Charlie Rose

mjw812  11/22/2010 03:48 PM Report

I've always found the expectation of "perfection" to be an absurd one for Wikipedia (or any resource for that matter). Surely a printed encyclopedia is not more accurate; furthermore, a top-down model similar to Encarta cannot function as a viable resource in our culture of hyper-awareness.

Wales is an important figure in the history of the internet and, as Wales humbly suggests, the future will look positively on Wikipedia.

winter  11/21/2010 01:13 PM Report

Wikipedia is no less than an American treasure. Kudos to its conceivors for making the possibility of bringing America back from the brink of complete illiteracy possible. It pretty much is the antithesis of most television these days. Shows that bring us the latest in what some nest of idiot twenty-somethings, who've been provided a house so that other idiots can watch them "interact" and shows that bring into the American home what every third and worse rate star is up to borders on treason. That might just have been what Kruschev was thinking about when he said, "we will destroy you from within!" That and these televangelists who've taken over way too much of my cable offerings pie are just giving Freedom a bad name.

ShalomFreedman  11/21/2010 02:54 AM Report

A lot of important questions concerning 'Wikipedia' were not raised in this inteview. One relates to the whole question of political bias. Another relates to the control of content regarding controversial issues. How exactly do 'Wikipedia' editors over- rule certain writers? And who is the final judge on certain matters.

I will relate one experience of my own. I have done a bit of editing for 'Wikipedia'. I have corrected small factual errors on certain entries. But I also have attempted to correct more substantial errors, and come up again editors who were to put it mildly, not sympathetic. One such confrontation occurred when I tried to correct an entry on the Iranian President Ahmadinejad. The Wikipedia entry seemed to suggest that Ahmadinejad's hostility to the U.S. was really a hostility to the Bush Administration only. This has of course been proven ridiculous. But my correction was disallowed and I received an insulting reply for making it.This raises the question of my mind about whether or not content can be created and manipulated by certain non- democratic groups to present a false picture of themselves.

JoJoDog  11/19/2010 11:33 PM Report

JIMMY WALES: "In the very early days when WikiLeaks first announced the 'Wikipedia of secrets' we didn’t know what was going. And we said "don’t use the name Wikipedia" and we transferred the domains to him [Julian Assange], but the technical transfer hasn’t been completed, and it’s complicated and boring."

Comment: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikileaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia. Whenever Wales says something is "complicated and boring" this means he'd rather that you don't look too closely at it. His comments above make it sound like Wikileaks domains were (and are) hosted on Wikia's servers by some accident. In fact, Wikia (Wales' for-profit company, not to be confused with Wikipedia or the nonprofit foundation that runs Wikipedia) registered "WikiLeaks.us" and a number of other WikiLeaks domains that might have been used for profit/business purposes. The only one they didn't register was Wikileaks.org, which is used by Assange and WikiLeaks, the organization in bad odor with the U.S. goverment.

When Wales says he has "mixed feelings" about WikiLeaks he doesn't tell you that his own CEO, Michael Davis, registered many WikiLeaks domains. They have since tried to get them to be hosted on Assange's servers, but Assange apparently isn't interested in the deal. These aren't proper names for a non-profit, which Wikileaks.org is. And they're a hot potato, after Wikileaks.org and Assange leaked the Iraq papers. So Jimbo's "mixed feelings" are perhaps a mixture of old greed and new fear about the wikileaks business domain names, but that doesn't mean this was all some kind of mistake. Everybody knew exactly what they were doing.

thekohser  11/19/2010 03:15 PM Report

It is very sad to see Jimmy Wales and the leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) abusing Wikipedia as a financial confidence game. Auditing firm KPMG reviewed the WMF and determined that it takes about $2.5 million annually to run Wikipedia and related projects (servers, bandwidth, programming personnel). Why, then, is the WMF asking for $20 million this year, after collecting $11 million last year?

The organization gets ONE STAR (out of four) from Charity Navigator, in terms of organizational efficiency, because the WMF is only spending 41 cents of every revenue dollar on program services that support the charitable mission.

