairboy has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:21:30] <jwales> I don't think there is any real problem with this. The community is strongly in support of following the law. I don't know of any particular cases of widespread misguided support for something illegal. In particular cases, there can of course be agreement, but I have never seen anyone in the community argue that we should not listen to the advice of our legal team.
- [11:21:58] * fuzheado has quit IRC (Client Quit)
- [11:22:24] * Ryan_Delaney has quit IRC (Connection timed out)
- [11:22:49] <Ral315> Raul654 asks: "Where do you see Wikipedia in 10 years?"
- [11:25:14] <jwales> I don't know. My favorite answer to this is to say, the real question is: where will the world be after 10 more years of Wikipedia. :)
- [11:25:58] <jwales> Seriously, I think we'll eventually see a tapering off of new article creation in the large language wikipedias as more and more "verifiable" topics are covered. At this point, most changes will be expansions and updates and quality improvements to existing articles.
- [11:26:29] <jwales> But in 10 years, it seems likely to me that many languages which are now quite small will have very large Wikipedia projects. Our community will continue to become more diverse as more and more people worldwide come online.
- [11:26:41] * dungodung has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:26:44] * dungodung|away has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:27:13] <Ral315> Kevin Myers asks: "The values reflected in certain Wikipedia policies (anti-censorship, neutral point-of-view) are problematic in cultures where freedom of expression is limited, as the blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China and arguably the Muhammad cartoons controversy attest.
- [11:27:15] <Ral315> As Wikipedia expands internationally, do you foresee Wikipedia becoming increasingly controversial in countries where "Western values" are seen as a potential threat?"
- [11:34:34] <jwales> brb
- [11:40:35] * F-AR has quit IRC (Client Quit)
- [11:43:01] <jwales> I don't think that neutrality and objectivity are really controversial among most people of the world. It is true that the leadership in some places does not value these things, and may actually work against these things, but we can not deviate from our goals to accomodate them.
- [11:44:04] <Ral315> On a similar topic, Vsion asks: "Are there currently any efforts being undertaken by the Foundation to address the People's Republic of China's blocking of Wikipedia or to alleviate its effect?"
- [11:48:44] * robchurch has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:48:57] * sanbec has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [11:49:15] <jwales> Beijing-area Wikipedians are working to have the block lifted. Our position is that the block is in error, even given China's normal policies. Wikipedia is not propaganda, it is basic information. We expect that the block will be lifted.
- [11:50:20] <Ral315> Submarine asks: "The Foundation receives daily accusations of libel from semi-well-known people who have an entry on Wikipedia or are mentioned in some Wikipedia entry. What do you propose? Would a strict application of the rule of citing controversial claims suffice, in your opinion?"
- [11:52:09] <jwales> Yes. I think that our current systems do a good job of addressing these sorts of complaints, although it is very time-consuming for us here in the office. What really works wonders is a very strict application of the rule of citing controversial claims particularly relating to biographies of living persons. The new policy on biographies of living persons is a very strong step in the right direction.
- [11:53:21] <Ral315> Tony_Sidaway asks: "In the past six weeks the number of userboxes on English Wikipedia has risen from 3500 to 6000 and, despite your appeals for restraint, the number pertaining to political beliefs has risen from 45 to 150. Can the problem of unsuitable userboxes still be resolved by debate?"
- [11:54:39] * ego has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [12:05:04] * Alphax has quit IRC (Client Quit)
- [12:08:00] * jmcclane has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [12:11:30] <jwales> eh
- [12:11:32] <jwales> userboxes
- [12:11:33] <jwales> eh
- [12:12:13] <jwales> I'm looking at the political beliefs one now.
- [12:13:23] <jwales> My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable.
- [12:13:46] * domas has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [12:14:43] <Ral315> Larsinio asks: "How can Wikipedia effectively explain to the public its open-contribution model without simultaneously worrying the public about inaccurate information?"
