

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."
Old. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Old. (Score:2)
Re:Old. (Score:1)
Re:The neutrality of this conference is disputed. (Score:4, Funny)
call the fbi (Score:1, Funny)
Agenda (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Agenda (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: Agenda (Score:1)
Re: Agenda (Score:1)
Re: Agenda (Score:2)
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.
Re: Agenda (Score:2)
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
Re: Agenda (Score:2)
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)
An upcoming media conflict? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:2)
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
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:WikiMEDIA. (Score:2)
No harm done. (Score:2)
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]
Re:No harm done. (Score:2)
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
Re:No harm done. (Score:2)
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.
CNET News.com's Indian Tech Wiki (Score:2)
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]
Re:WikiMEDIA. (Score:2)
Re:WikiMEDIA. (Score:1)
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
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:2)
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:1)
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:2)
Even then, the blockage does not have to be complete. Even reducing Wikimedia's
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:2)
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
Free market forces, my friend. (Score:2)
Old Media represents a failure of the free market. It is a monopoly over the dispersal of information. Indeed, had it not been for the Internet (and thus a recet decrease in the scarcity of infor
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:2, Informative)
Really now, what controls are in place to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an agenda-driven complex just like old media?
There's the GFDL, which allows people to fork the project if it gets too agenda-driven. And there are also federal laws which restrict charities from benefitting private individuals or engaging in politics.
It could still happen, to some extent, but there are some controls in place to make it less likely and less severe.
Rush Limbaugh already called it whacko leftist (Score:1)
On June 21, 2005,
The wings are a myth. (Score:2)
Now on the topic of accuracy, "getting it right" to the O
Re: The wings are a myth. (Score:2)
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
Re:Rush Limbaugh already called it whacko leftist (Score:1)
Re:They'll cry to Congress (Score:2)
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
Re:An upcoming media conflict? (Score:2)
Change in date and venue (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gorbachev (Score:1)
actually, he didn't. I saw the guy give a speech in '98. and, uh, he's still alive now.
Re:Gorbachev (Score:1)
Re:Gorbachev (Score:2)
Re:Change in date and venue (Score:3, Funny)
I know we all hate Europe here, but we should not refer to it as 'nowhere'.
Please try to maintain a NPOV.
Frankfurt has a certain reputation... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Change in date and venue (Score:1)
Travel plans (Score:2, Informative)
I will only attend (Score:1)
Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond... (Score:2)
Bah, it's not like I could go to it if it were more than two hundred miles away, in any case.
--grendel drago
Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond... (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond... (Score:2)
Yeah, since no Europeans speak English...
Didn't think of that. (Score:2)
--grendel drago
Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond... (Score:2)
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?
Re:Yeah, the second I can swim across the pond... (Score:1)
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".