About this product: Wikipedia may be the biggest group writing project ever, but the one thing you won't find in the comprehensive online encyclopedia is easy-to-follow guidance on how to contribute. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual helps you avoid beginners' blunders and gets you sounding like a pro from your first edit.
Conversation with John Broughton Author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual
What made you write the book? In November 2006 I started working on an index for editors of Wikipedia – a single page that had links to all relevant policies, guidelines, how-to pages, reference pages, tools, and other things that an editor might conceivably want to read. The more I worked on the index, the more I discovered of the complexity of editing Wikipedia. As the index developed, I realized that I had the basis for the book. I also realized, given how incredibly complex Wikipedia is, why there hadn’t yet been a book about editing Wikipedia. Why is your book especially important now? Wikipedia is immensely popular as a source of information. But it needs many more active editors than it has now, because it is so incomplete. It also needs many more editors who are experts in a particular subject matter. This book helps such potential editors avoid a lot of the mistakes that newcomers make, and shows them how to deal with various situations as they are encountered. What is the single most important thing readers of your book will be able to do after buying your book? Readers will be able to find specific things in Wikipedia that they’re particularly interested in editing, and other editors with the same interests. How important is the subject matter of your book? What do you think is on the horizon for your readers? I think as more and more people grow up computer-immersed, Wikipedia will become even more important, and the idea of editing it will be intimidating to an ever-increasing percentage of people. Someday perhaps chatting about recent Wikipedia editing experiences may be almost as common as talking about the weather or the traffic or sports. In researching the book, did you come across any surprising facts, figures, or statistics that the world might be interested in? Before I did the book, I had no idea that Wikimedia Commons – the central "stock photo" site for all language versions of Wikipedia – had more than 2 million images available for encyclopedia articles. I sometimes find the sheer volume of transactions at Wikipedia to be astonishing. 100 million article views per day. More than a quarter of a million edits per day. Several thousand new articles added every day. More than a thousand articles deleted every day. More than 7,000 new registered user accounts every day. And that’s just for the English language Wikipedia - the other 250+ non-English language versions combined are more than three times the size of the English Wikipedia. Then there’s this odd statistic: The vast majority of the more than 6 million registered user accounts have never actually done an edit. Perhaps that says something about how easy it is to register versus how easy it is to edit? Finally, I still find it astonishing that Wikipedia and the Commons and a bunch of sister projects (Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, and Wikibooks), in all languages across the globe, are all being run by a non-profit foundation that has only a handful of employees and a budget of only a couple of million dollars per year. And that even includes developing and distributing – for free - the wiki software that all these projects run on. It shows what the Internet makes possible, given a good idea, inspired leadership, and the opportunity for everyone to contribute their time and knowledge.
Amazon Exclusive: VIP Tips and Tricks:
1. You can dive right in and start editing without setting up a Wikipedia account (that is, getting a user name). However, there are advantages to having a user name - increased privacy, the ability to create new articles, and a personal user page, to name a few. 2. Sometimes editing an entire article at once is necessary - for example, if you're moving sections around, or moving text from one section to another. But those are usually exceptions; in general, it's better instead of clicking the "edit this page" tab, to click an "edit" link for a section that you want to edit. If you plan to edit two or three sections of an article, you can efficiently do these as separate edits of individual sections. Doing so helps you (previewing your edit is much easier), helps other editors (they can see exactly what sections you edited), and minimizes edit conflicts between you and other editors. 3. If you encounter vandalism and don't know how to do reverts, it's better to leave the vandalism in place and check back in ten minutes or so. (Refresh your browser, to make sure you're seeing the latest version of the page.) If the problematic text is still there, then go ahead and delete it, but make sure that your edit summary mentions something like "removing vandalism." The reason for waiting a bit is to see if another, more experienced editor can reverse the vandalizing edit, putting back into the article any text that was overwritten by the vandalism. 