User talk:Sjforman

A Wikipedia appreciation

Over the last few months I've gradually come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is the most wonderful thing ever. "Thing"... That not-very-descriptive characterization might have to be enough for the moment, because to say exactly what it is poses a challenge. In conversation with the uninitiated I describe it as a collaborative online encyclopedia that everyone can edit, and that certainly captures the essence. But, especially lately, the magnitude of the collective will to share knowledge that it has unleashed, the force of the collaborative impulse, has begun to give it a special character. It has become, and forgive the metaphor because it might not be quite as outlandish as you think, a kind of electronic organism, with its own special kind of consciousness.

We can think about it from numerous perspectives. As a source of knowledge, its sheer usefulness is a marvel. I've read that its pages have become among the most visited on the vast terrain of the internet, and that does not surprise me at all. Most things that I want to know more about can be learned about in the Wikiverse.

Most marvelous of all, though, is the way it tends to turn readers into contributors. Once I began to realize just how much I had begun to rely on it, it was only natural to want to make it better, and that is incredibly easy to do. When I read a book or an article in print, and I see a typo or an awkwardly phrased sentence, I always have the impulse to correct it, but that impulse is stymied by the recalcitrance of the medium. On Wikipedia, I make and publish my corrections and they immediately become available to the entire wired world, a few more drops in the bucket of the collective knowledge. Some might think such corrections insignificant, so, a small example of why it feels worthwhile: style really matters. When I read an awkward, confusing sentence, it's usually the case that the content of the statement, once deciphered, is perfectly good. But the glass through which one perceives it is a little foggy, smudged. So, say, in such a case, I re-read the sentence 5 times until I understand what the author(s) meant to say. If I convert my mental labor into a clearer expression of the underlying idea (something I happen to be very good at, so it's no trouble), I've made a real contribution by saving the rest of the world the effort of deciphering the meaning.

I haven't yet authored an article, and I'm not sure that I will. I think, in the terminology of the community, that makes me a "style elf" or something. I'm perfectly happy to be nothing more. That's the beauty of the enterprise; not only would it be impossible for an individual to take any significant share of credit for the enterprise (with the possible exception of the original conceiver of the Wiki model - who was that anyway?), but no one particularly wants to.

Think for a moment about how effective wiki-society is at harnessing the potential synergy embedded in the human impulse to share knowledge. Within minutes after creating an account, I had received a message from an ad hoc wikipedia welcoming committee member, Ragib. Thanks, Ragib! And because the resource continues to become more and more useful, it will continue to attract more and more active participants. It has a high conversion rate, in other words, and this creates a strong positive feedback mechanism in favor of further improvements and elaborations.

A word about other projects in the wiki family. There are many. I am not as familiar with them as I am with Wikipedia, but I'm sure everything I've written above applies to them as well.

I am not an unalloyed optimist. There is one thing that worries me a great deal. The internet advertising business is growing by leaps and bounds, and Wikipedia, as one of the most visited sites, is a giant golden apple hanging from a low branch of a tree in a public park. There are significant barriers to its exploitation; it is controlled by a nonprofit foundation. The greatest bulwark is the collaborative spirit, which is at the same time the heart of the enterprise and the element most threatened by the specter of the profit motive. It seems safe for now, but we should remain vigilant.

So as not to end on a dark note, I'll add one more thought (inspired by Robert Wright's excellent book Nonzero: civilization itself is collaborative. It rests on the division of labor, and technologies of collaboration have always wrought great changes. So there are good reasons to place a great deeal of trust in the power of collective action. No one can say what the ongoing implications of the Wikiverse will be, but they have already been great, and to me they seem bound to become even greater.

It's an exciting time to be alive.

Sjforman 14:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Sjforman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

--Ragib 17:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helpme

Hi, I haven't yet altered anything in the Wikipedia universe. Before I do, would someone be willing to answer this question for me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sundarbans#Question_from_a_neophyte

Thanks!

I know nothing about the subject, and it looks as though everybody else in the bootcamp channel is dead at the moment. You should probably add the article to your watchlist and wait for a response on the talk page. Please also remember to sign your comments with four tildes. _JD^talk 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

Hey, glad to see your interest! Be sure and sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~, which will expand to a name and date. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Best of luck! ∴ here…♠ 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]