digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Wikipedia won't "shut within 3-4 months"

ballpark.ch — I see that the rumor that wikipedia could “shut within 3-4 months” is all over the blogosphere right now... I had a look at the recording of the chat I had with Florence Devouard on the LIFT stage. Here is a transcript of the discussion, but in a word, Florence made it very clear that Wikipedia would NOT shut down in the next 3 months.

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 12, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

45 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33If Wikipedia ever closes, it will signal the coming of the Second Dark Age...
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25around the world a bunch of high schoolers doing their research papers let out a big collective sigh.
  • emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12wikipedia, in spite of the detest much of academia has for it, is a valuable resource. It would be a shame to lose, although I doubt it's going anywhere.
  • MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I like the idea, but that also brings up the issue with the government deciding what you need to know and not know.
  • mklopez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Sources:
    http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/02/11/wikipedia-not-on-the-verge-of-shutting-down/
    http://scobleizer.com/2007/02/11/wikipedias-quote-from-the-person-on-stage/
  • Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@westoncampbell

    Why would the teacher bother to check? It's not like s/he gets paid more for doing a good job. Hell, it's not like s/he gets paid well in the first place.
  • wdarab, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11no *****.
  • capiCrimm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11They should get gov. funding like PBS. They already do fundraisers every couple of months, it'd just be a formality.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@westerncombell

    there's nothing wrong with that general idea as long as you verify yourself. there's nothing wrong with getting a general idea with wikipedia, then confirming specific facts with other sources before using them.
  • Kavok, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@rm999

    PBS / NPR / BBC = best sources of information, period.

    Corporate interests DO NOT LEAD TO REAL REPORTING.

    News agencies should be in the business to inform, not profit.
  • neszis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The teacher never checked sources anyway which is why the American eduction system is so bad."

    Of course, you've solved it. If only teachers checked sources, the American education system would be fixed.

    Seriously, though, Wikipedia's articles very often have footnotes to their original sources...which you can click and take from as you need, bypassing quoting Wikipedia by merely one click.
  • Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6they live on in our memories and our hearts, and they watch over the tubes from internets heaven
  • synystar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There would be a niche to fill if Wikipedia "shut down". Too much drama if you ask me. The site will survive or there will be an equivalent. My guess is that it will be around for a while yet.
  • mercatfat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@rm999

    Dude. Are you kidding me?

    PBS is seriously one of the most unbiased (or "liberal," depending on your slant) sources for news out there. Same with NPR. Both are government funded.
  • synystar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They'll "live" where they are, or on backups, probably elsewhere. No matter what the situation, and unless they committed a crime, why would anyone delete? Storage is way too cheap. You might not ever see it again though.
  • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9the government should pay for wikipedia. its like PBS. its vital.
  • Kriz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5wikiality truthiness: the number of Wikipedia articles have tripled in the past six months.
  • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't see them EVER putting ads up (they have claimed this). I hope the site never becomes forked - that would suck.
  • AkatsukiNoTobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'm pretty sure that my school's librarians and English teachers are disappointed at Wikipedia not closing down.
  • rcran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was thinking about how strange it would be if everyone's hard work writing that thing was suddenly gone (even though it isn't going to happen)... Everyone would feel like the tambourine player for the brian jones town massacre...
  • izzybomb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@westoncampbell

    So the American education system is bad because teachers might not always monitor the sources kids use? Because the *students* can't be trusted to use sources correctly? I
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11@digitalsol

    It never stopped me. I would just credit the source as being some other place that I never even used. Most of my research papers were done that way and I was never caught. The teacher never checked sources anyway which is why the American eduction system is so bad.
  • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why does academia hate wikipedia so much?

    My current theory is that they cannot abide the ease of research it provides. Those teachers had to suffer through mind numbbing grueling research, so why should not their students?
  • panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@"I see that the rumor that wikipedia could “shut within 3-4 months” is all over the parrotosphere right now..."

    Fixed.
  • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's fine as long as the funding is not dependant upon a bias view. If the funding is provided unconditionally, or on the condition that it is maintained frequently, or something like that, then the content is protected.
  • DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2... I can't tell if this is a serious question.

