Possible confusion between Wikileaks & Wikipedia

[Macskeeball]

For those who don't know, over the past week there's been an uproar about ~90,000 secret US military documents from Afghanistan being posted to the controversial whistleblower website Wikileaks. It's been a big story in the mainstream news.

My techie/FLOSS concern with this is that not everyone actually knows what a wiki is. I wonder how many non-techies mistakenly think that Wikipedia is somehow affiliated with Wikileaks, because they think of "wiki" as part of a brand name rather than as the software behind editable websites.

I wonder if Wikileaks controversies will give such people a more negative view of Wikipedia even though they have nothing to do with each other. What do you think?

[Dustin2128]

dunno, hard to say. The technologically illiterate can come up with some really strange ideas.

[BenAshton24]

Why "a more negative view"? Some less knowledgeable users may have a more positive view when they see that WikiLeaks is attempting to make a more open world that is free of secrecy, propaganda and government corruption.

[Dustin2128]

Why "a more negative view"? Some less knowledgeable users may have a more positive view when they see that WikiLeaks is attempting to make a more open world that is free of secrecy, propaganda and government corruption.
Good point. I for one commend wikileaks. At the risk of sounding overly political, the war in Afghanistan has gone on far too long. If this is what it takes to end it, so be it. Living in the US, however, I must say that the majority people in my area despise wikileaks and what it does, not to mention the media coverage is more biased about it than most issues, no matter what station you watch. They could block it tomorrow and nobody I know would care...

[Macskeeball]

Why "a more negative view"? Some less knowledgeable users may have a more positive view when they see that WikiLeaks is attempting to make a more open world that is free of secrecy, propaganda and government corruption.

Without getting into that debate, I'll simply say that the mainstream are hearing about Wikileaks as irresponsibly putting lives at risk.

[BenAshton24]

Without getting into that debate, I'll simply say that the mainstream are hearing about Wikileaks as irresponsibly putting lives at risk.

Also without getting into a debate, the people putting lives at risk are the ones with the guns.

[lovinglinux]

Also without getting into a debate, before someone closes the thread without getting into a debate...

EDIT: Removed to avoid closing the thread and avoid getting a warning without a debate.

[Dustin2128]

lovinglinux, that might be thread closing material. You might want to unpost that.

[lovinglinux]

lovinglinux, that might be thread closing material. You might want to unpost that.

It doesn't matter, this thread will be closed soon. Besides, that material was all over the mainstream news TV.

Removed it anyway.

[BenAshton24]

To bring this topic back to open source issues and hopefully prevent it's closure:

It looks to me as if WikiLeaks embodies many of the values that the open source community does. In my opinion, a more open and honest world is better for everyone.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Also without getting into a debate, before someone closes the thread without getting into a debate...

Removed to avoid closing the thread.

Whatever it said before, your post is STUPENDOUSLY awesome now :)

[Dustin2128]

Also without getting into a debate, before someone closes the thread without getting into a debate...

EDIT: Removed to avoid closing the thread and avoid getting a warning without a debate.
thanks.
Anyhow, I think total transparency is a good thing. It just doesn't give the same softness as 'translucency' does if you get my meaning.

[Macskeeball]

My intent was for this thread to be about the possibility of a controversial (whatever your opinion on it) website being associated with Wikipedia in the minds of non-techie people who don't know what "wiki" means. Please don't turn this into a political discussion. Thanks.

Back on topic: I've done some Googling on this since posting the thread, and have already found several instances of such confusion, including one article with an image caption saying that WikiLeaks is part of the Wikipedia network.

[lovinglinux]

Please don't turn this into a political discussion. My intent was for it to be about the possibility of a controversial (whatever your opinion on it) website being associated with Wikipedia in the minds of non-techie people who don't know what "wiki" means. Then again, perhaps sticking too strictly to that might severely limit discussion. Let's please just keep in mind that this isn't a forum for political discussion. Thanks.

Back on topic: I've done some Googling on this since posting the thread, and have already found several instances of such confusion, including one article with an image caption saying that WikiLeaks is part of the Wikipedia network.

Have you seen the survey Google did when they launched Google Chrome browser? A lot of people think Google is already the browser (IE) and lot of people think Google is the Internet.

