Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Petition to Classify Wikipedia a "World Wonder"

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the editing-the-pyramids dept.

Wikipedia 311

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that a global petition drive has started to add Wikipedia to one of UNESCO's world heritage lists joining such historic monuments and natural sites as the Great Barrier Reef, the Great Wall of China, and the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur. 'The basic idea is to recognize that Wikipedia is this amazing global cultural phenomena that has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people,' says Jimmy Wales. 'Too often, people think about us purely in terms of technology, when this is about culture, high tech and learning.' Getting Wikipedia listed will be an uphill battle although a petition drive has already started. It will have to negotiate a complicated approval process and overcome the skeptical regard of Unesco and heritage consultants to be considered for recognition. Susan Williams, the head of external media relations at Unesco in Paris, said a bid by a digital entity like Wikipedia would be unprecedented. 'Anyone can apply,' says Williams, who added that she was not aware of Wikipedia's plans. 'But it may have difficulty fulfilling the criteria.' The problem is that to be included on the World Heritage List alongside the Great Wall of China, Wikipedia must be found 'to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius,' which it's not says Adam Chen. 'We like dorking around on Wikipedia as much as the next person,' writes Chen. 'But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A Zionist world wonder (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243612)

that silences any dissent.

Fuck wikipedia

Re:A Zionist world wonder (1)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244104)

You mean Fork Wikipedia?

Re:A Zionist world wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244146)

Mod parent up. Wikipedia has become a primary vector of misinformation. Or rather, commission of information the maintainers don't want published. And who are the maintainers of these articles? Who has vetted them?

I'm talking to you, the slashdotter that contributes to Wikipedia. I'm talking about the maintainers of the articles that you aren't allowed to edit.

Re:A Zionist world wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244260)

What articles? Please enlighten me to what the wikipedia haters are all butthurt about.

Re:A Zionist world wonder (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244420)

Are you seriously upset at Wikipedia because a small group of muslim shitheads and kikes are arguing about a couple of articles no one gives a shit about?

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BULLSHIT MIDDLE EAST WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES SO GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELF.

Maybe you should spend some time looking at all the awesome science and engineering articles that wikipedia hosts. They have an amazing collection of articles on every facet of science that is more encompassing than all the encyclopedias of the world combined.

As world's largest collection of ego? (5, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243632)

That's a wonder indeed...

Re:As world's largest collection of ego? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243864)

No shit. One wonders if this bit of egotistical tripe is really a Monty Python parody:

'The basic idea is to recognize that Wikipedia is this amazing global cultural phenomena that has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people,' says Jimmy Wales.

Good fucking God. Get OVER yourself.

Re:As world's largest collection of ego? (3, Interesting)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243984)

As anyone thought of considering the Internet first?

Or has that already been classed as a "world wonder" by UNESCO and I missed it?

Re:As world's largest collection of ego? (2)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244310)

I thought of this as well. The Internet should be considered a world wonder long before wikipedia.

Then again, it's kind of like calling roads a world wonder.

One has to wonder what it really means to be a world wonder.

That old saw about egos... (3, Insightful)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244222)

Get over your frustrations about the process and consider the broad picture and the implications.

Wikipedia continues into the 21st century what the Encyclopedists first started in the 18th.

It needs to be recognized so the collaboration on which it stands is not hampered by corporations wanting to cash on the Internet while having done nothing for its development. We need to point out where real value resides on the Web, when they insist on protecting their narrow economic interests.

I am not sure how much help will come from a recognition by the UNESCO, but I will back any kind of effort without a second thought.

Who Cares? It's the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243640)

The UN in general, and certainly UNESCO in specific, is not important to the real world in any way, shape or form.

Re:Who Cares? It's the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243676)

Watch out, or they will cultural heritage you back to the stone age!

Re:Who Cares? It's the UN (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243824)

The UN in general, and certainly UNESCO in specific, is not important to the real world in any way, shape or form.

A lot of local economies would beg to differ. All kinds of communities around the globe have wanted their local sites to be recognized by UNESCO, because it increases tourism remarkably. Also, UNESCO has done good work empowering some indigenous communities and helping them challenge exploitation and discrimination, especially in the Americas.

Re:Who Cares? It's the UN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244116)

Stop with this bullshit.

Disclaimer: the Brazilian government took away my family land since it used to be an enclave inside an Amerindian reservation.

UNESCO helps things like schooling the younglins in the native language instead of Portuguese (or Spanish, wherever). When they finish high school they don't know enough of the country language to join a University or get a decent job. This hooks them up in the welfare systems and keeps working the status quo machinery that UNESCO is.