    The information on any website is stored on hard drives in a web server somewhere. Depending who owns the servers themselves, if the website is shutdown the data will probably be overwritten by other website data (in the case of webhosting companies) or outright deleted. If the company operating the website also owns the servers they run on, they may opt to keep the data in storage for any amount of time they see fit.
  • genericface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg...read the new stories in the morning, see which ones are refuted at night.
  • slearwig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"the government should pay for wikipedia. its like PBS. its vital."

    "They should get gov. funding like PBS. They already do fundraisers every couple of months, it'd just be a formality."

    I agree, and since there also seems to be many articles posted by commercial businesses, Wikipedia should provide free posting for non-commercial articles while charging businesses for posting commercial articles (ads).
    This is the business model used by local "Recycler" publications and I think it could work here.
    The last thing I want to see is a pile of banners and Flash ads on Wikipedia.
  • riplikethat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes. And then thousand other companies, dead people and politicians will magically ask Google to take down the 'offensive' content and magically it will be taken down. Oh I love Google, didn't they do wonders with YouTube already?

    They should buy Digg next, the good guys.. of course, no torrent, porn and stuff discussions offending someone will be up after that, but meh.
  • on9star, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Perhaps it can be another Google product with some text related advertising? LOL
  • jacobmiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I guess you would consider Linus Torvalds a fascist dictator too right? Gimme a break.
  • valona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I see that the rumor that wikipedia could “shut within 3-4 months” is all over the blogosphere right now...

    I sometimes wish that the blogosphere would shut down. What a stupid ***** word. It reeks of some marketing buzzword. And the average blog isn't worth a ***** anyways. Just full of links to other blogs, which link to other blogs. You end up visiting about 20 sites to get a story that is more than likely based on lies, FUD and baseless opinion anyways. Are most of these people so dillusional that they feel people actually give a *****? Why should I care if a fat, bald guy called Clyde thinks OSX is a great OS.

  • TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't know why, but I think that Google would be the good guy and step in if it was actually in danger of closing down. That would be great PR for them.
  • budlight, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I agree with this comment by anglemo on http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/02/wikipedias_cash.php

    "Hosting by a for-profit company would be a much more honest approach. Instead of presenting the project as "undoubtably (sic) good” as Jimbo Wales presents wikipedia, it could be presented as would be any other enterprise -- an effort of its principles to advance their social standing (profit) while advancing their individual ideals (in Wales' case, libertarian objectivism of the Ann Rand variety)."

    Right now wikipedia is tainted by its founder. I can't see myself actively participating in a nonprofit-organization in which the founder thinks he is above the rules he helped to create. see http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=The_Case_of_the_Disappearing_Diff or http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up or http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=The_Magic_Formula . This guy is clearly some kind of sociopath, with all his "I suggest we do this" or "Perhaps you could" remarks that are really nothing short of orders. Wikipedia is just an exploitation of the public's innate support for anything "open" (following in the trend of open source software).
  • SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Phew, I was getting worried that I would have to start using Google to look up obscure references to pop culture on Family Guy....That and all of my academic work.
  • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5if a webpage shuts down, does all that information disappear or is it preserved until someone has the money to bring it back to life?

    for instance. all those guitar tab sites that got shut down. are all those tabs lost or will the live on elsewhere?
  • ogore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ rm999
    yer its supposed to be a global encyclopedia not something for a single gov to fund
  • wootup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Good to hear wikipedia isn't closing down. Speaking of which, has anyone seen the new wiki for videos: http://www.vidipedia.org I doubt they'll be able to afford to stay up half as long.
  • TigerWhit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0The trick is to use wikipedia through answers.com which combines wikipedia with other sources teachers consider "legit". The citation is included at the bottom of the entry also.

    You can basically research a topic using 3 to 4 sources at a time.
  • rcran, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Don't worry maldon, microsoft takes care of that.
  • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9capiCrimm

    Sorry, but I don't trust the US government with Wikipedia - imagine what they would do with the Iraq article, for example. We don't need any POTENTIAL for censorship on something like Wikipedia
  • digitalsol, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9actually high schoolers can't use Wikipedia as a source anymore for a research paper... Retarded teachers think it's still not accurate...
  • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1mercatfat

    I don't think PBS or NPR are "unbiased." Nor would I use either for my main source of information.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Not to seem like a troll but, I could have told ya that.

    Dugg anyway
  • jinglee, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1I either see them put ads on the site, or get themselves acquired by some bigshots...

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.