Comments on: Wikipedia’s illusion http://stetoscope-blog.com/2008/08/29/wikipedias-illusion/ Listen to the world heart beat Fri, 28 May 2010 23:43:20 +0200 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: stetoscope http://stetoscope-blog.com/2008/08/29/wikipedias-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-89 stetoscope Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:41:33 +0000 http://stetoscope.wordpress.com/?p=213#comment-89 I meant the most common language, but I understand your point just do not know how to solve it... I meant the most common language, but I understand your point just do not know how to solve it…

]]> By: Criticus http://stetoscope-blog.com/2008/08/29/wikipedias-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Criticus Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:02:50 +0000 http://stetoscope.wordpress.com/?p=213#comment-88 "The most international language"... this is not the idea of globalization that I had. I thought that every language could play its role. And that English speakers could, at last (and at least), learn foreign languages... that's just too bad. “The most international language”… this is not the idea of globalization that I had. I thought that every language could play its role. And that English speakers could, at last (and at least), learn foreign languages… that’s just too bad.

]]> By: stetoscope http://stetoscope-blog.com/2008/08/29/wikipedias-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-87 stetoscope Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:19:45 +0000 http://stetoscope.wordpress.com/?p=213#comment-87 Ah! The "ecole des annales" ! You are right. Yes I am french, but I am very interested in writing in the most international language I can speak or write. As you may know, Patrice and I (and a couple of others) are developping an internet project... we cannot ignore english speaking people. BTW Patrice, already has an excellent french blog! Ah! The “ecole des annales” ! You are right.

Yes I am french, but I am very interested in writing in the most international language I can speak or write.

As you may know, Patrice and I (and a couple of others) are developping an internet project… we cannot ignore english speaking people.

BTW Patrice, already has an excellent french blog!

]]> By: Criticus http://stetoscope-blog.com/2008/08/29/wikipedias-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-86 Criticus Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:58:59 +0000 http://stetoscope.wordpress.com/?p=213#comment-86 You're right, provided your little cousin doesn't rewrite an article on the Teutonic Knights ! ;-) But I agree with you about the subjectivity of knowledge. I just think that Web 2.0 didn't invent this idea. The French "Ecole des Annales", stating that "everything is history" (and, thus, knowledge) showed the path... that the Web took, much later. PS : you're welcome. BTW, I'm French, just like you apparently (I see you read Patrice Lamothe's excellent blog, "Cratyle"). So, why don't you use our beautiful language, that the English speakers for whom you write - I guess - love to hear and, for some of them, read ? (otherwise, they wouldn't be so numerous visiting Paris and French regions). You’re right, provided your little cousin doesn’t rewrite an article on the Teutonic Knights ! ;-)

But I agree with you about the subjectivity of knowledge. I just think that Web 2.0 didn’t invent this idea. The French “Ecole des Annales”, stating that “everything is history” (and, thus, knowledge) showed the path… that the Web took, much later.

PS : you’re welcome. BTW, I’m French, just like you apparently (I see you read Patrice Lamothe’s excellent blog, “Cratyle”). So, why don’t you use our beautiful language, that the English speakers for whom you write – I guess – love to hear and, for some of them, read ? (otherwise, they wouldn’t be so numerous visiting Paris and French regions).

]]> By: stetoscope http://stetoscope-blog.com/2008/08/29/wikipedias-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-85 stetoscope Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:08:48 +0000 http://stetoscope.wordpress.com/?p=213#comment-85 Criticus, I agree with you on the fact that debates does exists in wikipedia. But their articles rather reflects the concensus part of a precise knowledge field. Even if debates are mentionned or lives on other pages, that is not the heart of their offer. On your point about the intellectual ability to bring somthing about knowledge, I think everyone has a point about something. My little cousin can bring her Tokyo Hotel knowledge for example... It migh not interest you but certainly it will interest another fan of her age or even her parents. The thing we discover with 2.0 is the subjectivity of knowledge (and the importance of debates). Thanks for the english lesson ;-) Criticus, I agree with you on the fact that debates does exists in wikipedia. But their articles rather reflects the concensus part of a precise knowledge field.
Even if debates are mentionned or lives on other pages, that is not the heart of their offer.
On your point about the intellectual ability to bring somthing about knowledge, I think everyone has a point about something. My little cousin can bring her Tokyo Hotel knowledge for example… It migh not interest you but certainly it will interest another fan of her age or even her parents.
The thing we discover with 2.0 is the subjectivity of knowledge (and the importance of debates).

Thanks for the english lesson ;-)

]]> By: Criticus http://stetoscope-blog.com/2008/08/29/wikipedias-illusion/comment-page-1/#comment-84 Criticus Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:16:46 +0000 http://stetoscope.wordpress.com/?p=213#comment-84 Interesting post. Still, I'm not sure that consensus is really the main aspect of Wikipedia's knowledge building process. On every controversial issue - especially politics and religion -, Wikipedia's holders are forced to block the articles' editing. Thus, debate is still present on Wikipedia. To my mind, the real illusion, when you compare Wikipedia to Diderot's encyclopedia, is to believe that anyone is intellectually able to bring something to knowledge. It's this illusion on which the so-called "Web 2.0" was founded. PS : Wikipedia doesn't "promess", it promises. ;-) Interesting post. Still, I’m not sure that consensus is really the main aspect of Wikipedia’s knowledge building process. On every controversial issue – especially politics and religion -, Wikipedia’s holders are forced to block the articles’ editing.

Thus, debate is still present on Wikipedia. To my mind, the real illusion, when you compare Wikipedia to Diderot’s encyclopedia, is to believe that anyone is intellectually able to bring something to knowledge. It’s this illusion on which the so-called “Web 2.0″ was founded.

PS : Wikipedia doesn’t “promess”, it promises. ;-)

]]>