Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Founder Introduces Wiki Magazine Sites

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the wiki-wiki-wiki-wiki-world dept.

The Media 114

KingJawa writes "Wikipedia blew away Encyclopedia Brittanica, but can the model be used to upset the magazine industry? Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, thinks so. His company, Wikia, today announced three open-source magazine-style sites where users can write about news, opinion and gossip — one magazine wiki each for politics, entertainment, and local interests. Each open-source magazine hands total editorial control to the readers, allowing them to read, write, edit, and dictate the editorial feel for each topic."

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FIST SPORT! (0, Troll)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999412)

Yet more irrefutable evidence that Wikipedia is nothing more than the outpouring of self-obsessed blowhards and their fixation on pointless trivia.

Re:FIST SPORT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17999670)

Top 40 DJ and Carolina alumnus Rick Dees has made it easier for some University students to follow their dreams of making it big in the entertainment world.
Dees, one of America's leading radio and television entertainers, has pledged a substantial cash gift to endow an annual Rick Dees Student Production Award in the University's Department of Communication Studies. He also will donate production equipment for student use in Swain Hall, Carolina's student production center.

Students will compete for the annual award by presenting their ideas and budgets for films and videos to an award panel. The award will fund production expenses such as film stock, processing, tape, props, locations costs, transportation and insurance.
Dees, a Greensboro native and 1972 Carolina graduate, has been named America's number one radio personality for 10 years in a row by Billboard Magazine. His "Rick Dees Weekly Top 40 Countdown" is heard by 50 million people every week on more than 350 stations in the U. S. and 70 countries.

"The University of North Carolina provided me with every tool necessary to rise to the top of my profession," Dees said.

Dees earned his degree in radio, television and motion pictures. That department merged in 1993 with the speech communication department to form the Department of Communication Studies, which is now the third-largest department in Carolina's College of Arts and Sciences.

"Rick is a wonderful example of a successful alumnus willing to give of himself to create better opportunities for students," said Dr. Bill Balthrop, chair of the communication studies department. "His commitment is a powerful expression of confidence in the talents of Carolina students and the importance of media production in the department."

Students and faculty in media studies have received national recognition, including awards from the Sundance Film Festival, the American Film Institute and the National Educational Association for their work in film and video.

THIS IS EXCITING (0, Offtopic)

ReidMaynard (161608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999452)

MORE INTERNET TUBES!!

Digg / Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17999460)

Not so very much different from Digg and Slashdot?

I hope they introduce a geek/computer/technology-magazine too.

Re:Digg / Slashdot (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999772)

I hope they introduce a geek/computer/technology-magazine too.
Why? We already have Slashdot, Digg, k5, LWN, Linux.com, etc. One more to the pile? There's more to life than technology and computers and geek topics. Most of us geeks are also very well versed in politics, entertainment, world affairs, local affairs, law, business, etc. That's one reasons why sites like the wikia magazines, groklaw, and so forth have been popping up as of late.

Re:Digg / Slashdot (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001780)

"Most of us geeks are also very well versed in ... etc."

Hot damn! Which of those other sites to they hang out in?

Re:Digg / Slashdot (1)

okinawa_hdr (1062664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001534)

A benefit of Digg is that it forwards the user to your website.

There are some big differences (1)

Instine (963303) | more than 7 years ago | (#18003740)

The prob he's going to have is that the agendum of the media is not that of academia. Slashdot comes close because its 'for nerds'. Digg is just a freefall directory of crap. Not a magazine. It points to articles, but doesn't have/create any. Its agenda are closer to those of the media however.

It'll be interesting, but it won't be a magazine.

Re:Digg / Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18005152)

Hay! News board with pics an shit : http://orz.4chan.org/n/imgboard.html [4chan.org]

They already have this (3, Insightful)

DietCoke (139072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999464)

It's called MySpace, blogspot.com, wordpress, etc.

User-generated content is good, but it's no mass-media killer - especially when other folks have already gone down this road already.

Re:They already have this (3, Informative)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999712)

Even more like it: Associated Content [associatedcontent.com] . Looks like you can write about anything you want, and get paid. AND it shows up on Google News.

Re:They already have this (2, Interesting)

DietCoke (139072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000100)

Exactly. So many websites have sprung up with the expectation that "if you provide them with a web-based gui editor, they will come" - yet they do virtually nothing for the submitter but provide them with hosting space. Considering the cost of data versus the cost of paying for content creation, I can understand why it's a alluring business idea. The problem is that it really leaves you exposed to market elements - what happens if people get bored with the service (*cough* Myspace *cough*). As well, unless NOONE is paying for content, content submitters that turn out quality product will invariably gravitate towards the provider that can provide the largest audience and highest reward.

Don't get me wrong, there are some folks who will love just seeing their name in print. But the vast majority of people know they can already do that without having to cast their lot in with this place. Unless Wales can provide some additional value to the user aside from a little exposure, I don't see this one differentiating itself from the 50,000 other websites looking for content creators.