4. If you inadvertently add something to a page that you later decide shouldn't be there - a home address, a complaint about your employer, or other private information - you need to do more than just edit the page again and delete that information. Anyone visiting Wikipedia can still read the previous version of the page, a version where that information still exists, simply by going to the page history and opening that prior version. To make something completely inaccessible to other editors and readers, you have to ask an administrator to help. Type "WP:SELDEL" into the search box on the left for details. Even then, the problematic version of the page is still in the database, but only administrators can read it. 5. It's easy to add some information to a Wikipedia article - but if you want that information to stick around, to be there in a day or a month or year, it's critical that you cite the source of that information. The best way is a footnote; you can find out how to create one by typing "WP:CITE" into the search box on the left of your screen. But if that seems to complicated, then there are two easier options. If it’s from an online source, just add the URL, within squared brackets, at the end of the text you've added to an article, like this: [http://webpageaddress]. If it’s from an offline source like a book, go to the article talk page, start a new section (use the "+" tab), and type in the text plus information about the source (title, author, date of publication, page number, etc.) and add a comment that you'd appreciate another editor adding the information to the article. 6. Besides failing to cite a source, inexperienced editors often make two other big mistakes. One, they cut-and-paste large chunks of text into articles, which is a copyright violation, Two, they use information from what Wikipedia calls a "non-reliable" source: a discussion board, the blog of someone who isn't an acknowledged expert on the topic of the Wikipedia article, or a self-published book. (For more information about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, type "WP:RS" into the search box on the left.) 7. Since January 2008, Wikipedia has had a new resource for intermediate and advanced editors (and yet one more place novice editors can use as a jumping-off place to find information) - the Editor's Index to Wikipedia. You can get to this via the shortcut "WP:EIW" (in the search box to the left, of course). 8. You as a reader may not find answers to some of your questions in Wikipedia articles because they're not really questions for an encyclopedia. For example, "What's a good camera to buy for someone who wants to be a professional photographer?" You can take those questions to the Reference desk (type the shortcut "WP:RD" in the search box on the left). This Wikipedia department is similar to a librarian service. (It's also a place where you can volunteer your question-answering expertise, if you're so inclined). 9. When you type a date, avoid using a format like "05-01-2007." In some countries that date would be May 1, 2007, in others it would be January 5, 2007. Remember that you’re editing the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. When Brits or Aussies or even Canadians write or interpret written information differently than Americans, then you should carefully design the information in an article so that no one -wherever in the world they happen to be from - is confused. 10. The Wikimedia Commons is the "stock photo" site for Wikipedias in all languages; it's where you should upload an image if you have one that you want to add to a Wikipedia article (or think someone else might find useful). But it's also a place where you can find millions of photos and other images, often quite unique and stunning, for your own personal use, at absolutely no cost. All you need to do is follow the licensing terms - for example, attributing a photo to the person who took it, if you share a photo with someone else.
Myxomatosis. The Order of Canada. Noble gas. Catherine de' Medici. The History of Superman? Whether you're doing serious research on the Web or just settling an argument, it's easy to get caught up in Wikipedia's two million articles. And that's not such a bad thing. But how'd all the information get there in the first place? And how can you tell if it's reliable?
Or say you want to become a part of Wikipedia and make your own contributions. Where do you begin?
In How Wikipedia Works, you'll learn the skills required to use and contribute to the world's largest reference work-like what constitutes good writing and research and how to work with images and templates.
With insight, anecdotes, and tips from three Wikipedia veterans, you'll learn how to:
Find information and evaluate the quality and reliability of articles
Contribute to existing articles by copyediting, writing new material, and fact-checking
Add new articles that conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and best practices-so that your hard work won't be deleted
Communicate with other Wikipedians through Talk pages, discussion forums, direct messaging, and more
Understand Wikipedia's policies and procedures and how they're created and enforced
Resolve content disputes and deal with vandals and other malicious editors
Wikipedia is made up of people just like you: students, professors, and everyday experts and fans. With about 10,000 articles added to Wikipedia each week, there are plenty of opportunities to join this global community. How Wikipedia Works explains how you can make the Web's go-to source for information even better. Instead of wondering where to begin, the question will be "How far will you go?"
