|
|
| (45 versioni intermedie di uno stesso utente non sono mostrate) |
| Riga 2: |
Riga 2: |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| − | [[Storia di Wikipedia - Fonti]]
| |
| | {{TOCright}} | | {{TOCright}} |
| − | ==2001== | + | ==2001 gennaio-2002 gennaio - [[Fase I: il primo anno]]== |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===15 gennaio 2001 / debutto===
| + | |
| − | Il [[Wikipedia:it:15 gennaio|15 gennaio]], giorno in cui... biblioteca, ansa, sojuz 5,...
| + | |
| − | nel 2001, Wikipedia va online.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | La [http://web.archive.org/web/20010101-20010430sa_re_/http://www.wikipedia.com pagina] è molto scarna e annuncia l'intenzione di scrivere un'intera enciclopedia partendo da zero, in modo collaborativo!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Wales, Sanger e Nupedia===
| + | |
| − | Gli autori di questo progetto sono [[Wikipedia:it:Jimmy Wales|it:Jimmy Wales]] e [[Wikipedia:it:Larry Sanger|it:Larry Sanger]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Wales====
| + | |
| − | {{Citazione|His particular passion was objectivism, the philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand. In 1989, he initiated the Ayn Rand Philosophy Discussion List and served as moderator—the person who invites and edits e-mails from subscribers.|The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Citazione|Wales had a careful moderation style:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "First, I will frown—very much—on any flaming of any kind whatsoever … Second, I impose no restrictions on membership based on my own idea of what objectivism really is … Third, I hope that the list will be more “academic” than some of the others, and tend toward discussions of technical details of epistemology … Fourth, I have chosen a “middle-ground” method of moderation, a sort of behind-the-scenes prodding."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Wales was an advocate of what is generically termed “openness” online. An “open” online community is one with few restrictions on membership or posting—everyone is welcome, and anyone can say anything as long as it’s generally on point and doesn’t include gratuitous ad hominem attacks. Openness fit not only Wales’s idea of objectivism, with its emphasis on reason and rejection of force, but also his mild personality. He doesn’t like to fight. He would rather suffer fools in silence, waiting for them to talk themselves out, than confront them. This patience would serve Wales well in the years to come. |The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Citazione|In 1996, Wales and two partners founded a Web directory called Bomis. |The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Citazione|Wales clearly had the open-content movement in mind when, in the fall of 1999, he began thinking about a “volunteer-built” online encyclopedia. The idea—explored most prominently in Stallman’s 1999 essay “The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource”—had been around for some time. Wales says he had no direct knowledge of Stallman’s essay when he embarked on his encyclopedia project, but two bits of evidence suggest that he was thinking of Stallman’s GNU free documentation license. First, the name Wales adopted for his encyclopedia—Nupedia.org—strongly suggested a Stallman-esque venture. Second, he took the trouble of leasing a related domain name, GNUpedia.org. By January 2000, his encyclopedia project had acquired funding from Bomis and hired its first employee: Larry Sanger. |The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Sanger====
| + | |
| − | * Sanger è dottore in epistemologia<ref name=TheHive/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Citazione|He was drawn into the world of philosophy discussion lists and, in the early 1990s, was an active participant in Wales’s objectivism forum.|The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Citazione|In January 2000, he sent Wales a business proposal for what was in essence a cultural news blog. [...] Sanger signed on and moved to San Diego. |The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Nupedia====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I due insieme avevano un anno prima avviato un'altro progetto di enciclopedia, [[Wikipedia:it:Nupedia|it:Nupedia]], basato però su...
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Citazione|Wales and Sanger had the bad luck to launch Nupedia around the same time as Encyclopedia Britannica was made available for free on the Internet. Then there was the real problem: production. Sanger and the Nupedia board had worked out a multistage editorial system that could have been borrowed from any scholarly journal. In a sense, it worked: assignments were made, articles were submitted and evaluated, and copyediting was done. But, to both Wales and Sanger, it was all much too slow.|The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===marzo 2001===
| + | |
| − | Wikipedia era stata pensata come spalla per Nupedia, ma non bisogna aspettare molto per capire che è Wikipedia ad attirare l'attenzione. Dopo [http://web.archive.org/web/20011130161842/http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia meno di un mese] le pagine create dagli utenti sono più di 1.000 e il 30 marzo, dopo soli due mesi e mezzo, sono state raccolte già 3'000 pagine, spalmate in numerose categorie.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * {{Citazione|At the end of January, Wikipedia had seventeen “real” articles (entries with more than 200 characters). By the end of February, it had 150; March, 572; April, 835; May, 1,300; June, 1,700; July, 2,400; August, 3,700. At the end of the year, the site boasted approximately 15,000 articles and about 350 “Wikipedians.”|"The Hive"<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === maggio 2001 / Internazionalizzazione ===
| + | |
| − | A [http://web.archive.org/web/20010101-20011231sa_re_/http://www.wikipedia.com tre mesi] (14 maggio) dal lancio le pagine sono diventate 6.000.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Intanto vengono aperti i portali in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia#Namespaces_and_Internationalization 13 lingue] a cui presto si aggiungeranno anche arabo e ungherese.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | QUESTIONE LINGUE: Non per nazione ma per lingua!!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==2001 agosto ==
| + | |
| − | ===Kuro5hin===
| + | |
