Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Media The Internet

Wikimedia to Hold First International Conference 69

teslatug writes "The Wikimedia Foundation will be holding its first international conference, Wikimania, in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from August 4, 2005 to August 8, 2005. Featured speakers will include Jimmy Wales, Ross Mayfield, Ward Cunningham, and Richard Stallman. It will be the largest gathering of Wiki[pm]edians to date."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikimedia to Hold First International Conference

Comments Filter:
  • Old. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GaryWK ( 804395 )
    I recall this being old news. Don't know why it is being posted now, although probably due to the fact that it is still held in the future.
  • I think it is about time the fbi or homeland security start monitoring this potentially subversive group.
  • Agenda (Score:5, Funny)

    by thijsa ( 849477 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @01:46PM (#12974577)
    I guess we can all freely change the agenda and speakers order in a collaborative effort?

    • > I guess we can all freely change the agenda and speakers order in a collaborative effort?

      Think how much more fun Slashdot would be if we could edit each others' posts.

      • And think about how much more computing power the servers would need. The wikipedia site, with a relatively low write / read ratio (so static caching is improving performance a lot) already needs a huge number of machines!
        • Could anyone give a basic introduction to static cachin, wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this topic. :)
          • Write one then ;)

            Basically, the chances are that not everybody looking at a page needs it dynamically generating. Therefore the first time someone looks at a new version of a page, the cache server generates a static version and serves that up. Future requests for the page recieve this cached version, until a change is made to the page which forces a cache refresh.

            It means popular, rarely changing pages don't keep hammering the database.
          • i'd imagine the main reason wikipedia doesn't have an article is because its very much a case by case thing and it would be quite hard to be general in such an article.

            the basic idea is to avoid re-generating stuff unnessacerally and in wikipedia there are multiple levels to this.

            the level of caching closest to the users is the squids. theese only deal in complete pages and so thier main job is handling readers who aren't logged in. pages are purged from theese when they are edited so there is no need for
      • I guess we can all freely change the agenda and speakers order in a collaborative effort?


        Just think how much more exciting and novel Slashdot would become if only we could edit each others' posts. Editing stories instead of reposting them would be another amazing improvement.
    • Re:Agenda (Score:5, Funny)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @02:48PM (#12974824) Homepage Journal
      Of course! But as with Wikipedia, all deletions must be by consensus [wikipedia.org]. Which means that hundreds of new speakers will be suggested, and only the most obviously demented or offtopic speakers will not make the cut. The converence is expected to last several years.
  • by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @01:46PM (#12974578)
    I fear we may witness a major media conflict within the next few years. As organizations like Wikimedia gain strength, power and momentum, the existing corporate media will start to worry.

    I see two things happening:

    1) Discredition
    The corporate mass media will try their best to discredit Wikimedia. They will have their pundits (ie. Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Kudlow & Kramer, etc.) make some outrageous lies about Wikimedia. I wouldn't be surprised if Wikimedia was labelled as "unpatriotic" and declared to be "supporters of terrorism".

    2) Financial Cloutery
    The corporate mass media may instead use their massive financial wealth to purchase Wikimedia out of the picture. They may start by purchasing hosting companies that host Wikimedia servers. Then using their financial clout, they may persuade the backbones and ISPs to limit access to Wikimedia sites.

    Regardless of what happens, the upcoming battle between the Old Media and the New Media will be spectacular. But I fear the only victims will be the individuals, who no longer have access to the open-minded, and truly free content that Wikimedia offers.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      What a load of bollocks. Do you have any idea what your talking about?
      • Indeed, I do. Do you?

        The fact of the matter is that the public trust in Old Media is weakening daily. People everywhere are seeing how they were mislead by the Old Media over Iraq. And that causes most intelligent people to think, "If they lied to us about that, then maybe the lied to us about Afghanistan, and Sept. 11."