About this product: We—the users turned creators and distributors of content—are TIME’s Person of theYear 2006, and AdAge’s Advertising Agency of the Year 2007. We form a new Generation C. We have MySpace, YouTube, and OurMedia; we run social software, and drive the development of Web 2.0. But beyond the hype, what’s really going on? In this groundbreaking exploration of our developing participatory online culture, Axel Bruns establishes the core principles which drive the rise of collaborative content creation in environments, from open source through blogs and Wikipedia to Second Life. This book shows that what’s emerging here is no longer just a new form of content production, but a new process for the continuous creation and extension of knowledge and art by collaborative communities: produsage. The implications of the gradual shift from production to produsage are profound, and will affect the very core of our culture, economy, society, and democracy.
Building on an analysis of key sites including Wikipedia, Flickr, YouTube, and Second Life, it explores the intellectual, technological, and social implications of produsage, as well as the legal and economic models employed by produsage projects. In doing so, the book highlights the implications of produsage for our culture, democracy, and society.
About this product: In just the last few years, traditional collaboration—in a meeting room, a conference call, even a convention center—has been superseded by collaborations on an astronomical scale.
Today, encyclopedias, jetliners, operating systems, mutual funds, and many other items are being created by teams numbering in the thousands or even millions. While some leaders fear the heaving growth of these massive online communities, Wikinomics proves this fear is folly. Smart firms can harness collective capability and genius to spur innovation, growth, and success.
A brilliant guide to one of the most profound changes of our time, Wikinomics challenges our most deeply-rooted assumptions about business and will prove indispensable to anyone who wants to understand competitiveness in the twenty-first century.
Based on a $9 million research project led by bestselling author Don Tapscott, Wikinomics shows how masses of people can participate in the economy like never before. They are creating TV news stories, sequencing the human genome, remixing their favorite music, designing software, finding a cure for disease, editing school texts, inventing new cosmetics, or even building motorcycles. You'll read about: • Rob McEwen, the Goldcorp, Inc. CEO who used open source tactics and an online competition to save his company and breathe new life into an old-fashioned industry. • Flickr, Second Life, YouTube, and other thriving online communities that transcend social networking to pioneer a new form of collaborative production. • Mature companies like Procter & Gamble that cultivate nimble, trust-based relationships with external collaborators to form vibrant business ecosystems.
An important look into the future, Wikinomics will be your road map for doing business in the twenty-first century.
About this product: You don't have to understand how to edit Wikipedia in order to find the information you need and join the conversation. This booklet gives you just what you need to know in friendly, concise form so you can research any subject without getting lost in Wikipedia's labyrinth. With it, you'll be able to unlock the mysteries of the many links on every Wikipedia page and the sometimes cryptic buzzwords you see on Talk pages. And, while this booklet focuses on Wikipedia readers, it also includes a tutorial for first-time editors and explains Wikipedia's editing tools. You'll find valuable advice on how to alert editors to flaws in articles and how to contribute to Talk pages without getting caught up in pointless disputes. The author of Wikipedia Reader's Guide: The Missing Manual has edited more than 15,000 Wikipedia articles, and has written a comprehensive index to Wikipedia for editors to use in their daily work. His knowledge of Wikipedia is limitless and his passion is contagious. With this guide, you'll catch on quickly.
About this product: Understanding the amazing force that links some of today’s most successful companies
If you cut off a spider’s leg, it’s crippled; if you cut off its head, it dies. But if you cut off a starfish’s leg it grows a new one, and the old leg can grow into an entirely new starfish.
What’s the hidden power behind the success of Wikipedia, craigslist, and Skype? What do eBay and General Electric have in common with the abolitionist and women’s rights movements? What fundamental choice put General Motors and Toyota on vastly different paths? How could winning a Supreme Court case be the biggest mistake MGM could have made?
