Wikipedia Academy, Lund

i-31be7df34f2079c0f61e06f975d333df-DSCN8568lores.jpg

I’m at the first Swedish Wikipedia Academy conference in Lund. Yesterday I did a talk on inclusionism vs. deletionism (vs. mergism) on the online encyclopedia (text available on-line in Swedish). Above is my audience who asked a lot of questions and were nice & friendly. Most participants are not themselves Wikipedians, they’re largely librarians and teachers. I’ve chatted with a lot of people, notably Mathias Klang and Lennart Guldbrandsson and Lars Aronsson, and I look forward to future collaborations.

[More blog entries about , ; , .]

Comments

  1. #1 Mikael Hiort af Ornäs
    November 13, 2008

    Good to see the large interest for learning more about the Wikipedia tool from the educational system. I must admit that I thought the participants would mainly be university students and the odd scientist, like you :)

  2. #2 Martin R
    November 13, 2008

    We had presentations by one guy who had fooled his law students by writing a hoax entry about something and then assigning the kids the task of writing about this very thing. They fell for it. (-;

    And two guys who let their students (islamology and astronomy) write Wikipedia entries as a kind of exam.

  3. #3 Poptech
    November 15, 2008

    Maybe you could give a conference on why Wikipedia is a joke:

    The Anti Wikipedia Resource

  4. #4 Lennart Guldbrandsson
    November 16, 2008

    The list Poptech linked to was interesting and I am sure has lots of completely true material, but it’s not altogether trustworthy. Just a quick read-thru revealed links to a blog which tried to claim that Erik Möller, the vice ED of the Wikimedia Foundation, was a pedophile by twisting his words and citing him out of context. Especially in that area it is very easy to get misquoted, but the blog goes out of its way to try to pin something bad to Möller. I get that the writer doesn’t like Wikipedia, but this is Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).

  5. #5 LA2
    November 17, 2008
  6. #6 Martin R
    November 17, 2008

    Haha, Lars, well done!

  7. #7 Poptech
    November 19, 2008

    Right it is not trust worthy because these sources are obviously bogus where Wikipedia is completely accurate!

    BBC
    CBS News
    CNET
    Financial Post
    Information Week
    Los Angeles Times
    The Daily Telegraph
    The Guardian
    The New York Times
    The Times
    The Washington Post
    USA Today
    Wired
    Reuters
    ect…

    LMAO!

  8. #8 Lennart Guldbrandsson
    December 12, 2008

    Was that what I wrote? That Wikipedia is completely true in every aspect? No, I wrote that “The list Poptech linked to was interesting and I am sure has lots of completely true material, but it’s not altogether trustworthy.” And I gave one example which was untrue. I could of course give lots of examples where Wikipedia fails. But that is not the point here. What I really *was* saying was that Wikipedia is not nescessarily as bad as a site called the Anti Wikipedia Resource paints it out to be. Just like you wouldn’t go to a right wing party to hear the objective view on the left wing party, and vice versa. You go to someone who is neutral.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.