The Petition to Classify Wikipedia a "World Wonder" 311
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that a global petition drive has started to add Wikipedia to one of UNESCO's world heritage lists joining such historic monuments and natural sites as the Great Barrier Reef, the Great Wall of China, and the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur. 'The basic idea is to recognize that Wikipedia is this amazing global cultural phenomena that has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people,' says Jimmy Wales. 'Too often, people think about us purely in terms of technology, when this is about culture, high tech and learning.' Getting Wikipedia listed will be an uphill battle although a petition drive has already started. It will have to negotiate a complicated approval process and overcome the skeptical regard of Unesco and heritage consultants to be considered for recognition. Susan Williams, the head of external media relations at Unesco in Paris, said a bid by a digital entity like Wikipedia would be unprecedented. 'Anyone can apply,' says Williams, who added that she was not aware of Wikipedia's plans. 'But it may have difficulty fulfilling the criteria.' The problem is that to be included on the World Heritage List alongside the Great Wall of China, Wikipedia must be found 'to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius,' which it's not says Adam Chen. 'We like dorking around on Wikipedia as much as the next person,' writes Chen. 'But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant.'"
Hell no. (Score:2, Interesting)
Wikipedia is not a "World Wonder" any more than the Guinness Book of World Records is a "World Wonder".
They shouldn't dismiss this out of hand. (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, it's Adrian Chen, not Adam Chen.
Second, his remark is completely unfounded. It's not the contributions of the idiot savant contributers that matters; it's the project as a whole. Or were the pyramids just "the fixation of a manual-laboring slave" ? Sometimes a whole can be more than the sum of its parts.
Personally I think an introduction to almost every field of human knowledge that almost anyone can understand is more important than a big, pointy tomb.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:As world's largest collection of ego? (Score:4, Interesting)
As anyone thought of considering the Internet first?
Or has that already been classed as a "world wonder" by UNESCO and I missed it?
Who and how do you recognise stuff like this ... (Score:4, Interesting)
In some respects they are right: the Wikipedia is an amazing phenomena that is both a contribution to and a contribution of modern culture. Yet it isn't the only thing out there that is built upon similar premesises and contributes in similar ways. Most of all, you do you recognise a living part of culture? Let's face it, most UNESCO heritage items seek to preserve the past. Projects like Wikipedia are very much a part of the present.
Genius? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, okay, I understand "to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius", but lets look at that standard applied to the Great Wall of China, as mentioned in the article. It is a great feat of construction for its age, but I don't see a lot of creative genius there -- ultimately it's just a big obstacle to keep people out. Furthermore, it was not a single construction project, but consisted of a number of building projects over something like ten centuries. There is also some question as to how effective it was.
Come to think of it, based on the latter two aspects I just mentioned, Wikipedia compares quite well to the Great Wall of China.
Re:They shouldn't dismiss this out of hand. (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe we should make the Internet as a whole a World Heritage site? One of the primary benefits of the Internet is that it allows almost anyone in the world to create and publish content, for free. Wikipedia and Facebook are but two different sides of this same coin.
I see something that has radically changed human communication and content distribution for the better to be a hugely important part of world heritage. Maybe you're right that Wikipedia on its own shouldn't qualify, but I was a bit taken aback by the derisive tone of most of the comments.
Re:You have *got* to be kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been shown many, many times now that it is, in fact, one of the MOST accurate sources of data.
Re:GWoC (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you actually have any basis to make that claim? More to the point, a contribution is either valid or invalid, and from my experience that doesn't have a strong relation with someone's aura of authority. If someone adds something which is true, valid and correct then you don't need to demand to see their resume to decide if you accept or object their contributions. You simply turn on your brain, think and evaluate the merit of their contribution.
Again, do you have any basis for that claim? I'm a structural engineer and I've created a hefty set of articles on my topic of expertise and contributed to countless more. During this time I've experienced zero cases similar to the one you've described. I've stumbled on stubs which shouldn't be stubs, I've stumbled on articles which were poorly edited and I've even stumbled on a hand full of blatant errors. Yet, I've never had anyone revert my contributions due to petty behaviour you've described.
Yet, what you are trying to attribute to a conspiracy by "leading editors" may as well be the result of you being a dick, and trying to strong-arm objectionable edits based on arrogant premises such as an attitude of "you have zero qualifications or training in the subject when compared to me". In that case, don't try to attribute to a conspiracy the problems that you bring onto yourself due to your lack of basic social skills.
You are bitching about "editors" as if they were some sort of external group, dividing them into a "them" group while you are kept in the "us" group. Yet, if you actually had any experience whatsoever contributing to wikipedia you would know by now that you are an editor, just as I am and countless others. There is no "us Vs them". Anyone can edit, anyone can create articles, anyone can contribute to articles, anyone can change articles. So, please don't try to come up with conspiracies and "us Vs them" excuses to try to justify your lame, baseless point of view.