        Wikimedia has shown that they strive for the truth, even if it is a tumultuous path getting there. People will disagree, but in the end there is true debate on the subject available. That
    • I think you're a troll. Here's why:

      Wikipedia isn't a "media", it's a collaborative encyclopedia. Therefore, the only corporations directly threatened by it are encyclopedia manufacturers.

      Wikipedia may come under PR attack by any corporation it cites, provided said corporation doesn't like the way it's treated. But that's not particular to what you call "old media" corporations.

      In short, I think you've taken a run-of-the-mill post about media consolidation and replaced whatever organization it was origina
      • WikiMEDIA. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @01:59PM (#12974625)
        Pardon me, Mr. Coltrane. I believe that you are partaking in trollery. This conference covers Wikimedia, not just Wikipedia.

        Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is an encyclopedia, yes.

        But then there is Wikinews [wikinews.org] that directly challenges the Old Media.

        Wikimedia covers all of the new wiki-based, individualistic, non-corproate media.

        • Indeed I misread your post. My apologies then, as it now makes much more sense :-)
          • No harm done, my good fellow. They are very similar terms.

            Indeed, the LA Times recent experiment with wiki-ized editorials shows the true nature of their fear. They realized quite quickly the true power of the wiki, realizing that it was introducing true debate and discussion. It was making people think, and that is something that the Old Media cannot have. Thinking people question what they hear, and that does not benefit the Old Media in any way.

            References:
            http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/18/21 [slashdot.org]
            • the true power of the wiki, realizing that it was introducing true debate and discussion. It was making people think, and that is something that the Old Media cannot have.

              You know, they're actually reinventing the wheel. Old-style, *independent* media of the past did exactly what you describe (i.e. keeping politicos in check, breaking stories, and giving a voice to dissenters) and they did make people who bothered reading them think. That has gone away the day big corporations started to own media outlets
            • >It was making people think, and that is something that the Old Media cannot have.

              Most people don't want to think and live the life of political activists.
              They prefer to sit in their sofas or chairs, eat snacks and have the truth served from whatever source they feel comfortable with.
            • Indeed, the LA Times recent experiment with wiki-ized editorials shows the true nature of their fear. They realized quite quickly the true power of the wiki, realizing that it was introducing true debate and discussion.

              Similarly, CNET News.com just launched a wiki where readers/contributors collaborate to predict the future of India's technology industry. It's quite an interesting read so far.

              Link to CNET's Indian Tech Renaissance Wiki [indiatechwiki.com]

              Wikinews article on it [wikinews.org]
        • And practically no one has heard of and no one cares about Wikinews. Please, by all means, show me a single media outlet that sees Wikinews as any kind of threat. That's *laughable*. I hope you also realize that Wikinews uses major news outlets as their primary sources, so to suggest that they pose competition to the very ones that they steal from is absurd.

          This also disregards the fact that 99% of Wikimedia traffic goes to Wikipedia, which the news meda would have no vested interest in.

          Now to address
      • I think you're a troll because you're full of shit!
    • In regards to 2), I find it unbelievable, as it would require buying out every ISP in the world (more or less).
      • That's not necessary by any means. Remember, while worldwide in scope, the majority of Wikimedia's resources are based in the US. The US has very few major ISPs. Some, such as AOL, are already owned by the Old Media. A lot of the smaller ISPs purchase their bandwidth from the larger ones. With their combined financial resources, it would not be difficult at all to purchase the large ISPs which the Old Media does not already own.

        Even then, the blockage does not have to be complete. Even reducing Wikimedia's
      • In regards to 2), I find it unbelievable, as it would require buying out every ISP in the world (more or less).

        Not really...

        Look at TvTOME.com, the guy who started it wanted a place to keep information about tv shows. It was the best place if you wanted information on any television show, to learn the cast, the have a description of every episode, and to have details. What happened to TVTOME? A commercial website that was competing with them wanted their subscriber base. So the offered the dude who st

    • On April 19, 2005, Limbaugh mentioned Wikipedia in the final minutes of his show, calling it "... some kind of left wing Internet encyclopedia," in response to the viewing of Pope Benedict XVI Wikipedia Article (most likely dated April 19, 2005 at 2:52 PM EST). During his radio program on April 22, 2005, Rush retracted the assertion after a Wikipedian called in and explained the site's mission and protocols, stating that he had received incorrect information from one of his staff members.