Their fucking culture died when white man landed over the shore. Let them get over it and become productive members of the society.

Check tourist stats for Rio after the Christ statue became a Modern World Wonders shows no significant increase in tourist visitation, besides the natural growth rate.

UNESCO does nothing useful besides sucking tax money.

Re:Who Cares? It's the UN (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244276)

The UN in general, and certainly UNESCO in specific, is not important to the real world in any way, shape or form.

A lot of local economies would beg to differ. All kinds of communities around the globe have wanted their local sites to be recognized by UNESCO, because it increases tourism remarkably. Also, UNESCO has done good work empowering some indigenous communities and helping them challenge exploitation and discrimination, especially in the Americas.

You coud've stopped at "local economies would beg to differ"... they probably don't consider the UN so insignificant, what with UN members continuously raping their resources dry.

Latest is the best??? (4, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243644)

Maybe if it is around and relevant at least a hundred years from now, then maybe. Sounds fanboy inspired. Or is Jimmy's hand in this?

Re:Latest is the best??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243772)

Maybe if it is around and relevant at least a hundred years from now, then maybe. Sounds fanboy inspired. Or is Jimmy's hand in this?

I agree - Wikipedia is doing a great job, but unless it's continuing to a great job for hundreds (plural) of years it's not a world wonder.

Re:Latest is the best??? (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243818)

So the Pyramids at Gaza weren't a wonder the day after they where built?

Time has little to do with it. Wikipedia had changed the world, more so then the giant pointy tombs.

Re:Latest is the best??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243934)

So the Pyramids at Gaza weren't a wonder the day after they where built?

Time has little to do with it. Wikipedia had changed the world, more so then the giant pointy tombs.

Structures the size of the Great Pyramics at Gaza don't tend to fall over after 20 years, websites do.

Re:Latest is the best??? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243972)

So the Pyramids at Gaza weren't a wonder the day after they where built?

No more than any building built today is. A large part of their wonder comes from their longevity.

Re:Latest is the best??? (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244018)

Giza. Pyramids of Giza. Gaza is city hundreds of miles away, on the other side of the Sinai.

Re:Latest is the best??? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244336)

I know, and think I made the stupid mistake in two different posts.
Damn it. I my defense I am taking cough medicine with codeine.

My Apologies.

Re:Latest is the best??? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244110)

So the Pyramids at Gaza weren't a wonder the day after they where built?

Time has little to do with it. Wikipedia had changed the world, more so then the giant pointy tombs.

How many of each animal did Moses take on the ark?

But seriously, has wikipedia really "transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people?" Yeah, I have some place to check when I want to know when "Whomp! There it is!" was released, but I wouldn't say it's transformed my life.

Re:Latest is the best??? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244354)

But it has in almost every third world country.

Yeah, people who had a wide resources had a smaller effect then others.

Re:Latest is the best??? (1)

Plombo (1914028) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244396)

How many of each animal did Moses take on the ark?

Moses didn't have an ark, so none.

Re:Latest is the best??? (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244320)

No, they weren't. If they had collapsed, then they would have long been forgotten, along with all the other ancient monuments that did collapse and were forgotten.

If Wikipedia is still up and running in a hundred years, then we can talk about calling it a wonder.

Re:Latest is the best??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243846)

If we are going to nominate something for its capability to teach the world, let's start with Khan University.

Re:Latest is the best??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243898)

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!

Re:Latest is the best??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244006)

Is the internet a world wonder? I'd reckon that's for more important than Wikipedia, even before Wikipedia you could obtain most information from the internet (albeit cumbersomely). Also Wikipedia is "done" aside from growing with information it's not going to beget more revolutions, the internet has really been a game changing invention and wikipedia is a drop in the bucket. Email, Instant messaging, search engines, file sharing (illegal and legal), wikileaks, news sites, forums, school websites, etc...

Hell no. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243668)

Wikipedia is not a "World Wonder" any more than the Guinness Book of World Records is a "World Wonder".

GWoC (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243696)

" 'But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant.'""

As does the great wall of China.

Re:GWoC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243868)

And 4chan.

Re:GWoC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244470)

SO TRUE lol

Oh Wales... (4, Informative)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243704)

I was almost ok with this until I read "says Jimmy Wales". That's like nominating yourself for a nobel peace prize.

Re:Oh Wales... (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244014)

I was almost ok with this until I read "says Jimmy Wales". That's like nominating yourself for a nobel peace prize.