And really, I don't blame Wales for giving this a shot. I just think it's a flawed business model that doesn't factor in the competition and economics of user-generated content.

Re:They already have this (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#18002598)

Don't get me wrong, there are some folks who will love just seeing their name in print. But the vast majority of people know they can already do that without having to cast their lot in with this place. Unless Wales can provide some additional value to the user aside from a little exposure, I don't see this one differentiating itself from the 50,000 other websites looking for content creators.

All true except for one factor - those 50,000 other websites don't have (tens or hundreds of) thousands of wikidroids long indoctrinated that Wales is the Way.

Not that big a Wiki Fan (2, Interesting)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001536)

I no longer write anything on Wikipedia. I've been in the process of crafting an article, saved it, and then seen it come up for deletion because the category editors didn't like it. Now mind you, this was a stub, so anything that I put there that's accurate is better than what was there - which was nothing. It usually takes me quite a while to write an article, especially when I'm citing original sources and marshaling all of my facts, dates, etc. The third time that this happened to me, I started poking around. There's a very political structure to the Wiki editing that is, IMHO, very *un*-cool.

2 cents,

Queen B.

Re:Not that big a Wiki Fan (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 7 years ago | (#18003948)

Get into the talk page and disagree. Many deletes go through because nobody contests, or does so for some emotional reason that're outside of general wiki policy.

Little articles do come and go quickly. Until an area gets well defined people often refactor and delete stubs regularly.

But was the deletion of that page the end of your data, of could you just stuff it into the closest related article for now?

Re:Not that big a Wiki Fan (1)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 7 years ago | (#18005398)

What makes you think I didn't? The *third* time it happened to me, I got really angry and now I just refuse to contribute. If the editors want to delete in between what are obviously my saves, even though they haven't bothered to contribute anything themselves, they can pucker up and kiss my big pink butt. It should be pretty obvious that if you refresh the page and the "Last Edited" date & time keeps changing that the article is in the middle of being written and that it's being actively worked on. You could at least have the social graces to let me finish it before deciding it needs to be deleted.

2 more cents,

QueenB

Re:They already have this (1)

baresi (950718) | more than 7 years ago | (#18003000)

One more similar example that I used to be part of long before web 2.0 and the blog fad http://www.e-sports.com/ [e-sports.com]
Nothing new and there are others that share ad revenue too.

Good idea (3, Insightful)

flynt (248848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999466)

Interesting idea. The main difference between newspapers/magazines and encyclopedias is of course the timing of information. I can write an encyclopedia article about a subject I know by investing time and research. However, the research for writing magazine articles is much different, relying on interviews, travelling, even subpoenas, etc.

Wikepedia already has certain magazine aspects to it, it is updated with current events quite quickly. But those articles are (usually) simply relaying information obtained from a traditional news source.

I would like to see the attemp though, what's the harm?

Re:Good idea (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000102)

> writing magazine articles is much different, relying on interviews, travelling, even subpoenas

Only in some (ok, a lot, but not all) cases. I had to write many articles based on encyclopedia-type research of the type you mention. There were also a ton of end-of-year pieces made up entirely of looking through the morgue and grabbing clippings of earlier stories.

Re:Good idea (1)

loid_void (740416) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001422)

I like that it's focused in three areas, and not all over the place. That will increase their odds of success, not to mention the revenue stream from the advertising on the sites will help fund Wikipedia.

Re:Good idea (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18003192)

Notice what happens when you go to http://local.wikia.com/ [wikia.com] and try to "choose your town"? Notice what all the articles at http://politics.wikia.com/ [wikia.com] are about? See any Bollywood stars at http://entertainment.wikia.com/ [wikia.com] ?

Seems to me it's not focused in three areas, it's focused in precisely one area and one area only; outsiders not welcome.

Re:Good idea (1)

loid_void (740416) | more than 7 years ago | (#18005178)

These are good points and I agree (slightly) that politics and entertainment feel exclusionary, but there are ways to work your way into the fray. Politcs is politics (no where near the exceptional area in Slashdot) and Entertainment, I'd only expect what is going on in that area, and again, you can get a foothold if you so choose. What I really like about Local though, is that finding my town "empty" of posts, it leaves it wide open for the beginning of something. This is an apparatus, being road tested, and the tires need to be kicked among other things. Don't cha think?

Re:Good idea (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 7 years ago | (#18002530)

The main difference between newspapers/magazines and encyclopedias is of course the timing of information

That and mode of consumption. With encyclopedias, I'm usually already at my computer, doing research of some kind. I like to read my magazines in bed, while in the bathroom, or when I need to kill time (public transportation, waiting at a doctor's office for an appointment, etc.). I don't want to sit at my computer and read a magazine.