- [12:16:07] <jwales> I think we do a reasonably good job of that. The best thing is to point to our overall quality while at the same time pointing out that we are currently a work in progress. Over time, this answer will change as we move toward '1.0'. At that time, we can point to '1.0' for those who are made nervous by the live editing.
- [12:17:09] <Ral315> Rob Church asks: "Do you consider the encyclopedia to be 'finished'? Do you think it ever can be?"
- [12:18:55] <jwales> Nothing is ever finished. Human knowledge is always growing.
- [12:19:53] <Ral315> Raul654 and Pavel Vozenilek both asked, "What kind of cool new features/announcements can we expect to see in the next year or two?"
- [12:24:30] <jwales> I think this question is too hard for me to answer. I almost never "announce" anything, and features are developed publicly by the community. I think other people have a better idea than I do what will happen in the next year or two. :) Ask Brion.
- [12:25:34] <Ral315> Celestianpower asks: "If you had not founded Wikipedia, and had just been referred to it by a friend, how active a contributor do you think you would be?"
- [12:26:23] * jwales dreams fondly of such a scenario.
- [12:27:00] <jwales> I might actually get to edit articles then. Instead of spend the morning (this morning) documenting transactions and taking phone calls.
- [12:31:19] <Ral315> OpenToppedBus asks: "The last fundraising drive was less successful than had been anticipated. Do you see a shortage of money holding back Wikipedia/Wikimedia in the short-to-medium-term, and are there any plans to bring in income from sources other than individual donations?"
- [12:31:29] * Interiot has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [12:32:12] <jwales> The last fundraising drive was more successful than had been anticipated, by a long shot. It was the most successful fund drive in our history.
- [12:32:29] <jwales> Where did that come from?
- [12:33:01] <Ral315> jwales: There was some confusion over a statement that Daniel Mayer made that sounded like the Foundation's goal was $500,000.
- [12:34:02] <jwales> Mav wrote something like that somewhere, in a scratchpad kind of way. That number was just a placeholder and had nothing to do with me or the official view of the foundation.
- [12:34:09] <jwales> He's apologized repeatedly for it.
- [12:34:37] <Ral315> One more question:
- [12:34:40] <jwales> sure
- [12:34:41] <Ral315> Thryduulf asks: "What is your single greatest wish for Wikipedia?"
- [12:36:07] * _sj_ has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [12:36:14] * _sj| has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [12:41:41] * ego has quit IRC (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
- [12:43:47] * ego has joined #wikipedia-signpost
- [12:48:03] * robchurch has quit IRC (Client Quit)
- [12:53:39] <jwales> ok
- [12:53:44] <jwales> sorry, phone call :)
- [12:53:57] <jwales> My single greatest wish for Wikipedia?
- [12:54:20] <jwales> I would have to just point back to our original goal: a freely licensed high quality encyclopedia for every single person on the planet.
- [12:54:34] <jwales> That's what I remain focussed on daily.
- [12:55:09] <Ral315> Jimbo, thanks a lot for your time.
- [13:00:15] * ego has quit IRC (Client Quit)
- [13:00:23] * hahnchen has left #wikipedia-signpost
- [13:01:54] <jwales> and I apologize for this taking so long :)
- [13:01:58] <jwales> it's another insane day
- [13:02:07] <Ral315> jwales: No problem.
- [13:02:16] * Ral315 sets mode: -m
|
Discuss this story
Shouldn't the third sentence of Jimbo Wales' first answer read "Nor any..." rather than "Not any..."? 203.113.193.101 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's "not acceptable" about the userboxes? Curious. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Job
Nice interview. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 04:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
someone left a really nce mesg at wikinews version
Wikinews:Talk:An interview with Jimbo Wales#Encouraging. 199.216.246.56 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [[[user:bawolff]] not signed in][reply]
article review system
Theres a mention of a new article review system. Where is this being discussed? --Salix alba (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The coloring
The blue and red text makes it hard to read. There's a reason all of the other text on Wikipedia is black on a light/white background. Why not just use semicolon and colon formatting to set up the questions and answers? --Cyde Weys 08:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]