首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Looking back, it was naive to expect Wikipedia’s joyride to last forever. Since its inception in 2001, the user-written online e
Looking back, it was naive to expect Wikipedia’s joyride to last forever. Since its inception in 2001, the user-written online e
admin
2012-02-24
33
问题
Looking back, it was naive to expect Wikipedia’s joyride to last forever. Since its inception in 2001, the user-written online encyclopedia has expanded just as everything else online has: exponentially. Up until about two years ago, Wikipedians were adding, on average, some 2,200 new articles to the project every day. The English version hit the 2 million—article mark in September 2007 and then the 3 million mark in August 2009—surpassing the 600-year-old Chinese Yongle Encyclopedia as the largest collection of general knowledge ever compiled (well, at least according to Wikipedia’s entry on itself).
But early in 2007, something strange happened: Wikipedia’s growth line flattened. People suddenly became reluctant to create new articles or fix errors or add their kernels of wisdom to existing pages. "When we first noticed it, we thought it was a blip," says Ed Chi, a computer scientist at California’s Palo Alto Research Center whose lab has studied Wikipedia extensively. But Wikipedia peaked in March 2007 at about 820,000 contributors; the site hasn’t seen as many editors before. "By the middle of 2009, we have realized that this was a real phenomenon," says Chi. "It’s no longer growing exponentially. Something very different is happening now."
What stunted Wikipedia’s growth? And what does the slump tell us about the long- term viability of such strange and invaluable online experiments? Perhaps the Web has limits after all, particularly when it comes to the phenomenon known as crowd sourcing. Wikipedians—the volunteers who run the site, especially the approximately 1,000 editors who wield the most power over what you see—have been in a self-reflective mood. Not only is Wikipedia slowing, but also new stats suggest that hard-core participants are a pretty homogeneous set—the opposite of the ecumenical wiki ideal. Women, for instance, make up only 13% of contributors. The project’s annual conference in Buenos Aires this summer bustled with discussions about the numbers and how the movement can attract a wider class of participants.
At the same time, volunteers have been trying to improve Wikipedia’s trustworthiness, which has been sullied by a few defamatory hoaxes—most notably, one involving the journalist John Seigenthaler, whose Wikipedia entry falsely stated that he’d been a suspect in the John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy assassinations. They recently instituted a major change, imposing a layer of editorial control on entries about living people. In the past, only articles on high-profile subjects like Barack Obama were protected from anonymous revisions. Under the new plan, people can freely alter Wikipedia articles on, say, their local officials or company heads—but those changes will become live only once they’ve been vetted by a Wikipedia administrator. "Few articles on Wikipedia are more important than those that are about people who are actually walking the earth," says Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that oversees the encyclopedia. "What we want to do is to find ways to be more fair, accurate, and to do better—to be nicer—to those people."
Yet that gets to Wikipedia’s central dilemma. Chi’s research suggests that the encyclopedia thrives on chaos—that the more freewheeling it is, the better it can attract committed volunteers who keep adding to its corpus. But over the years, as Wikipedia has added layers of control to bolster accuracy and fairness, it has developed a kind of bureaucracy. "It may be that the bureaucracy is inevitable when a project like this becomes sufficiently important," Chi says. But who wants to participate in a project lousy with bureaucrats?
There is a benign explanation for Wikipedia’s slackening pace: the site has simply hit the natural limit of knowledge expansion. In its early days, it was easy to add stuff. But once others had entered historical sketches of every American city, taxonomies of all the world’s species, bios of every character on The Sopranos and essentially everything else—well, what more could they expect you to add? So the only stuff left is esoteric, and it attracts fewer participants because the only editing jobs left are "janitorial"— making sure that articles are well formatted and readable.
Chi thinks something more drastic has occurred: the Web’s first major ecosystem collapses. Think of Wikipedia’s community of volunteer editors as a family of bunnies left to roam freely over an abundant green prairie. In early, fat times, their numbers grow geometrically. More bunnies consume more resources, though, and at some point, the prairie becomes depleted, and the population crashes.
Instead of prairie grasses, Wikipedia’s natural resource is an emotion. "There’s the rush of joy that you get the first time you make an edit to Wikipedia, and you realize that 330 million people are seeing it live," says Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation’s executive director. In Wikipedia’s early days, every new addition to the site had a roughly equal chance of surviving editors’ scrutiny. Over time, though, a class system emerged; now revisions made by infrequent contributors are much likelier to be undone by 61ite Wikipedians. Chi also notes the rise of wiki-lawyering: for your editors to stick, you’ve got to learn to cite the complex laws of Wikipedia in arguments with other editors. Together, these changes have created a community not very hospitable to newcomers. Chi says, "People begin to wonder, ’Why should I contribute anymore?’"— and suddenly, like rabbits out of food, Wikipedia’s population stops growing.
The foundation has been working to address some of these issues; for example, it is improving the site’s antiquated, often incomprehensible editing interface. But as for the larger issue of trying to attract a more diverse constituency, it has no specific plan—only a goal. "The average Wikipedian is a young man in a wealthy country who’s probably a graduate student—somebody who’s smart, literate, engaged in the world of ideas, thinking, learning, writing all the time," Gardner says. Those people are invaluable, she notes, but the encyclopedia is missing the voices of people in developing countries, women and experts in various specialties that have traditionally been divorced from tech. "We’re just starting to get our heads around this. It’s a genuinely difficult problem," Gardner says. "Obviously, Wikipedia is pretty good now. It works. But our challenge is to build a rich, diverse, broad culture of people, which is harder than it looks."
