The Truth According To Wikipedia



Uploaded by: VPROinternational
Video Description:
The Truth according to Wikipedia
More info on http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/39405191/ (Dutch)
Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online "encyclopedia of the people" has been topping the lists of the world's most popular websites. But do we really know what we're using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. Is it a revolution, or pure hype?
Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. The online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to and revise is now even bigger than the illustrious Encyclopedia Britannica.
Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do "the people" really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all?
In this film, "Wikipedians," the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia's ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics.
Wiki's Truth introduces us to the main players in the debate: Jimmy Wales (founder and head Wikipedian), Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head of Wiki spin-off Citizendium), Andrew Keen (author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy), Phoebe Ayers (a Wikipedian in California), Ndesanjo Macha (Swahili Wikipedia, digital activist), Tim O'Reilly (CEO of O'Reilly Media, the "inventor" of Web 2.0), Charles Leadbeater (philosopher and author of We Think, about crowdsourcing), and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica). Opening is a video by Chris Pirillo.
The questions surrounding Wikipedia lead to a bigger discussion of Web 2.0, a phenomenon in which the user determines the content. Examples include YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia. These sites would appear to provide new freedom and opportunities for undiscovered talent and unheard voices, but just where does the boundary lie between expert and amateur? Who will survive according to the laws of this new "digital Darwinism"? Are equality and truth really reconcilable ideals? And most importantly, has the Internet brought us wisdom and truth, or is it high time for a cultural counterrevolution?
Broadcast date: April 7, 2008
Direction: IJsbrand van Veelen
Interviews: IJsbrand van Veelen / Marijntje Denters / Martijn Kieft
Research: William de Bruijn / Marijntje Denters
Production: Judith van den Berg
Commissioning editors: Jos de Putter / Doke Romeijn


Tags for this video: 2.0 amateur cult encyclopedia expert internet keen knowledge leadbeater macha o'reilly sanger truth wales web wikipedia

Find more videos in the "Tech" category
See more videos uploaded by VPROinternational

Related Videos
Alex Jones 9-4-07 1of13(Work At Home) get paid to surf program *WARNING!Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up
alex-jones-9407-1of13.htmlalex-jones-9407-1of13.htmlalex-jones-9407-1of13.html
You Can't Handle The Truth About My Life- MKUltra: TOP SECRET - 1of2Naruto The Movie 2 OST - Truth
alex-jones-9407-1of13.htmlalex-jones-9407-1of13.htmlalex-jones-9407-1of13.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
im not a fan of you ... ( 2 weeks ago by dannylberry2)
im not a fan of you VPRO
the truth according ... ( 2 weeks ago by trainerrock)
the truth according to wikipedia where information can be edited rather than challenged
For real. I've even ... ( 2 weeks ago by NeroMaddox)
For real. I've even seen things removed for the most arbitrary and stupid reasons too.
This guy they are ... ( 1 week ago by davidfuchs)
This guy they are interviewing, Andrew Keen, has issues. While he brings up good points about what is the nature of truth (though that is a topic debated long before web 2.0), he seems hung up on the "libertarian" aspect, which I think any wikipedia knows is untrue. Wikipedia is a community, often violently conflicted, but it is the essence of teamwork towards a common goal. The guy should stop being afraid of individualism and realize that Wikipedia is hardly Rand's paradise.
I think the two ... ( 1 week ago by darris321)
I think the two have no choice but to co-exist. Wikipedia is an unprofessional arena of knowledge. It's good for learning basically anything you want. However, when you have to write a term paper you cannot cite an encyclopedia as a source, so I believe it will never be accepted as academic. As long as academic ethics are there Wikipedia will pose no threat to our collective knowledge, but instead benefit from it.
Boycott Wikipedia - ... ( 1 week ago by peroptime)
Boycott Wikipedia - Read a Book
Stop the Stupidity
good objective ... ( 1 week ago by D119heavy)
good objective video, surprising to see so many conflicting view points covered in the same video
This guy is full of ... ( 6 days ago by Last0neStand1ng)
This guy is full of himself.
wikipedia is ecited ... ( 6 days ago by dinidanewmagicman)
wikipedia is ecited by the owners every week or so tho s oits not likely that youl find mistakes
how the heck did u ... ( 5 days ago by melontine)
how the heck did u upload a 48min video? :S i thort u couldnt go past 11 mins? :S
anyone can edit ... ( 5 days ago by 6rangers6)
anyone can edit wiki..
its all pretty much lies..
Yea, but Wiki can ... ( 5 days ago by phahtrox)
Yea, but Wiki can change them back.
What are "library" ... ( 4 days ago by monehget)
What are "library" again?
wikipedia in ... ( 4 days ago by Scotty678966)
wikipedia in reality is the peoples encilopieda
it's interesting to ... ( 4 days ago by picknickerjoe)
it's interesting to note that most people supporting wikipedia in this comment section cannot use proper grammar.
i think you need to ... ( 4 days ago by RichIsArrogant)
i think you need to be some kind of paying member,
How the fuck do you ... ( 3 days ago by 69rd96)
How the fuck do you get a 48 minute clip on YouTube?
very informative ( 3 days ago by vibeveteran)
very informative
Okay, I think I ... ( 2 days ago by jitterstlongpaw)
Okay, I think I understand what this is getting at. Although there is a lot of information on wikipidia yes! but its information that should only be used as a stepping stone to get the information. To use wiki as a main base of information would cause inaccuracy making research a must if your ever going to sort out the truth of of what your reading.
i was wondering the ... ( 2 days ago by TheRealDj2quick)
i was wondering the same thing.
i think wikipedia is a wonderful thing. this guys argument, that it undermines what we stand for. if you believe that then the answer is simply to not contribute. just by doing that you are supporting your belief.
12 child of 15 from ... ( 1 day ago by OniAmiTheResurected)
12 child of 15 from New Brunswick
lol, it happens all the time :p
ok, let's ask prof. ... ( 1 day ago by MachoBMan)
ok, let's ask prof. Britannica if he likes Wikipedia. how about the fascist's take on individuality. They miss the point. Info in wiki can be changed, but it can be changed back if unsubstantiated. There are also icons showing when something is supported. Theres the discussion page. etc. Even the Britannica guy said that his book has incorrect information in it and comes about at an extremely slow pace. What denotes authority? If you know something and can back it up, post. You have authority.
To picknickerjoe: ... ( 1 day ago by KittyStarlight)
To picknickerjoe: Or spelling. ^_~
I like the idea of using Wikipedia as just a brief little "stepping stone" or stopping place (and checking whatever one finds there against other info from other sources...*especially* before quoting it, stating it as fact, etc.! ^_~).
(Of course, sometimes Wikipedia *does* tend to be the easiest/simplest thing to find...so, look a little harder, then. ^_~)
^_^
i couldn't agree ... ( 5 hours ago by TheRealDj2quick)
i couldn't agree with you more machobman! both objecting arguments are extremely flawed. the point IS that you can change it. and another point made by ndesanjo: if something is changed that is INcorrect, then it takes less than a minute for it to be corrected. that is better to me than any encyclopedia which like you said takes forever to compile, like he said, sometimes years. how is that useful at all in todays age of technology and demand for instant gratification? quite frankly it isnt...



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code