Too many editors (1)

Dan Slotman (974474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18005298)

Another difference that I think will just as quickly lead to the failure of a collaborative magazine is the problem of "too many editors." Compelling writing suffers from the myriad of tiny wording changes reflected wiki publishing. Wikipedia's "Featured Articles" (their highest category) usually have correct information, lots of citations, and good article layout, but they rarely have what I would arrogantly describe as really good writing.

Ummmmmm (2, Insightful)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999478)

Isn't that why I read Slashdot?

Not exactly a new idea, is it?

Re:Ummmmmm (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000026)

Yeah, but if Slashdot was a Real Magazine, it would be glossy. And it would smell nice.

Seriously, aside from cologne inserts, there's far more to magazines that distinguish them from websites seeking to usurp their moniker. Last I checked, typographers were using PDF, and web designers were relying on browsers to render their work.

Probably why I don't read The New York Times on line very often. The newsprint version, in addition to "working better", actually looks better, though to be fair, the on-line version gets less ink on my fingers.

Does anyone actually bother reading anything that has sentences sprawling across the entire width of a computer screen? Maybe if newspapers and magazine publishers made everything available in a PDF and we had computer screens sized for such a purpose, but until then, it's just another website. Creative, but still a website.

Re:Ummmmmm (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18005204)

Does anyone actually bother reading anything that has sentences sprawling across the entire width of a computer screen?

Um, yeah, like all the comments on /.?

Is this really new? (1)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999486)

So now instead of arguing back and forth with others in one (of many available) forums out there, you can just go in and change the commentary of your antagonist.

This seems to me just to be another collaborative site launch into an already saturated market. The only novelty is that you can go and mess with someone else's opinion or contribution.

Re:Is this really new? (1)

SunkingvstheChicken (210926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001258)

And that exactly is the problem with wiki format (at least the one I've been fighting with), though the format is supposed to invite usage from the general public their security model is complicated and tries to reinvent the wheel, simple group based security with an easily workable LDAP plugin or windows domain plugin is too much to ask for apparently. Want do delete an account? BZZZT sorry that's not the feature you want. Want to list out who's in a group? BZZZT sorry that's not the feature you want write a sql query to reconcile the 2 tables in the database so you can read the user names and not their id number. I could go on but I won't.

Apples and Oranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17999496)

When Wikipedia came out, I don't remember any other models like that before. . . user contributed encyclopedia articles. The fact that items got updated nearly in real time made it so much more attractive than hard books or even the online versions of the traditional books.

But there are already online versions of magazines. The advantage here of course is this will be user contributed like Wikipedia. But I don't think it'll have the same momentum because I see online magazine articles updated daily already.

Re:Apples and Oranges (1)

Funkcikle (630170) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001888)

The advantage here of course is this will be user contributed like Wikipedia.

No, the advantage here is that it will have the Wikipedia brand behind it and benefit from user creep and karma seep. Even if it is not profitable, it will simply do what Wikipedia did - blow the trumpet about how important it is that it stays free and open and blahblah, soliciting donations from the public and users in addition to giving corporate entities an opportunity to gane brownie points through "donation matching".

Political Wiki preview (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17999526)

Democ-rats suxxxxxx0rz, confederacy rules OK!!!!!!11!!!

NO YUO

GEORGE BUSH IS TEH DEBEL!!!!!!!!!!eleventy-one!!


In Soviet Russia, Bruce Schneier [geekz.co.uk] facts yuo!!!

Will Wiki have a magazine devoted to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17999530)

the GNAA? That would be some good rear reading material.

Can? Check. Worms? Check. (3, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999538)

The Politics Community ( http://politics.wikia.com/ [wikia.com] ), which features national, state and local sections where users are able to search and contribute by state and/or zip code. Contributors can share and discuss their political opinions, build out historical resources and voter guides, or simply just read and comment on the others thoughts and learn about political issues.
And as we all know, user-postable websites are the absolute best, most pristine resource for calm, mature, intelligent political discourse.

Re:Can? Check. Worms? Check. (1)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999756)

Speaking of calm and mature political discussion, since the demise of the Yahoo Message Boards, some guys are trying to re-establish that user base at this site. [supertrolls.com] I'm guessing that this wikia will have a similar user base.

Re:Can? Check. Worms? Check. (2, Insightful)

atomic777 (860023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000008)

Considering that it is common to hear a certain popular news broadcaster telling a guest to "shut up", Wikia can't be much worse. I don't think there's a whole lot of civilised discussion going on in the (mainstream) media these days on either side of the political divide. Don't blame the medium, blame the people.

Re:Can? Check. Worms? Check. (1)

CodeArtisan (795142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000230)

Considering that it is common to hear a certain popular news broadcaster telling a guest to "shut up", Wikia can't be much worse.
I doubt a "news broadcaster" has told a guest to shut up. Perhaps one of the op-ed presenters (O'Reilly, Hannity or Matthews etc.)would stray down that path, but they can't be described as "news broadcasters" for most definitions of news.