Except Jimmy has actually done something to make Wikipedia a wonder.

Re:Oh Wales... (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244118)

What you mean drive away usefull contributers, foster ego driven moderators and protectionism while at the same time encouraging the less informed to ensure "their" views are the ones people see as facts on wiki?

Re:Oh Wales... (1)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244124)

Aspergers counts another sufferer. Nominating yourself (or promoting yourself) for an award is extremely tacky. It just is. Jimbo deserves a lot of credit, but surely he can find someone outside the project to pimp it for him.

Re:Oh Wales... (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244206)

That's like nominating yourself for a Nobel Peace Prize.

True. It's a bit much to be organizing a petition for this.

The Encyclopædia Britannica, in its heyday (the 11th edition), is far more worthy of monumental status.

Re:Oh Wales... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244298)

No kidding. This smells like nothing more than Jimmy trying to stroke his ego in one more delusional way. For the record: I think Wikipedia is awesome. It is, however, also significantly less awesome than the Internet, without which Wikipedia would not even exist. Furthermore, and that's a pretty common complaint, Wikipedia is at least partially an exercise in ego-stroking. As such, it is probably the largest example of mass ego-stroking in history. That's noteworthy, but not exactly something that needs to be preserved.

Re:Oh Wales... (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244328)

Furthermore I'm pretty sure Heritage sites are attached to UNESCO funding. So it also strikes me as a not-too-subtle attempt to lock in money to guarantee its survival.

No. (1)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243716)

A World Heritage site should be something that exists in the world; something we interact with and can learn from.

Wikipedia is a very fascinating project and I wouldn't mind having some sort of international intervention in its preservation, but it's inappropriate to put it in the same ranks as a 4000-year-old forest or a historical church. It's a website; there should be better channels than this for it.

Re:No. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243770)

and a forest is just a random set of trees we decides to give meaning to, and a church is just a building.

I think it's a great idea, and it's already done more for mankind them most other wonders.

I mean, The Great Wall was built piecemeal, over many rulers, and it never worked.

Re:No. (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243800)

I mean, The Great Wall was built piecemeal, over many rulers, and it never worked.

Pffft. Call me when Wikipedia can keep barbarian axemen from pillaging my cottages.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244026)

I mean, The Great Wall was built piecemeal, over many rulers, and it never worked.

Pffft. Call me when Wikipedia can keep barbarian axemen from pillaging my cottages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap

There you go ...

Re:No. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244384)

You mean like how the Great Wall didn't?

Re:No. (2)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243850)

Wikipedia exists and I interact with it all the time. I learn much more from Wikipedia than from some old stone building in an isolated location that conveys nothing other than people did stuff here along time ago. Also Wikipedia's servers are very real things and in real locations for those who want to gawk at the computer chips.

Re:No. (1)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243896)

Also, shouldn't it be something visual, not relegated to a computer screen? Something that covers a large space that gives you a tingly feeling of awe when you see it in person? I don't quite get that feeling from wikipedia.

I'm very grateful for wikipedia and all the useful stuff I've learned over the years, but this is simply doesn't fall under the classification of a "world heritage site"

Re:No. (1)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243978)

You don't get a tingly feeling of awe looking at computerchips or when holding a 5 Tb hard drive. Tisk tisk... and you read slashdot.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243720)

It is the largest piss filled ocean in the world.

Re:Well (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244094)

It's a pile of more assholes than Capitol Hill. If that isn't worth an award what is?

Fixation is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243726)

From what I hear of the editors, fixation of idiots is right. Wouldn't be too sure about the savant part.

Just deserts (5, Funny)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243734)

For everyone that's had an article deleted for being non-notable, WP being deemed non-notable (next to the Great Wall of China) should be just deserts.

Re:Just deserts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244090)

For everyone that's had an article deleted for being non-notable, WP being deemed non-notable (next to the Great Wall of China) should be just deserts.

It amuses me how this statement carries the direct implication that some pet article being declared non-notable on Wikipedia is somehow a personal offense that justifies bitterness and spite.

Re:Just deserts (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244448)

For everyone that's had an article deleted for being non-notable, WP being deemed non-notable (next to the Great Wall of China) should be just deserts.

It amuses me how this statement carries the direct implication that some pet article being declared non-notable on Wikipedia is somehow a personal offense that justifies bitterness and spite.

Yes, yes it does, because it disrespects both the victims labor and denigrates the victims worldview as being inferior, all for a small, brief feeling of superiority, and a savings of about a billionth of a cent of disk space and network traffic.

