An old translated article
June 16, 2008
Here is an old article from 2006 from the American online magazine Wired
http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670
I know you're angry with English, so here is an automatically translated version quickly edited (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 that interests them, and without even registering, start a debate. In fact, Wikipedia is the largest and most complete collection of debates and bickering in human history, including vendettas on subjects ranging from Suleiman the Magnificent to Dan the Automator [Translator's note: a 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 dispute engine 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 pile of meaningless words produced by ignorant lemurians 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 both points of view existed 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:
Sockpuppet:
Someone who disagrees with him.
Not suitable:
A subject that doesn't interest him.
Vandalism:
An edit he did not make.
Neutral point of view:
His point of view.
Consensus:
A mythical state of utopian human evolution. Many followers of 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 haven't been banned, or the article you contribute to hasn't been locked, or there isn't a group of people waiting to delete something you write, or you don't make the same edit more than three times in a day, or the subject of your article hasn't decided to send his lawyers after Wikipedia, or you haven't annoyed Jimbo Wales [Translator's note: founder of Wikipedia] beyond reason. It's all a matter of freedom.
But why should I contribute to an article? I'm not an expert.
That's perfectly fine. Wikipedia's philosophy 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 town in Idaho; need to find a French equivalent for a country bumpkin] who heard somewhere that it was about skeletons wielding swords. And they immediately get angry when asked to debate with Randy until the theory of sword-wielding skeletons can be incorporated into the article.
What's this story about a Wikipedia article on someone who shot Kennedy?
It was actually a misunderstanding. The person accused of assassinating Kennedy didn't 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 effectively accusing himself of assassinating Kennedy. Wikipedia administrators hope that the courts will accept this as a confession and convict him for murder. At that point, the article will be true, proving that the system works.
[Translator's note: this is a reference to the case of
Seigenthaler
]
An article about me is at risk of being deleted! What can I do to prevent that?
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.
Back