Re:Can? Check. Worms? Check. (1)

atomic777 (860023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001148)

Your point is valid. I was stuck for an appropriate term and just threw 'news broadcaster' in there. Here are some of the others i considered:

- WWE announcer
- NHL Referee
- Circus Ringleader

Alas, none of these do justice to the likes of O'Reilly and his peers.

Suck This (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18000516)

Suck my Pickle. Dickwad.

Re:Can? Check. Worms? Check. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18002216)

And as we all know, user-postable websites are the absolute best, most pristine resource for calm, mature, intelligent political discourse.
go "fuck yourself" [washingtonpost.com] :)

Politics: "Anne Nicole Smith dead" !? (3, Insightful)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999546)

Clicking through the politics [wikia.com] wikimag I was surprised to see (announced as breaking news, no less) the story Anna Nicole Smith 1967-2007 DEAD [wikia.com] . And that's politics?

(Now if someone edited the story to make it that GWB had authorised the raising of ANS from the dead, that would be politics).

Re:Politics: "Anne Nicole Smith dead" !? (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999730)

Clicking through the politics wikimag I was surprised to see (announced as breaking news, no less) the story Anna Nicole Smith 1967-2007 DEAD. And that's politics?
You're obviously blissfully unaware of the fact that Anna Nicole's implants were actually a pair of manifestations of a gestalt alien intelligence which was secretly running the world through a complex network of shadow governments and puppet regimes for a complex reality show called "Earth" which was a big hit with the unwashed masses on their own planet. Anna Nicole herself was humanity's bravest freedom fighter, as she had figured out that the creatures' only weakness was massive amounts of alcohol ingested slowly over time.

Re:Politics: "Anne Nicole Smith dead" !? (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000128)

I hope someone with mod points mods this funny, it's one of the best laughs I've had in a while, the coffee in my nose is still stinging.

Re:Politics: "Anne Nicole Smith dead" !? (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18002756)

"Trimspa baby!" So this was their blue pill? I guess those agents were carrying out paper sacks full of reds.

Re:Politics: "Anne Nicole Smith dead" !? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999788)

Clicking through the politics wikimag I was surprised to see (announced as breaking news, no less) the story Anna Nicole Smith 1967-2007 DEAD. And that's politics?

With the recent photos released of her in bed with the Bahamian immigration minister, I guess it's possible to squeeze a blurb into that topic.

Re:Politics: "Anne Nicole Smith dead" !? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000512)

(Now if someone edited the story to make it that GWB had authorised the raising of ANS from the dead, that would be politics).

Sheesh - isn't the whole point of a Wiki that you can do that yourself?

entertainment community wiki (2, Insightful)

dcskier (1039688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999550)

it'll be interesting to see if the Entertainment Community wiki is embraced or attacked by the MPAA/RIAA. it seems like it would be a great free publicity and endorsement of shows/movies/songs. however, i'm sure once screenshots and clips start to go up the gloves will come off.

Yeah, this will be great (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999590)

Especially for the gossip and politics parts. I mean, everybody knows that the politics articles on Wikipedia are the best of the lot. Creationism, abortion, the republican party, George Bush. They're all great, balanced articles that come about with a healthy amount of consensus and almost never require their silly useless "aribitration" process. Everyone is an expert on teh interwebs. But hey, like the submitter says, Wikipedia "blew away Britannica".

I'm going to go out on a limb here and theorize that this project is going to have ads integrated from the beginning. If Jimbo wants a revenue stream, maybe he should just say so instead of selling it as some sort of fresh new revolutionary idea... user generated content? Never seen that before on the web.

Re:Yeah, this will be great (1)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999658)

Creationism, abortion, the republican party, George Bush. They're all great
Attitudes like that are what cause global warming! Don't get me started...

Re:Yeah, this will be great (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001202)

I would guess you're correct that ads will be a central part of this design (rather than incidental in some of wikipedia's less discerning puff pieces).

However, if ad revenue is crucial to the business model for this new venture then it's going to have be even more locked down and controlled than wikipedia already is. There are many many cases of advertisers pulling their ads from mainstream magazines because they were unhappy with editorial direction and comment. This being the main reason why most magazines don't have highly critical reviews, for example.

I can't see this succeeding personally, there are too many legal issues. Wikipedia, it addition to its many well publicized faults and failings is hardly a glamorous website. And there are many many many alternatives already up and running.

Not Wikipedia, Encarta. (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999638)

Wikipedia didn't blow away Encyclopedia Brittanica. Encarta did. As Bill Gates once pointed out to Brittanica, the Brittanica sales force of door to door sales reps added negative value to the product once it could be put on CD-ROM. Brittanica's problem was a high cost per sale.

Not Wikipedia, Encarta.,Online. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18000002)

And now brittannica is on the web. So that "blew away" CD-ROM.

Re:Not Wikipedia, Encarta. (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001140)

Wikipedia didn't blow away Encyclopedia Brittanica.