I think the funniest part is this would annihilate the deletionist position by using the force of govt.... You wouldn't allow some random dude in his mom's basement to delete a brick from the Great Pyramid, so I guess the deletionist philosophy would finally be purged from wiki using force of law. And, in my opinion, good riddance. Some antisocial worldviews deserve extinction.

Re:Just deserts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244416)

You sound butthurt.

They shouldn't dismiss this out of hand. (4, Interesting)

koreaman (835838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243758)

First of all, it's Adrian Chen, not Adam Chen.

Second, his remark is completely unfounded. It's not the contributions of the idiot savant contributers that matters; it's the project as a whole. Or were the pyramids just "the fixation of a manual-laboring slave" ? Sometimes a whole can be more than the sum of its parts.

Personally I think an introduction to almost every field of human knowledge that almost anyone can understand is more important than a big, pointy tomb.

Re:They shouldn't dismiss this out of hand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243918)

You can apply that to a number of online projects. Facebook, for example. How about revisiting the issue in several decades time and see whether it even exists?

Re:They shouldn't dismiss this out of hand. (3, Interesting)

koreaman (835838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244326)

Maybe we should make the Internet as a whole a World Heritage site? One of the primary benefits of the Internet is that it allows almost anyone in the world to create and publish content, for free. Wikipedia and Facebook are but two different sides of this same coin.

I see something that has radically changed human communication and content distribution for the better to be a hugely important part of world heritage. Maybe you're right that Wikipedia on its own shouldn't qualify, but I was a bit taken aback by the derisive tone of most of the comments.

Re:They shouldn't dismiss this out of hand. (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244378)

The problem is that Wikipedia is contemporary. We shouldn't declare things wonders when they've only been around for a few short years. Mankind has created countless works that were undoubtedly considered amazing at the time, and were promptly forgotten. There was a time when MySpace was an important part of the web. Aren't we glad it wasn't declared a wonder?

Unlike? (1)

GeorgeMonroy (784609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243764)

Where is the unlike vote for this?

Easier Way (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243766)

Instead of going through this complicated process, just add it to the Wikipedia page about World Wonders.

Re:Easier Way (2)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244482)

[citation needed]

That's cool, Jimmy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243780)

Can I start a similar petition for my dick?

Meep Sheeps penis should be instead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243812)

Admins Pmdrive1061 and Bsadowski1 like to suck MeepSheeps penis.

Idiot Savant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243836)

Well, Jimbo does embody _one_ of those adjectives..

Give it to yourself (2)

Nyall (646782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243858)

Why bother with a petition?

It would be much simpler if someone simply edited wikipedia's article on world wonders to say that it is a world wonder.

The Petition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243860)

will be deleted because it's not long enough to be a petition, and it lacks third party sources.

Don't start a petition until that petition is completed.

Way to knife it in the back. (5, Funny)

random coward (527722) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243872)

So it becomes a UNESCO heritage item; after that any changes to it would be damaging world heritage and overnight wikipedia dies.

Be very careful what you wish for people.

Re:Way to knife it in the back. (1)

Selfunfocused (1215732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244498)

People utilize world heritage sites. They aren't walled off from the world. I'm sure Wikipedia users could still add and modify content. The question of conservation calcification would come up around changes to the system itself. Could the community make a modification to the editorial process that significantly changed the balance of power in the system, for instance?

Can't wait for the next Civilization (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243916)

If it can't be a "real" wonder, it should at least be a Civ VI wonder

Re:Can't wait for the next Civilization (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244318)

Civilization actually got it right: the Internet is a wonder. Wikipedia is merely an interesting project piggy-backing on the wonder that is the Internet.

Not sure this is a good idea for users ... (1)

beer_maker (263112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243920)

If this drive succeeds, don't the maintainers have to lock down the site, preventing any changes? That's how all the other "World Heritage Sites"(tm) are treated, as pretties to be seen and admired. (OTOH, the thought of a final end to the WikiEditWars makes me all warm & happy inside.)

Re:Not sure this is a good idea for users ... (2)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244036)

They can archive copies. Wikipedia already facilitates this.

So will they close wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243928)

And preserve it just the way it is?

This doesn't make much sense to me.

Wikipedia sucks, PROOF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243938)

Im launching a petition to have *sswipes named a world wonder. You want to see how bad Wikipedia is? Just click on Random page, until you get to a page where you know something about the subject. i.e. Adobe Software. Article sucks... not enough time to fix.

