Untitled Document
An old translated article
June 16, 2008
**** **** **** ** **** ** **** - ** - ** - ** - ** - **
Here is an old 2006 article from the American online magazine Wired http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 I know you're not fond of English, so here is a quick, manually revised automatic translation (I have other things to do...). The last question seems to be for you.
What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is a new paradigm of human discourse. It is a place where anyone with a browser can go, choose a topic of interest, and begin a debate without even registering. In fact, Wikipedia is the largest and most complete collection of debates and bickering in human history, including vendettas on topics ranging from Suleiman the Magnificent to Dan the Automator [Translator's note: hip-hop producer].
As a side effect of being the perfect space for disputes, it is also a pretty good place to find information on all the characters from Battlestar Galactica.
Why do people talk so much about Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is such a powerful engine of dispute that it generates other debates on any free forum by itself.
Yes, but what is there to debate?
Well, Wikipedia exists in a quantum state of meaning.
It is simultaneously an undeniable collection of information and a heap of meaningless words produced by uneducated lemurs with political agendas. There is no intermediate state between these two.
You can verify this yourself by expressing a reasonable opinion about it on any forum. No matter what words you use, they will be interpreted by readers as support for one of these two points of view [Translator's note: it would have been both funnier and more accurate to consider that the two viewpoints occurred simultaneously]. What should I know if I want to contribute to a set of disputes (or "articles") on Wikipedia?
Here are some common terms used on Wikipedia by administrators:
Faux-nez:
A person who disagrees with him.
Non admissible:
A topic that does not interest him.
Vandalism:
An edit that he did not make.
Neutral point of view:
His point of view.
Consensus:
A mythical state of utopian human evolution. Many disciples of the Wikipedia theology theorize that if consensus is never reached, Wikipedia will spontaneously disappear.
Is it true that anyone can contribute?
Of course, Wikipedia is absolutely open to absolutely anyone who contributes absolutely anything! As long as you have not been banned, or the article you are contributing to has not been locked, or there is not a group of people waiting to delete something you write, or you are not making the same edit more than three times in a day, or the subject of your article has not decided to send his lawyers after Wikipedia, or you have not annoyed Jimbo Wales [Translator's note: founder of Wikipedia] beyond reason. Everything is a matter of freedom.
But why should I contribute to an article? I am not an expert.
That is perfectly fine. The philosophy of Wikipedia can be summarized as follows: "Experts are crap." For some strange reason, people who spend 40 years learning everything they can, say, about the Peloponnesian War, and thus advance human knowledge, lose their minds when their contributions are completely changed by Randy from Boise [Translator's note: a city in Idaho. One should find a French equivalent for a country bumpkin] who heard somewhere that it was about skeletons wielding swords. And they become immediately angry when asked to debate with Randy until the theory of sword-wielding skeletons can be incorporated into the article.
What is this story about a Wikipedia article about someone who shot Kennedy?
It was really a misunderstanding. The person accused of assassinating Kennedy did not realize it was his responsibility to monitor his own Wikipedia entry day and night and correct errors. By allowing his entry to contain these defamatory statements, he was incriminating himself for assassinating Kennedy. Wikipedia administrators hope that courts will accept this as a confession and convict him for murder. At that point, the article will be true, proving the system works.
[Translator's note: this is a reference to the case] An article about me is at risk of being deleted! What can I do to prevent this?
Well, you can try to build a solid dossier with documented evidence outside of Wikipedia to gather people around your point of view, but honestly, the best thing you can do is find a role in Battlestar Galactica.