That's right, it did not. Because "Encyclopedia Brittanica" doesn't exist.

You don't have to believe me, look it up in Encyclopedia Britannica.

Re:Not Wikipedia, Encarta. (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18002668)

You should have looked it up in Wikipedia. The only thing that exists is "Encyclopædia Britannica"

The politics zine will fail (1)

jlbprof (760036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999656)

If the readers have total control such as in Wikipedia it will have the same problems that Wikipedia did. Almost all of those complaints revolved around politically charged topics/persons. The politically charged environment in the US will just make it ugly. Of course this is IMHO. Julian

Re:The politics zine will fail (1)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000966)

No, it'll fail because I can't read it on an airplane or in the bathroom. Sheesh, where do you read magazines?

Difference to Wikinews? (3, Insightful)

tmk (712144) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999752)

Are this magazines competition to wikinews?

The collaborative news project is a supplement to Wikipedia, but suffers from lack of authors and articles. Wikipedians prefer to write encyclopaedia artcles about news stories, which leads to problems: unverified pieces of information appear in Wikipedia articles and are not corrected afterwards.

No, it didn't (2)

bjorniac (836863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999754)

I'm sorry, I don't want to upset too many wiki-ites, but it really didn't blow away Britannica. It had the same number of errors per article with shorter articles. Of course, this is a very crude metric - the significance of these errors is also important, but probably un-quantifiable.

Wikipedia is still troll ridden and error prone, and I think even the greatest fans will admit this. You only need think of the Stephen Colbert/Elephant thing to see how abused it can be. There is more information on Stargate Atlantis than Goethe. Whilst some people may consider wikipedia a useful tool, making statements like this just fuel its detractors.

Stargoethe (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001042)

There is more information on Stargate Atlantis than Goethe.
What is the specific problem with having information on Brad Wright and Robert C. Cooper in addition to J. W. Goethe? Should an encyclopedia cut off coverage of works of authorship at AD 1923?

Re:Stargoethe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18001920)

That isn't in what you quote, nor the GP comment. Nowhere does it say "They cover stargate, they shouldn't" or any words to that effect. But I guess that isn't as easy to try and shoot down with dumb-assed questions. (t)Roll again, you might get lucky next time...

Re:Stargoethe (1)

bjorniac (836863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18002748)

Wouldn't quite put it like that, but yeah. I didn't say "Don't cover X", just pointed out covering Stargate more than Goethe. Personally I find that amusing, that's all.

Re:Stargoethe (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18003400)

FWIW, the Atlantis article contains only about roughly 300 more words than the Goethe one, and about 400 less if you take out things like cast and broadcaster lists.

Also comparing an article about a modern tv series to the biography of an author is just stupid. There are at least dozens of people involved, many writers, many actors, millions of dollars, and literally hundreds (I'm pulling this number out of my ass here, but it's probably a minimum) of episodes. There simply is just more that you can write about it.

There is no policy on Wikipedia saying that an article's length should correspond to its importance, which would be just plain stupid.

Re:Stargoethe (1)

bjorniac (836863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18004316)

Once again, just pointing out that it seemed amusing to me. In a classical dead-tree encyclopedia etc you would expect Goethe to get a longer article that's all there was to it. Of course, you can get hissy and call it stupid if you like, I'm sorry if I inadvertently insulted your favourite TV show or something, I was just making a comparison which would seem make sense in the context of an older encyclopedia - if that were all you'd used you would find it amusing too.

A lawsuit waiting to happen (2, Interesting)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999842)

Given that Hollywood stars have sued tabloids in the past for printing false and/or damaging articles these Wiki Magazines really seem like a bad idea. What is to stop someone from posting something complete false, degrading or career damaging in the entertainment.wiki? Who will be responsible when the affected party seeks monetary compensation for the perceived damage?

Wiki did not blow away Britannica (5, Informative)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999874)

Britannica was in trouble by 1996. That's when it laid off it's entire door-to-door sales force. By 1998 the staff had halved in size. Now, WHEN did Wikipedia become a force?

Re:Wiki did not blow away Britannica (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000086)

Which saw the rise of CD based encyclopedias and internet based sources of information. I still remember writing papers based on newsgroup searches back when NNTP servers were not spam and malware havens. The internet is slowly killing many types of old school information gathering, even academic journals have felt the brunt of it. Peer review takes on a whole new meaning when you open it up to everyone with an internet connection.

Re:Wiki did not blow away Britannica (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18002452)

> Peer review takes on a whole new meaning when you open it up to everyone with an internet
> connection.

So does quality. Is Dave Grohl still dead?

Re:Wiki did not blow away Britannica (2, Interesting)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001308)

Additionally, the encyclopaedia Britannica is predominantly a printed encyclopaedia, whereas Wikipedia is entirely a digital / online encyclopaedia.