Wikipedia vs. the internet? (4, Insightful)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243940)

Why not pick the internet as a whole?

Re:Wikipedia vs. the internet? (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244382)

Because Jimmy Wales ego didn't create the Internet. Al Gore will have to apply separately.

Why not nominate the internet instead? (2, Insightful)

wannabe-retiree (845754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243964)

While wikipedia is impressive, it's just one small part of the internet. Why wouldn't the internet as a whole qualify as a world wonder?

Re:Why not nominate the internet instead? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244480)

While wikipedia is impressive, it's just one small part of the internet. Why wouldn't the internet as a whole qualify as a world wonder?

The religious nuts would discover its about 99% pr0n and freak out.

Human Creative Genius?!? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36243980)

> 'to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius,'

Ummm, like The Great Barrier Reef?

Jimmy Wales may be the founder, but what makes Wikipedia extraordinary is less like Orville and Wilber and more like a billion coral polyps. Just 'cuz humans were involved in the accretion does not preclude it from being a natural wonder. The amazing thing is not that Jimmy Wales founded it, or that some handful of people worked on it, it is that an enormous number of people worked on it -- simultaneously, independently, without pay or a central design. It is, by far, the broadest decentralized collaborative work in history. It puts termite mounds, beaver dams, and 1970s communes to shame.

Wikipedia is not a work of singular genius, it is a natural wonder of a global organic system. A global organic system that happens to be comprised of human organisms.

Re:Human Creative Genius?!? (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244076)

You just have to meet one of ten criteria. The Great Barrier Reef doesn't hit "human creative genius" but it's really the only one wikipedia can come close to.

http://www.globalmountainsummit.org/home_page.html [globalmountainsummit.org]

It is not a natural wonder, neither by these criteria nor the common definition of natural which is, basically, "anything not man-made", so yes, the level of human involvement (basically...100%) does indeed preclude it from being a natural wonder.

I do think wikipedia is amazing but I think "The Internet" should be considered a wonder and wikipedia just one example of the cultural significance. Let's not hone in on wikipedia, which may or may not even last another ten years.

Re:Human Creative Genius?!? (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244366)

I can see it applying to any of the following:

Criteria III - Cultural Criteria III: Bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

Criteria IV - Cultural Criteria IV: Be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technical ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

Criteria VI - Cultural Criteria VI: Be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance (preferably used in conjunction with other criteria);

Multiple criteria (2)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244214)

There are 10 possible criteria [wikipedia.org] from which to pick one that a nominated site satisfies, including the "masterpiece" criterion (i). 4 of them apply specifically to natural sites, such as the reef, while the other 6 are culturally-oriented.

The "masterpiece" criterion is criterion (i), although you could arguably make a case for Wikipedia under criteria (iv) or (vi) as well (emphasis mine):

(iv) "is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural, or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage in human history"

(as a global-scale collaborative project with millions of participants in the information age)

(vi) "is directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance"

(free and open dissemination of information)

Criteria Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36243998)

Pardon my ignorance, but how does the Great Barrier Reef qualify as a "represent[ative of] a masterpiece of human creative genius?" I didn't think that human influences of any sort were a contributing factor in its formation (unless perhaps its deterioration is the 'wonder').

You have *got* to be kidding. (0, Troll)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244010)

The world's least accurate encyclopedia?

The world's biggest internet cult?

There are lots of things WikiPedia is, but a World Wonder...

Re:You have *got* to be kidding. (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244422)

It's been shown many, many times now that it is, in fact, one of the MOST accurate sources of data.

Re:You have *got* to be kidding. (0)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244514)

Yeah. Because a bunch of 13-years-olds are so much better than world experts.

Care to back your assertion up with fact or argumentation :)? By your UID, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a) not a 13-yr-old Wikipedia editor and b) not Jimmy Wales.

But, but...which one? (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244038)

Which [wikipedia.org] "Wonders" list should it be added to?

Maybe a new Wonders list is needed...the Seven Wonders of the Digital World? ;o)

Re:But, but...which one? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244488)

Maybe a new Wonders list is needed...the Seven Wonders of the Digital World? ;o)

I nominate Debian

Who and how do you recognise stuff like this ... (3, Interesting)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244046)

In some respects they are right: the Wikipedia is an amazing phenomena that is both a contribution to and a contribution of modern culture. Yet it isn't the only thing out there that is built upon similar premesises and contributes in similar ways. Most of all, you do you recognise a living part of culture? Let's face it, most UNESCO heritage items seek to preserve the past. Projects like Wikipedia are very much a part of the present.

