W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Semantic Web Activity page use case

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:58:58 -0500
Message-ID: <45C87B92.2040206@openlinksw.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: public-sweo-ig@w3.org

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> [snip]
>> Ivan,
>> The Semantic Web document Wikipedia is a living document that is open to
>> anyone to edit from a variety of perspectives.
>> As you know, contributions to Wikipedia can take many forms.
>> The contribution I am referring to relates more to facts and content
>> enrichment.
>> If you look at the logs you will notice that I referred to Tim as
>> "Chairman" of W3C (during my recent contributions to this document).
>> Then you will notice Tim popped in and changed that to the correct
>> designation of "Director".  This is an example of a "fact correction" edit.
>> There is a lot of confusion swirling around Wikipedia and sometimes we
>> can end up not doing anything at all about an inaccurate article because
>> of some of the misconceptions about Wikipedia's contribution protocols.
>> I think the SWEO membership (and anyone else knowledgeable about the
>> Semantic Web)  are totally within their rights to enrich the knowledge
>> in Wikipedia :-) I would like to encourage contributions from SWEO in
>> particular especially as Wikipedia is increasingly the first point of
>> call re. "What is the Semantic Web?" these days.
>> Kingsley
> Kingsley,
> I acknowledge not being fully familiar with all the wikipedia editing
> rules and, often, the issue is not the exact rules, but the perception
> thereof. Witness the uproar about Microsoft trying to change some
> articles in wikipedia; whether they were right or wrong, the public
> perception was clearly very negative. This does not include such clearly
> factual changes like Tim's change you refer to.
> I think SWEO changing the article, or people on SWEO to change the
> article is probably all right. I am not sure that W3C Team members (who
> are, after all, W3C 'employees') doing the same is all right. That is
> why I personally kept away from that part of wikipedia.
> I.

One strategy that could be adopted re. core W3C members would be to 
maintain a Wiki page outside Wikipedia which can then be used as the 
source of edits from others who may a safer N degrees of separation from 
the core :-)

As for the Microsoft case, they did not participate in any discourse via 
the Wikipedia talk pages about their point of view and/or concerns. This 
is where they went wrong (IMHO). The "Talk Pages" on Wikipedia are very 
much as under used resource.



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 12:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:52 UTC