Wikipedia interview with me on BBC Radio 4 "PM", this afternoon around 5:40pm.

[reddragdiva]

I've been grabbed to be a last-second plug-in media whore for Wikipedia this afternoon — BBC Radio 4 PM, around 5:40pm or so. (That'll be one late lunch!) It'll be on the subject of recent changes to Wikipedia and the current storm in a teacup. If someone could please record it (or grab the RealAudio or MPEG2 stream), I would be most grateful.

Update: I'm now on at 5:35pm (ish). Better practice my soundbites!

Update 2: Well, that was surprisingly fluffy, and I actually managed to correct the common factual errors — (a) we're not blocking all anonymous contribution, only creating new articles and (b) it wasn't because of Siegenthaler. (Who Jimbo says, by the way, is a very good fellow and has worked hard for free speech, but just needs to get up to speed on the Information Super-Sewer.) It's roughly from 36'37" to 41'00" in today's programme. Copy here (1.7 MB Ogg).

Comments

[steer.livejournal.com]

Excellent -- good luck. Yes, that thing about wikipedia was rather typical of press reporting wasn't it. It was unnoticed while few people visited it.

I was at a lecture today where the guy was talking about something called "Scale free graphs" (which relates to my research subject). I was just thinking yesterday "ooh, I wonder if wikipedia has a scale free graph" and this bugger just cites that it does.

Still, I might try and get a student to do some research on wikipedia network structures.

[reddragdiva]

"I might try and get a student to do some research on wikipedia network structures."

BTW: There's a shitload of academics using Wikipedia as research material. SeeWikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Thanks for pointing these out.

[hazyjayne.livejournal.com]

Heh, I listen to Radio 4 during the day to stop my brain turning to mush - I'm not finishing til 6 tonight, so I'll make sure I look out for your interview.

Re: recording. The BBC keep all radio programs (with the exception on Desert Island Discs. Grrr!) online for a week after the program is aired. You can find the program after it has aired here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml). Alternativly, if you just want that bit speak to kineticfactory, he records 3RRR (http://www.rrr.org.au/)'s breafast show to give me a headache for us to listen to in the morning. Somehow. Excatly how I am not quite sure...

Oh and good luck!

where?

[wikimediauk.livejournal.com]

What's the name of the actual program this was on? - I missed it :-( Also, do you know is there any way to listen to these clips without Real Player? From a Mac?

Cormac

Re: where?

[arkady.livejournal.com]

It was on the "PM" program. I was able to listen to the stream just fine on my Mac G3 (running Tiger).

got it - grabbed it

[wikimediauk.livejournal.com]

Thanks - I've uploaded a recording to Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DavidGerardRadio4Dec2005.ogg - it's not the best, but it'll do for now..

Cormac

Re: got it - grabbed it

[reddragdiva]

And after I went so far as to download an audio hijacker for redcountess' Mac after I failed to get RealPlayer for Linux going!

Re: got it - grabbed it

[reddragdiva]

OK - I've put up a better recording on the Commons site (RealAudio -> AIFF -> Ogg) and taken it down to mono, so it's smaller too. Since it's a blatant copyright violation and will be deleted as soon as a Commons admin notices, I've put a copy up at http://static.rocknerd.org/david/DavidGerardRadio4Dec2005.ogg as well.

Re: where?

[hazyjayne.livejournal.com]

The program is called "PM".

There is audio help from the BBC here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/audiohelp.shtml). Hope that helps :)

[secretlondon.livejournal.com]

I think you can get PM after broadcast via the BBC's RA player.

I notice that the British media seems to have picked this story up today.

[ksta.livejournal.com]

how exciting!
sadly, I shall be unable to record it, but see everyone else's comments about their 'listen again' function.

[ksta.livejournal.com]

also, was Siegenthaler not able to simply file a suit of libel or ask them to amend it or summat?

[reddragdiva]

No (definitely not, and he asked his lawyers) and yes, but he preferred to whine.

[zenmonkeykstop.livejournal.com]

'"He should have just changed it," Saffo told the paper. "And he should've gotten his friends to help him watch it and every time it was changed, to change it back to what was correct. He clearly doesn't understand the culture of Wikipedia."'

To be fair, that is a ridiculously stupid thing to say. That's like saying the onus is on the consumer to protect themselves from identity theft by repeatedly visiting any institution that maintains database information about them and reminding them of who they are.

[reddragdiva]

Yeah. But the real answer is, this is a severely beta website, much more so than its top-40 status would suggest. And the reason his article went uncorrected so long is ... nobody read it and nobody cared.

devil's advocacy ahoy

[zenmonkeykstop.livejournal.com]

It's a bit disingenuous to tout Wikipedia as a useful resource and then when it's proven to be not only deficient in some area but potentially harmful, to switch positions and claim that as a beta product, it's not to be trusted. Why bother with an exhaustive description of the preferred method of citing it if it's not to be regarded as a trustworthy resource?