The two are in less competition than many people realise. Sure wikipedia probably killed off Britannica's on-line subscription revenue dreams but - although I do not know their subscription figures - judging on subscription figures for similar print media which has transferred to the web (newspapers, dictionaries, other encyclopaedias) I bet it was extremely low anyway.

Encyclopaedia Britannica's printed edition is still doing pretty well. Personally I think it is far better than Wikipedia for times when I am studying through books at my desk, but Wikipedia is better for times I want to quickly lookup something whilst using the internet.

I bet that is the way it will stay for quite some time, the printed and online worlds suit quite different situations, ...hence the slow uptake of e-books.

Re:Wiki did not blow away Britannica (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18002978)

Most people, especially the younger generation, will probably see little value in a printed volume-based encyclopedia, apart from making a bookshelf look pretty.

I see absolutely no value whatsoever in one.

Re:Wiki did not blow away Britannica (1)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18005130)

I think the point of my post was that there is value in printed material.

I like to think of myself as a member of the "younger generation", but when I'm studying or at the university library printed encyclopaedias are much more useful.

If you are not currently at a computer then to view wikipedia you must first boot it up and type in / click on a bookmark to wikipedia then look up the article. On most computers this takes anywhere in the range 2 - 5 minutes. There is no way it would take that long to pull out the volume from a bookcase and flick to the right page, thats more like a 30 second operation.

Additionally, about many academic subjects (unlike TV series) Britannica contains a lot more useful information that lecturers are likely to be impressed by.

If on the other hand I want to look up some information on the band I'm currently playing on my computer I'll use Wikipedia every time, but unfortunately I don't get to spend all day doing this.

Re:Wiki did not blow away Britannica (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18002342)

Do not question the wisdom of Jimmy Wales! Wikipedia blew away all encyclopedias, and that is the end of the story! It is the ultimate in reference works, it is accurate, it is infallible, it is omnipresent, and if it weren't for a patent dispute with Microsoft, it would be omniscient as well!

Gentleman's? (3, Interesting)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999942)

The real question is, what happens when they enter the market for , ahem, Gentlemen's Magazines? Since they are all read for the articles anyway...

Re:Gentleman's? (1)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 7 years ago | (#18004696)

J. Paul Getty's autobiographical How To Be Rich was originally published serially in Playboy. So, there is some truth to the whole "read for the articles" bit. Of course, I'm sure the nude women don't hurt its distribution at all.

great idea! (2, Funny)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999948)

Each open-source magazine hands total editorial control to the readers, allowing them to read, write, edit, and dictate the editorial feel for each topic.
What a fantastic idea. I'm looking forward to seeing the evolution of an article through time:

Original:
A recent study further supports the theory of Darwinian Evolution [...]

Edit 1:
A recent study further contradicts the theory of Darwinian Evolution [...]

Edit 2:
A recent study further supports (sod off creationists) the theory of Darwinian Evolution [...]

Edit 3:
A recent study further contradicts (f*ck U & UR ape mother, evolutionist!!) the theory of Darwinian Evolution [...]

Edit 4:
A recent study further -CHEAP VIAGRA, call 0800 LURV ACTION now!!!!- the theory of Darwinian Evolution [...]

People can have very strong feelings when it comes to opinions and allowing them to edit opinion pieces is just asking for a flamefest.

Re:great idea! (1)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000136)

while it would really be fun watching the evolutionary process of such an article in real-time, i do doubt that this will in any way work out.

a really excellent wikipedia-article normally evolves over a period of time, many sources mixing up until there is a "stable product", which contains all (nearly all, whatever) of the relevant information.

if this approach is projected onto a news article, it is outdated before all things relevant are said, cleared up, discussed, re-edited and rere-edited. yesterday's news...

Moo (2, Funny)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17999950)

Wiki magazines?

First edit: And the man of the year award goes to: Bill Clinton
Second edit: And the woman of the year award goes to: Hillary Clinton
Third Edit: And the woman of the year award goes to: Boy George
Fourth Edit: And the woman of the year award goes to: George Dubya
Fifth Edit: And the person of the year award goes to: George Dubya
Sixth Edit: And the person of the year award goes to: Bill Clinton
Moderator Message: Stop playing with it, we're locking it down for 48 hours.

Time Edit: (pushes clock ahead two days)

Seventh Edit: And the person of the millenium award goes to: Bill Clinton

Moderator Message: Stop playing with it, we're locking it down for 9999999 hours.

Eight Edit: Moderator Message: Stop playing with it, we're locking it down for 0 hours.
Ninth Edit: And the person of the millenium award goes to: Me

Looking at the Brittanica controversy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17999962)

I thought it was Brittanica that blew the Wikki away. It's hard for amateurs to beat experts in the field..

Wikipedia - a good place to start your researches - but a rotten place to finish them!

