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

Re: Semantic Web Activity page use case

From: Wing C Yung <wingyung@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:08:59 -0500
Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org, public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF46DBB44F.67D50FB9-ON8525727A.004C33F0-8525727A.004DBAA0@us.ibm.com>

I think the main problem with Microsoft is that they have a reputation of
being untrustworthy to begin with, and then they arranged to pay a blogger
to make Wikipedia edits.

It should be fine for us to update the page, though this reminds me that we
should also track some of the applications that the Semantic Web will not
be good for. If we list some of these throughout our materials, it'll show
that we've done a lot of thinking and that we can present a somewhat fair
assessment.

Wing

Internet Technology
wingyung@us.ibm.com
617.693.3763


                                                                           
             Kingsley Idehen                                               
             <kidehen@openlink                                             
             sw.com>                                                    To 
             Sent by:                  Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>           
             public-sweo-ig-re                                          cc 
             quest@w3.org              public-sweo-ig@w3.org               
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: Semantic Web Activity page use  
             02/06/2007 07:58          case                                
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
                  kidehen                                                  
                                                                           
                                                                           





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.
>
>
>
Ivan,

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.


--


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen                Weblog:
http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 14:09:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:35 GMT