And it's entirely possible that nobody ever read the fake bio, or that only a few people did, but this is going to be true for the majority of entries. Are you saying that the Wikipedia system only works for stuff that's well-covered elsewhere, and that less popular entries might as well be regarded as fiction?

Re: devil's advocacy ahoy

[ksta.livejournal.com]

'ere, is that a proteus on your icon?

Re: devil's advocacy ahoy

[zenmonkeykstop.livejournal.com]

No, it's one of these.

Re: devil's advocacy ahoy

[reddragdiva]

It's not disingenuous; Wikipedia is clearly useful to someone, or it wouldn't be top 40, but it's also clearly beta (fully-featured, usable and testable, bugs as far as the eye can see, needs a lot of work). What it really needs is big black and yellow 1995-style UNDER CONSTRUCTION GIFs on most articles.

"Are you saying that the Wikipedia system only works for stuff that's well-covered elsewhere, and that less popular entries might as well be regarded as fiction?"

As less reliable; certainly no more fictitious than any other Internet or printed source you don't check up on yourself, signed or not. The readers are editors and the editors are readers; so stuff people are interested in will get a lot of eyes, and stuff they aren't interested in won't get a lot of eyes.

For citation, always cite the particular revision you're citing. In an ideal world, this will have a pile of references attached. For serious work, cite originals, not a predigested secondary or tertiary source.

Wikipedia is not here to think for the reader. The scary thing is it shows by example how unreliable other sources can be, polished surface or no.

Re: devil's advocacy ahoy

[shimgray.livejournal.com]

The "exhaustive description of the preferred method of citing it" is there because, over the past year at least, the single most common class of questions put to the project is "how do I cite this page" or "what was the author of X for my bibliography" or "who publishes Wikipedia" or suchlike. Hundreds of them, and god knows how many more who don't ask.

Yes, people shouldn't, on the whole, be citing encyclopedias, and Wikipedia least of all. But they want to, and helping them do that correctly is only polite, especially since the standard forms of citing online material tend to get confusing when applied to Wikipedia.

Re: devil's advocacy ahoy

[zenmonkeykstop.livejournal.com]

Surely then the polite thing to do is to ask them not to cite you, but find other trustworthy sources?

Re: devil's advocacy ahoy

[reddragdiva]

You assume people will read or listen. Besides, they usually get dealt with when their Wikipedia-editing professor marks them down for being stupid ;-)

[vampwillow]

"any idiot can come along and edit an article"

ahuh ... ;-P

[vampwillow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4502846.stm

[reddragdiva]

Let's see if I get quoted on the site, then!

surprise

[sheridanwilde.livejournal.com]

i hadn't seen this until after i'd switched on the radio (and you were mid-flow at that point), so it took me a while to realise it wasn't just someone who sounded like you, it was you!

congrats for (as far as i'm aware) your british radio debut.

Re: surprise

[reddragdiva]

Goodness, so it was!

Re: surprise

[sheridanwilde.livejournal.com]

(i'm guessing you'd made it onto antipodean radio at some point in the last two decades).

Re: surprise

[reddragdiva]

More times than I can count ;-) Never quite got my own radio show, but guested on lots and lots.

Re: surprise

[loopzilla.livejournal.com]

Some people have no shame!

Re: surprise

[reddragdiva]

Media Whores 'R' Us! Actually, it was mostly when I was doing the zine and so was doing lots of music shows. I really should have gotten around to learning to drive the desk at some point. Ah well.

Re: surprise

[loopzilla.livejournal.com]

I tend to go for the written word rather than the oral...

Re: surprise

[redcountess]

He's been on U.S. radio about Wikipedia as well! *proud*

[korenwolf.livejournal.com]

Perfect, I particularly liked the comments about allowing any idiot to edit it :)

[reddragdiva]

Stolen from brionv.

1. Allow any lunatic to edit your website.
2. Hope the good lunatics outnumber the bad lunatics.

[shamus9999.livejournal.com]

Hmm, what an interesting idea. Perhaps I'll take my Drupal website, create another administrative account and publish its user ID and password on the front page then see what happens.

I'm disappointed that I don't get to listen to you. I don't have RealPlayer installed (it isn't free for corporate/gummint use and I don't have a license). Perhaps tonight, from home.

[reddragdiva]

Just make sure your version control is flawless!

[shamus9999.livejournal.com]

I was thinking more along the lines of complete anarchy. With a back-up of the original database and system files close to hand, of course. But it would be an interesting experiment, if it didn't get me booted off of my web host.

[reddragdiva]

Just put up a wiki on it - Mediawiki is common enough that lots of hosting places in fact offer it. I know a few people who have made their geek site a wiki, only editable by themselves, just because it tremendously reduces the friction in keeping their site updated.

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

Damn, didn't see it had been brought forward -- I got in the car to drive home at 5.39 and switched from Radio 2 to 4 for the occasion. Caught the last minute or two, though...

[abigailb.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the club. ;)

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

Nice one :)

It will be interesting to see whether this media coverage leads to a sudden increase in the amount of 'bad idiots'!