Re:Looking at the Brittanica controversy.... (1, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001078)

Wikipedia - a good place to start your researches - but a rotten place to finish them!
More generally, your sentence =~ s/Wikipedia/Encyclopedias/;

The real f*cking status quo - that anyone can edit (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000016)

In one way or another, we'll have a majority. A screaming-weemie heebie-jeebie "thou shalt hear me above all others", or another <nowiki>yo. I'm part o' consensus, hear me out if I"m the majority</nowiki> solution.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18000020)

Repulsive pink and cyan design for the entertainment one and the top headline is "Paris Hilton buys Candy Panties". Obviously they're targeting the retards that gawp at content-less glossy magazines stuffed with candid shots of celebrities out shopping. Apparently there just aren't enough of these vapid magizines or web sites out there already. More like vacuous.wikia.com than entertainment.

Give us nude-girlfriends.wikia.com already.

Well considering teh policies of.... (1, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000114)

...wikipedia to only allow hearsay, it only seems fitting that if there were to be a magizine based on teh same that it would be one of politics, entertainment or and in summary... gossip.

The difference here is that the policies of wikipedia are such that responsibility is taken off wikipedia, unlike other publications and encyclopedias.

Having no responsibility that could see a court room should say a lot about the trustworthyness of it.

So I'm Sitting Here Smoking My Crack Pipe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18000192)

...when the phone suddenly rings. Dammit! And I was getting a good buzz on too. I pick up the phone. It's Jimmy Whales. He tells me there's some kind of problem with the servers because he's having a dickens of a time getting to the main Wikipedia page for the English portion. I try to ssh into the cluster master but can't reach it. So then I connect to the Conserver box and try to hit the console port on the cluster master. Jack shit is what I get, so I stash my pipe in the drawer, lock my Gnome desktop and head down to the server room to see what the hell is going on.

I get down the hall and I smell something that smells suspiciously like smoke. Just at that moment, security guard #1 flies down the hall past me yelling something about a terrorist attack. Screw him. Everyone knows that the only terrorists that have attacked U.S. soil are either dead, sitting in the Whitehouse or working as private contractors in Iraq and Iran. I keep going. Suddenly I'm having a lot of trouble breathing because of all this stringy gray stuff billowing all over the place.

I finally get to the server room only to find that I can't open the doors with my ID card because the swipe fixture is, well... gone. Fucking hell. Someone's going to have to fix that and it's probably going to take months. I decide to check the door handles just to see if the doors might still open anyway. WTF? The door handles aren't there either. The doors are there, but they look a little weird. Kind of folded over and dented all to hell with the windows missing. Just what in the hell is going down here? Well I gotta get to that server...

So I climb through the hole in the door. Man it's freakin' hot in here. Make a mental note to call the HVAC engineer and have the temp turned down to sub-tropical. Man it's REALLY hot in here. I can't see a damn thing either. But it's not like anyone's turned the lights out. There's this odd orangy red glow and all this stringy grey stuff all over the place that is making it VERY hard to get any work done. Where in the hell is the console server??? I guess I'm going to have to feel my way around. Man it's REALLY REALLY hot in here. OK. I can't take this shit, I'm going to go down to the HVAC engineer and ream him a new one.

I jump out of the hole in the door and make my way back to the hall...

Jimbo looses ten points of cool. (1)

Torstein Haldorsen (905795) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000336)

I dunno if this will succeed or not. Not that it matters.

To go from creating Wikipedia (Like, the coolest, most successfull, important and complete repository of geek/human knowledge ever), to a project sporting "Paris Hilton buys Candy Panties" on the front page.. It's a step or ten down on the ladder of saintlyness. If Jimbo had his priorities straight, he would be out saving the planet with Wikimedia projects, not providing lewd and shallow entertainment.

But hey, considering his background at Bomis [wikipedia.org] , provider of lewd and shallow entertainment, maybe he just came full circle. =)

announced before the basic sites were completed (1)

Yonder Way (603108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000374)

So I was very interested in seeing what the WikiLocal [wikia.com] site was like and checked it out. The main portal page is there, but try clicking the links on the page. It's pretty much a 404 farm right now. The site should have been tested before it was announced for general use. How many people now will just walk away from it instead of contributing right away? And how long before they get around to checking it out again? This site could have had a strong pop from day 1 if it were actually ready to start handling visitors and contributors.

Funniest opening sentance evah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18000476)

Funniest opening sentance evah!

Great Idea (1)

bostons1337 (1025584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000578)

Lets face it the web has grown more than anyone could have ever predicted and it continues to grow at an amazing rate. It will eventually do away with everything from cds to books to magazines to movies, etc. Wiki is already an internationally known site. I don't know a single person who doesn't know about it. They'll use this popularity to help this new magazine idea take off and you know plenty of people will contribute to it.

Answer: no (0)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000820)

Wikis are good for exactly one thing: encyclopedias. The less the wiki is like an encyclopedia, he less useful it is.