After five years of ground-breaking research, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom share some unexpected answers, gripping stories, and a tapestry of unlikely connections. The Starfish and the Spider argues that organizations fall into two categories: traditional “spiders,” which have a rigid hierarchy and top-down leadership, and revolutionary “starfish,” which rely on the power of peer relationships.
The Starfish and the Spider explores what happens when starfish take on spiders (such as the music industry vs. Napster, Kazaa, and the P2P services that followed). It reveals how established companies and institutions, from IBM to Intuit to the US government, are also learning how to incorporate starfish principles to achieve success. The book explores: * How the Apaches fended off the powerful Spanish army for 200 years * The power of a simple circle * The importance of catalysts who have an uncanny ability to bring people together * How the Internet has become a breeding ground for leaderless organizations * How Alcoholics Anonymous has reached untold millions with only a shared ideology and without a leader
The Starfish and the Spider is the rare book that will change how you understand the world around you. BACKCOVER: Advance praise for The Starfish and the Spider “The Starfish and the Spider is a compelling and important book.” —Pierre Omidyar, CEO, Omidyar Network and Founder and Chairman, eBay Inc.
“The Starfish and the Spider, like Blink, The Tipping Point, and The Wisdom of Crowds before it, showed me a provocative new way to look at the world and at business. It's also fun to read!” —Robin Wolaner, founder, Parenting Magazine and author, Naked in the Boardroom
“A fantastic read. Constantly weaving stories and connections. You'll never see the world the same way again.” —Nicholas J. Nicholas Jr., former Co-CEO, Time Warner
“A must-read. Starfish are changing the face of business and society. This page-turner is provocative and compelling.”
—David Martin, CEO, Young Presidents' Organization “The Starfish and the Spider provides a powerful prism for understanding the patterns and potential of self-organizing systems.” —Steve Jurvetson, Partner, Draper Fisher Jurvetson “The Starfish and the Spider lifts the lid on a massive revolution in the making, a revolution certain to reshape every organization on the planet from bridge clubs to global governments. Brafman and Beckstrom elegantly describe what is afoot and offer a wealth of insights that will be invaluable to anyone starting something new—or rescuing something old—amidst this vast shift.” —Paul Saffo, Director, Institute for the Future
“The Starfish and the Spider is great reading. [It has] not only stimulated my thinking, but as a result of the reading, I proposed ten action points for my own organization." —Professor Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum
About this product: Focusing largely on the controversial website Wikipedia, the author explores the challenges confronting teachers of college writing in the increasingly electronic and networked writing environments their students use every day. Rather than praising or condemning that site for its role as an encyclopedia, Cummings instead sees it as a site for online collaboration between writers and a way to garner audience for student writing.
Applying an understanding of Commons-Based Peer Production theory, as developed by Yochai Benkler, this text is arranged around the following propositions:
-- Commons-Based Peer Production is a novel economic phenomenon which informs our current teaching model and describes a method for making sense of future electronic developments.
-- College writers are motivated to do their best work when they write for an authentic audience, external to the class.
-- Writing for a networked knowledge community invites students to participate in making knowledge, rather than only consuming it.
-- A plan for integrating networked writing for an external audience helps students understand the transition from high school to college writing.
-- Allowing students to review and self-select points of entry into electronic discourse fosters "laziness," or a new work dynamic where writers seek to better understand their own creativity in terms of a project's demands.
Lazy Virtues offers networked writing assignments to foster development of student writers by exposing them to the demands of professional audiences, asking them to identify and assess their own creative impulses in terms of a project's needs, and removing the writing teacher from the role of sole audience.
About this product: This digital document is an article from Informatica, published by Thomson Gale on June 1, 2007. The length of the article is 8339 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation Details Title: Computational trust in Web content quality: a comparative evalutation on the Wikipedia project.(Report) Author: Pierpaolo Dondio Publication:Informatica (Magazine/Journal) Date: June 1, 2007 Publisher: Thomson Gale Volume: 31 Issue: 2 Page: 151(10)
BOOK