      On June 21, 2005,
      • The right and left wings are a myth created by the Old Media to limit thought. You're only given two options: right or left. You're expected to choose only one. And the vast majority of people fall for this. When an intellectual individual suggests that they are neither wing, then the vast majority of people cannot comprehend that. They have had their mental capacity so minimized by the Old Media that they can only comprehend the idea of two choices.

        Now on the topic of accuracy, "getting it right" to the O
        • Indeed. If someone else hasn't done so already, probably a good idea to link to the Political Compass [f2s.com] web site, which adds a whole new dimension (literally!) to the way you might think about politics.

          I know that classifying, labelling, and pigeonholing is the way we humans think, but politics is a complex area and it deserves far more thought than just a simple red-blue choice.

          Even an oversimplified left-right line, though, is worth examining more closely. For example, the 'centre' position seems to

      • Just wish to add that the italics text in the parent was quoted from wikipedia.
    • ...just like always. Congress (asumming enough ahem, donations, are at stake, they'll make laws that favor the corporate interest.

      With respect to wiki[pm]edia...I think this is quite an awesome development- the encapsulation of knowledge by people, for people. Nice. Now, what's to say some overpaid moron decides that they own the patent, or some other means that will make the dissemination, or use, or demonstration of this information increasingly difficult, if not impossible? I'm surprised this hasn't al
    • I find your enthusiasm over the New Media disturbing. Being a cynic (some might also call me an elitist), i fear that in the upcoming battle, the only victims will be the individuals, who will be forced to surrender to the prevailing groupthink.
  • by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @01:50PM (#12974586)
    In keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, I have decided that the Wikimania conference will now be held September 17th-23rd in Ulaan Bator, Mongolia. Featured speakers will include Mikhail Gorbachev and Pamela Anderson.
  • Travel plans (Score:2, Informative)

    by edLin ( 5192 )
    Add your travel plans to the wiki: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Transport [wikimedia.org]
  • If it's held in Vancouver [wikipedia.org]. 'Nuff said.
  • Given that the English Wikipedia is more than twice as big as the next largest, it seems a little silly to have it in the middle of Europe.

    Bah, it's not like I could go to it if it were more than two hundred miles away, in any case.

    --grendel drago
    • There are more English speakers in Europe than in the USA. Also, I'm willing to bet that most European wikipedians, as well as most wikipedians from the rest of the world, use the English Wikipedia. I know I do, excpet when I'm looking up something regional, like a local historic figure.
    • Given that the English Wikipedia is more than twice as big as the next largest, it seems a little silly to have it in the middle of Europe.

      Yeah, since no Europeans speak English...
      • Huh. I figured everyone worked on the Wikipedia in their native language, and occasionally translated. Though I'm still not convinced that there are more Wikipedians in Europe than there are in the United States, given that server load is highest during US peak hours, not Europe peak hours.

        --grendel drago
    • Well, both of the elected board members are from Europe, and there is somewhat of an anti-American culture within Wikipedia, even from many of the Americans.

      • there is somewhat of an anti-American culture within Wikipedia, even from many of the Americans.

        So not being totally biased towards the US is "anti American"?

        Example: Both International English and American English are valid languages for the english wikipedia (so long as each article is internally consistent). If Wikipedia was anti-American, wouldn't everything be expected to be in International English?
        • So not being totally biased towards the US is "anti American"?

          That's not at all what I said.

          If Wikipedia was anti-American, wouldn't everything be expected to be in International English?

          If "Wikipedia was anti-American", maybe. But all I said was that "there is somewhat of an anti-American culture within Wikipedia".

Dreams are free, but you get soaked on the connect time.

Working...