The only thing "new" is that this is a Wiki.... (2, Insightful)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000824)


And despite the Wiki crowd's insistence to the opposite, Wiki's aren't user friendly.
They have a complex rule-set for editing, discussion and notation.

Wikia fails the first test of mass marketing technological solutions: Keep it simple.

Blogs may be less sophisticated on the back-end, but here's a newsflash: people who
read gossip blogs could give a crap.

Politics.Wikia already too partisan (3, Informative)

BunnyClaws (753889) | more than 7 years ago | (#18000882)

In the Politics magazine they have a listing for Democrat and Republican sections that appear to be pretty active. The Libertarian section is empty. On the main page most of the topics seem to be arguments between Democrats and Republicans. There is an article on Bill Redpath [wikia.com] but there are no comments. It didn't take long for this place to just turn into another partisan battle ground between Dems and Reps.

I can't wait to read the threads at this place as the elections get nearer. They should have some really insightful information by then.

Usability (3, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001064)

Wikipedia.org is a pretty well made site. It works fine in multiple browsers and is simple enough that most people understand it the first time they use it. I went and tried out the local news "wiki magazine" (called local.wikia.com) and was very disappointed. It was not at all intuitive or easy to find/contribute by comparison. It is sorted into sub categories, but the ability to add or edit articles was a distinct, different part of the UI. You click on an option in the "Share" section to add an article, instead of just going to the right section once you've specified a locality. Worse yet, using Safari, it automatically forwards you past the page where you specify the tile for the article using some javascript and it hangs the Safari browser when you actually submit a title.

Between the usability nightmare and the lack of cross-platform testing, it is clear these people are either not serious or are incompetent. I'll stick with one of the many pre-existing local news wikis, thanks. The name "Jimmy Wales" was the only reason I looked at this site. Congratulations, Mr. Wales, you've just tarnished your reputation by associating it with this garbage.

Oh yeah? (2, Funny)

crazyvas (853396) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001228)

I'll be looking out for when Wiki-Playboy starts up along with its "open-source" models (wink, wink).

Digg (1)

okinawa_hdr (1062664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001310)

There format looks like an open model of Digg.

Usenet (1)

billy8988 (1049032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18001750)

How will it be different from usenet?

Oh dear (0, Troll)

Dr. Kinbote (171352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18003164)

Wikipedia "blew away" "Encyclopedia Brittanica"? Not only
do you not know what you're talking about, you don't know
how to spell it. What an utterly asinine statement.

A couple of problems with that first part (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18003416)

Wikipedia blew away Encyclopedia Britannica[ citation needed [wikipedia.org] ]

Fixed.

Rob

FPO AP (1)

okinawa_hdr (1062664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18004136)

They really should consider allowing an FPO AP category for Americans abroad to post their news. I could see this being somewhat revolutionary if used right.

Keeping Wikia Well Balanced... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18005164)

May be the biggest problem. We all remember what happened with Orkut, right?

For all we know, Wikia may very well degenerate into an open-for-all political blogmess. I'm also betting moderator clampdowns won't go over so well in a forum where the heightened prevalence of original content will make such gestures smack of censorship.

Isn't Jimbo Wales great? (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 7 years ago | (#18005330)

I mean who else would let you write content for nothing, while he selflessly collects the revenue from the Adsense? I'm sure plenty of sucke...willing writers would love to selflessly give their time to creating free content for Jimbo.

It's the Wikipedia model and its going to change the world!

PS.

He had only one criticism, he said, to make of Mr. Pilkington's excellent and neighbourly speech. Mr. Pilkington had referred throughout to "Animal Farm." He could not of course know-for he, Napoleon, was only now for the first time announcing it-that the name "Animal Farm" had been abolished. Henceforward the farm was to be known as "The Manor Farm"-which, he believed, was its correct and original name.

"Gentlemen," concluded Napoleon, "I will give you the same toast as before, but in a different form. Fill your glasses to the brim. Gentlemen, here is my toast: To the prosperity of The Manor Farm! "

There was the same hearty cheering as before, and the mugs were emptied to the dregs. But as the animals outside gazed at the scene, it seemed to them that some strange thing was happening. What was it that had altered in the faces of the pigs? Clover's old dim eyes flitted from one face to another. Some of them had five chins, some had four, some had three. But what was it that seemed to be melting and changing? Then, the applause having come to an end, the company took up their cards and continued the game that had been interrupted, and the animals crept silently away.

But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

WikiPolitics is terrible! (1)

KNicolson (147698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18005602)

The top stories were 911 conspiracies, Al Gore is an idiot, and cross-posted blog posts.

Entertainment was just as dull, with most of the stoeies being "Why I hate <insert TV show name>".

About the only interesting thing I could find to do there was to deliberately vote for the more useless stories (go the Creationism Museum!) just to make the place look even more crap than it is now.

Oh, and it's got a huge minimum page width of about 1000 pixels or so, which is a major pain for me as I run my browser in a portrait window.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>