Why is this shell game a tax-exempt charity? In 2009, they paid rental monies (many thousands of dollars) to Jimmy Wales' private, for-profit corporation -- a deal that was wired in BEFORE they even sought competitive bids to make it look clean. In 2010, the WMF ran a huge research study of past donors, but instead of putting the project to competitive bid, guess who won the work? A tiny firm in Oklahoma that was the previous employer of the WMF staff member who coordinated the project!

I think people are foolish to listen to this man who is milking a one-star charity as a means of putting money in the bank.

anne4444  11/18/2010 04:18 PM Report

Wow… I just noticed that Charlie’s picture on wikipedia has been updated. This picture looks better than last one.

JohnGelles  11/18/2010 04:03 PM Report

I first started using Wikipedia about 9 years ago--before nine-eleven and before Lehman proved free trade capitalism is not able to self-correct as fast as makes good sense for us to leave it alone.

I was using it to prove we needed inflation protected savings, debt-free tax-free money, and full employment guaranteed by fiat money systems that could slay the dragon of debt.

Wikipedia for many years before the current fiscal and monetary crises would have none of my notions. They would recognize issues only where they carried sourcing footnotes. If your were just thinking in advance of necessary reforms, you were told to use a soapbox not an encyclopedia.

I thought they stunk on ice.

Now they have awakened. They still want lots of sources--but they carry advanced thought. I use them all the time and am thankful for their work.

I believe we need a Wiki-money-issues to specialize in fiat money systems and computerized economic strategies dedicated to economic democracy that will pay for as much undone necessary work with the products of automation and such work combined.

Such a Wiki would have no sources at all. Its usefulness would be self-evident and it would remain ahead of the curve forever.

It would be a part of Singularity University and its array of supporters and have nothing in common with Wikipedia except its public service morality.

The current call for donations by Wikipedia does not appeal to me. Better design of content would invite very subdued advertising of products related to content that would raise a bundle and allow more self-criticism by Wikipedia until its perfection shone like the gem it is destined to be.

Google, Wikipedia and Amazon are my idea of really good--with none being perfect yet. I need to read social networks for dummies before i will ever appreciate any.

Charlie Rose Show is interesting. His TV show is consistently good. His overall impact is so scattered I hesitate to be content with where it is.

When we consider that America gave birth to all these efforts as it was going down the toilet "middle class economic security-wise" and "not a banana oligarchy-wise" -- we have a right to flunk them all. They are the cream of the GOOD internet -- just as porn is its disgrace. Charlie Rose ought to set up a volunteer team from these GOOD GUYS to improve his own website until it begins to serve a long term purpose of making best use of the NEWS.

REMant  11/18/2010 02:04 PM Report

Wikipedia is the 4th or 5th most visited website, in a league with Google, Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo and Live. The problems are what you'd expect in a work of many hands. But it is clearly getting better all the time and you can see that more professionals are getting involved.

It occurred to me this morning when discovering another such volunteer website that the Internet, UseNet, etc, makes it possible for knowledgeable ppl, perhaps retired, or just able to find some spare time, to share their experience, something not as prevalent in a pre-Web world with a much more rigid division of labor. Of course, there is a lot of dross and copycatting just to derive ad revenue (in many cases of material directly lifted without acknowledgment), but gems like Wikipedia make it all worthwhile. I have contributed a little to the site myself, and some others. I recently filled in the soundtrack for a neglected 1940's musical on IMDb.

I think ppl are educators by nature, it's in our genes, and if given the opportunity even the worst of us will take it. The unfortunate thing is that our modern economy discourages it, along with a lot of other community-oriented activities, to our detriment. Learning is best done "on-the-job." Every study has shown that. When it became clear that Americans were losing the skills common in a pre-factory world, trade schools, called "manual or vocational," were set up, tho they were a poor equivalent. Most of that has migrated to vocational and community colleges, rarely talked about, but which are probably of more real importance to our economy than the Ivy League. The Germans still have a rigorous apprenticeship apparatus, which ought to tell you something.

This is, BTW, not only Wikipedia's 10th anniversary, it is also fund drive time, and you'll find a message from Mr Wales at the top of every page now. He is IMHO a prince among men.