Before Wikipedia, nobody would have believed that an anonymous band of strangers could create something so useful. So is it crazy to imagine that, given the difficulties it faces, someday the whole experiment might blow up? "There are some bloggers out there who say, ’Oh, yeah, Wikipedia will be gone in five years,’" Chi says. "I think that’s sensational. But our data does suggest its existence in 10 or 15 years may be in question."
Ten years is a long time on the Internet—longer than Wikipedia has even existed. Michael Snow, the foundation’s chairman, says he’s got a "fair amount of confidence" that Wikipedia will go on. It remains a precious resource—a completely free journal available to anyone and the model for a mode of online collaboration once hailed as revolutionary. Still, Wikipedia’s troubles suggest the limits of Web 2.0—that when an idealized community gets too big, it starts becoming dysfunctional. Just like every other human organization.
What does "blip" mean in Paragraph 2?
选项
A、a tricky problem
B、a strange problem
C、a temporary problem
D、an unexpected problem
答案
B
解析
此题是词义理解题。结合上下文可知,起先Chi认为人口减少只是一个暂时现象,但到2009年中期,人口减少已成为一个不争的事实。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/JsiO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
AskanAmericanschoolchildwhatheorsheislearninginschoolthesedaysandyoumightevengetareply,providedyouaskit
Weuselanguageeveryday.Weliveinaworldofwords.Hardlyanymomentpasseswithsomeonetalking,writingorreading.Indee
ThecapitalofNewZealandis______.
Inaperfectlyfreeandopenmarketeconomy,thetypeofemployer—governmentorprivate-shouldhavelittleornoimpactonthee
Thefutureofbusinessliesnotinsellingproductsbutinsellingdreamsandemotions,accordingtoRolfJensen,directorofth
A、Theyhavealongwaitforthetaxi.B、Thetaxifareishigh.C、Thedrivertalkstoomuch.D、Thejourneytakeslongerthanusua
Lastyear’seconomyshouldhavewontheOscarforbestpicture.Growthingrossdomesticproductwas4.1percent;profitssoared
外来移民难道真的是欧洲社会难以摆脱的失业和高犯罪率的罪魁祸首吗?今天的欧洲或许算是一方乐土,吸引着非洲、亚洲、南美洲的许多年轻人背井离乡到这里来谋生求发展。更重要的是,西欧今天已经离不开移民。移民的到来对欧洲的经济社会发展,甚至改善欧洲人口年龄结构,起着不
Stratford-on-Avon,asweallknow,hasonlyoneindustry—WilliamShakespeare—buttherearetwodistinctlyseparateandincre
历史的道路,不是平坦的,有时走到艰难的境界。这是全靠雄伟的精神才能够冲过去的。一条浩浩荡荡的长江大河,有时候到很宽阔的境界,平原无际,一泻万里。有时候流到很逼狭的境界,两岸从山迭岭,绝壁断崖,江河流于期间,回环曲折,及其险峻。民族生命的进展,其经
随机试题
某市大型商场为增值税一般纳税人,2020年5月发生如下业务:(1)销售干姜、橄榄油等取得含税收入5万元;销售蔬菜取得含税收入8万元;销售速冻食品、方便面、副食品等取得含税销售收入10万元;销售其他食品取得含税收入50万元。(2)首饰柜台以旧换新销售金首
判定级数(a>0,a≠e)的收敛性。
男性,40岁,反复右上腹胀痛,不适半年,再发加重伴恶心、呕吐1天。查:体温40℃,无黄疸,右上腹明显压痛,血常规,白细胞22×109/L。查体发现右上腹压痛、肌紧张,可触及一包块,压痛(+),首先考虑的诊断是
从调查对象的总体中抽取一部分单位做为样本进行调查,并根据样本调查结果推断总体数量特征。这种调查方式是()。
四个杯子上各写着一句话。第一个杯子:每个杯子中都有酸性溶液;第二个杯子:本杯中是矿泉水;第三个杯子:本杯中不是蒸馏水;第四个杯子:有的杯子中不是酸性溶液。如果四句话中只有一句真实,则可以确定的是()。
下列属于立法的是()。
一只小型广告灯箱一年可以杀死约35万只昆虫。亮如白昼的夜晚还会严重影响昆虫特别是成虫的生命周期。昆虫是自然界食物链中的一个重要环节,很多小型动物、鸟类和蝙蝠以昆虫为主要食物,许多植物靠昆虫授粉,如果昆虫的种类和数量发生变化,必将严重影响生态环境。过度的照明
以RPM方式安装的Apache服务器,Apache的主配置文件是(18)。如果允许以“http://www.wg2006.com.cn/wg_wg.html”方式访问用户的个人主页,必须通过(19)指令设置个人主页文档所在的目录。
Thechairmanofthecompanysaidthatnewtechniqueshad_____improvedtheirproductionefficiency.
Roadrage,officerage,andevenrelationshipragearefamiliartous.Butnowidlenessragehasemerged.FrequentlyIhearpeo
最新回复
(
0
)