I do research at a UNESCO World Heritage site (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244106)

Wikipedia ain't one. Yet, anyway.

The list of things of truly world-wide/cross-cultural significance is pretty special and doesn't include anything on the Internet that I know of. The list includes things such as major archaeological monuments, modern-day towns that typify an architectural style (e.g., functioning towns with centuries-old architecture), fossil sites, biological sites, and all sorts of other things. It *is* pretty diverse, but a web site?? To use Wikipedia's own standards for article inclusion, is that "notable" enough on a global scale? UNESCO specifies the criteria pretty carefully for their World Heritage sites. I don't see how Wikipedia could possibly qualify unless the standard of "notability" and world significance was pretty lax. If it did qualify, I don't see why other culturally significant websites as snopes.com and 4chan wouldn't qualify on similar "notability" grounds.

The process for nominating and having a UNESCO World Heritage Site inscribed in the list is also pretty drawn out and takes a lot of work. I was only peripherally involved in the process for one site, but I contributed a tiny bit to the application (a few pictures). It takes *years* and a significant amount of money to put together the case.

Here's my attitude, in case it isn't clear already: 1) I won't be signing the petition, and 2) I would question making a donation to Wikipedia if some of the money would go to a World Heritage application, which I would consider a waste of effort. When Wikipedia has been around for 50 years and makes a great impact on the world, then maybe it might be worth considering.

Please noo!! (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244126)

If Wikipedia becomes a wonder its location will be revealed to all who seek to destroy it. I would hate to see a contingent of war elephantâ(TM)s step on Jimmy Wales while evil priests turn Wikimedia into an advertising agency.

Criteria that wikipedia does qualify under (1)

Sarkata (2199314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244136)

" (ii) "exhibits an important interchange of human values, over a span of time, or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning, or landscape design"
  (vi) "is directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance"

Nominated sites must be of "outstanding universal value" and meet at least ONE of the ten criteria. "

Sure seems to qualify to me.

Disclaimer: Text is quoted from Wikipedia

Alexandria (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244272)

It DOES rival the index of the great library of Alexandria.

It helped me a lot. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244274)

Just today, i was reading innumerable passages and articles while researching the decline of the roman army and decline of roman empire, and their correlation. (whether there was, or wasnt).

in the process, i learned a lot about immediate post-roman britain, post-roman gaul, and what transpired there - from how gallo-roman gauls had preserved a lot of gallic cultural traits well into the fall of roman empire to the return of the romans one last time to britain in order to give bretons blueprints and tools to teach them how to build roman arms and armor because from that point on they would have to defend themselves. (roman emperor apparently told britons they would have to defend themselves circa 406 ad or so).

yeah, i have a habit of reading history. as a hobby to learn stuff. back before wikipedia, researching history was VERY hard, and what you could find was rather impossible to gauge in regard to bias. there may be bias in wikipedia, but at least, you have the references to judge it yourself, instead of having to swallow what rare piece you found like before wikipedia. if we compare my last 4-5 years' of online history reading to ALL the effort i spent in the 15 years preceding it - well, lets not. they are incomparable to the point that i am not even able to scale the difference in a meaningful fashion.

im grateful. thanks to all who contributed.

bah (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244286)

Not official until we can build it in Civ.

Genius? (3, Interesting)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244312)

Well, okay, I understand "to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius", but lets look at that standard applied to the Great Wall of China, as mentioned in the article. It is a great feat of construction for its age, but I don't see a lot of creative genius there -- ultimately it's just a big obstacle to keep people out. Furthermore, it was not a single construction project, but consisted of a number of building projects over something like ten centuries. There is also some question as to how effective it was.

Come to think of it, based on the latter two aspects I just mentioned, Wikipedia compares quite well to the Great Wall of China.

Then is has to be frozen and archived as is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36244464)

Then we would have to freeze it as is. :-)

but it is genius (4, Insightful)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36244466)

But Wikipedia resembles less the masterpiece of a genius than the fixation of an idiot savant.

As a developer I know how hard it can be to use technology to get groups of people to accomplish even simple tasks.

Look at how useful Wikipedia is. And the SHEER SCALE. It is un-f***ing-believeable.

Coming from an engineer, I can say that there is absolutely no question - Wikipedia is a modern masterpiece.

Does it contain creative genius? Yes. The creative genius was the creator's decision to allow anyone to contribute, when everyone said it wouldn't work.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?