So does it make any difference if people think Wikileaks belongs to the same network of Wikipedia? As long as the CIA doesn't take Wikipedia servers by mistake, they will be fine. Bad publicity is also publicity. Take for example all the attempts of media companies to take down the Pirate Bay. Only made it more popular.

[Macskeeball]

Have you seen the survey Google did when they launched Google Chrome browser? A lot of people think Google is already the browser (IE) and lot of people think Google is the Internet.

No, I haven't. I did some digging though. Were you talking about this? http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/06/24/what-is-a-web-browser

BTW, my grandparents used to think that Google search was something you paid for, and that some people pay to use Google, and some pay to use Yahoo, etc. I'm guessing that thinking stemmed from there being an AT&T Yahoo ISP.

[lovinglinux]

No, I haven't. I did some digging though. Were you talking about this? http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/06/24/what-is-a-web-browser

Exactly. So Wikileaks = Wikipedia = Wikianything.

[chessnerd]

Yep, when that was on the news my dad assumed it had something to do with Wikipedia. I swiftly corrected him. I fear that Wikipedia will indeed be harmed by this...

[Dustin2128]

I fear that Wikipedia will indeed be harmed by this...
I do as well if some people think google 'is' the internet.
If the U.S. does take action against wikileaks, I will move to Iceland (been looking for a reason to do this anyway).

[lovinglinux]

I do as well if some people think google 'is' the internet.
If the U.S. does take action against wikileaks, I will move to Iceland (been looking for a reason to do this anyway).

Better pack your bags then :)

[Macskeeball]

Yep, when that was on the news my dad assumed it had something to do with Wikipedia. I swiftly corrected him. I fear that Wikipedia will indeed be harmed by this...

It probably doesn't help matters that visually WikiLeaks looks like Wikipedia. Some might take that as a sister site design consistency thing, not realizing that it's just a result of them both using the MediaWiki software with the default theme.

[BenAshton24]

I do as well if some people think google 'is' the internet.
If the U.S. does take action against wikileaks, I will move to Iceland (been looking for a reason to do this anyway).

Have you ever read any of the stories on Computer Stupidities (http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/) They make people who think that google is the internet look like geniuses.

I like your new blog btw :)

[lovinglinux]

It probably doesn't help matters that visually WikiLeaks looks like Wikipedia. Some might take that as a sister site design consistency thing, not realizing that it's just a result of them both using the MediaWiki software with the default theme.

Indeed.

[23dornot23d]

In answer to your question - they both do similar things ........

Wikipedia - tries to give the best description it can to any topic ,,,,, clarifying the TRUTH as we understand it

Wikileaks - tries to give the best information it can to secrets ...... clarifying the TRUTH

because someone somewhere does not liike this clarification ....... does not make it less honest or truthful

What it does do - is makes Wikileaks sound like it is something bad and to be avoided .........

__________________________________________________ ________________

If people need to avoid the truth ........ and the facts

In the same way we could relate it to firms not giving the code out openly for graphics drivers ........

To write a good program that works given the secrets are kept from the developers .......
how good will the program become ........

imagine someone leaking the code for the Graphics Drivers ....... in a similar way ....... the firms would not
like it .

__________________________________________________ _________________

But it could actually help in finding better solutions to a problem.
__________________________________________________ _________________

If Wikileaks becomes a bad thing - then in the same way - the truth and facts become a bad thing.

so we could say that Wikipedia if it does a similar task of opening peoples minds to the truth
then it should become a bad thing too .......


(We believe what we want to believe ...... if people want to turn us against something - ask why witches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft) were called witches and how truthful that was ........ they still drowned em ....... at the time .......)

Do people nowadays still do the same things ?

[Dustin2128]

Have you ever read any of the stories on Computer Stupidities (http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/) They make people who think that google is the internet look like geniuses.

I like your new blog btw :)
thanks.
As far as stupidity goes, methinks this one takes the cake.



Customer: "Hi, I'd like to buy a virus."
Me: "You really don't want a virus on your computer. What you need is anti-virus software."
Customer: "No, my son told me I need a virus, and that's what I'd like."
Me: "No worries. You don't need to buy a virus -- you can just connect to the internet and download one."