| − | In agosto Sanger scrive un importante articolo per il sito Kuro5hin, che darà a Wikipedia grande visibilità.<ref>[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121/ Kuro5hin] 2001/07/26 ''Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias'' (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Il portavoce della Britannica aveva annunciato in quei giorni che il modello economico del "tutto gratis" stava cambiando. Sanger invece sosteneva che invece dovevano ancora venire spingendosi addirittura ad ipotizzare che di lì a dieci anni le enciclopedie proprietarie come la Britannica sarebbero diventate obsolete: "piccole, datate e generalmente irrilevanti".<ref name=kuro5hin>[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121/ Kuro5hin] 2001/07/26 ''Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias'' (by Wikipedia's Larry Sanger)</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Sanger spiegava inoltre come fosse semplice contribuire a Wikipedia e editare le voci scritte da altri. Chiaramente non era naturale intervenire su temi che non si conoscevano. Gli errori venivano scoperti in fretta. Gli esperti erano rispettati E XXXXXXXXXXXX. Inoltre i Wikipediani, correggendosi l'un l'altro, percepivano un senso di scopo comune, di responsabilità, di cameratismo: altre ragioni per cui partecipare.<ref name=kuro5hin>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Sanger fa inoltre questa proiezione: se Wikipedia continua a produrre articoli al ritmo di 1000 al mese, in sette anni avrà prodotto 84'000 articoli.<ref name=kuro5hin>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Licenza GNU FDL====
| + | |
| − | Nell'articolo Sanger spiega che cosa significa la licenza GNU FDL: chiunque può usarne il contenuto, anche per scopi commerciali, a condizione di indicare la fonte del contenuto. Inoltre il contenuto può essere sviluppato ulteriormente da altri. Sanger spiega che chi rilascia un articolo con questo tipo di licenza lo fa per garantire che l'articolo rimanga libero al pubblico. Questa garanzia di libertà è una forte motivazione per lavorare su un'enciclopedia libera. Ma esiste anche un'altra ragione importante per partecipare: l'incredibile forza della collaborazione e l'uniformità e l'alta qualità del risultato, che non può essere raggiunto attraverso la somma di lavori individuali.<ref name=kuro5hin>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Brilliant Prose====
| + | |
| − | A luglio 2001 esiste già una pagina denominata "Brilliant Prose", in cui i membri di Wikipedia si fanno i complimenti per le voci scritte particolarmente bene. Gli articoli segnalati (fino a quel momento qualche centinaio) sono praticamente al livello di quelli delle enciclopedie proprietarie. Man mano che passa il tempo gli articoli migliorano. Parafrasando Linus Torvalds "Dati sufficienti occhi, tutti gli errori vengono scoperti".<ref name=kuro5hin>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===2001 settembre===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====4 settembre 2001: articolo del MIT====
| + | |
| − | Wales dichiara di aver speso circa 150'000 dollari per lo sviluppo di Wikipedia. Wikipedia appartiene alla società Bomis, ma Wales e Sanger hanno già l'idea di mettere in piedi una struttura non-profit per gestire Wikipedia.<ref>[http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12586/ MIT Technology Review] 2001/09/04 ''Free the Encyclopedias!''</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | L'articolo del MIT è molto supponente nei confronti di Wikipedia. "Wikipedia, che qualcuno potrebbe considerare come l'anarchia intellettuale sviluppata in forma enciclopedica, con l'aggiunta di una chat, cerca di andar contro la tendenza di far pagare per i contenuti in rete. Ma non riuscirà mai a detronizzare la Britannica, che con i suoi 232 anni di reputazione si basa sull'assunzione di esperti riconosciuti a livello mondiale e rivedendo i loro articoli con uno staff di più di cento editori.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "Ci sono un mucchio di lavori con riferimentiXXXXX in internet, ma non ci interessano più di tanto" dice Tom Panelas, direttore delle comunicazioni per la Britannica. "Le persone stanno cominciando a realizzare che mentre c'è molta informazione in internet, molta è assolutamente priva di senso, e molta è di dubbia provenienza. Essendo la Britannica, noi sempre abbiamo una natural constituency of people che sa che la Britannica è un nome di cui fidarsi per informazioni affidabili e ben scritte."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Per leggere la Britannica sul web bisogna pagare 50$ all'anno, sebbene sia possibile leggere gratuitamente i primi due paragrafi degli articoli. La società non rilascia le cifre delle sottoscrizioni ma afferma che più di 7 milioni di utenti hanno consultato britannica.com ogni mese durante l'anno scolastico.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Walter Bender, direttore esecutivo dei Media Laboratory del MIT, crede che ciò che rende la Britannica una valida risorsa è l'obiettivo e la profondità dei suoi lavori, e le enciclopedie libere come Wikipedia non saranno probabilmente mai in grado di competere con questo.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "Il lato negativo è che la Britannica non può praticamente tenere il passo con la crescita della conoscenza e dell'informazione", dice Bender. "Per esempio, la Britannica usa ancora la voce della città di Boston scritta 20 anni prima da Jack Driscoll, l'allora editore del Boston Globe. L'articolo fu scritto in una prosa atemporale, ma non coglie più l'essenza della città".
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Vero, la voce di Wikipedia su Boston dice: "La capitale del Massachusetts, USA. La grande Boston ha molti quartieri, incluso Cambridge, Massachusetts."<ref>[http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12586/ MIT Technology Review] 2001/09/04 ''Free the Encyclopedias!''</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====11 settembre 2001====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * September 11 - a 12-hour marathon by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Cunctator The Cunctator] and other Wikipedians results in the Sept. 11 page collection. Information is entered almost in real-time from new reports.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Settembre 2001 / cos'è un'enciclopedia?==== | + | |
| − | A fine estate le pagine sono oltre 12.000 e i visitatori unici connessi in un solo giorno sono più di 8'000. Ma visto le prime controversie (cit), non si può non affrontare la questione: Wikipedia vuole essere un'enciclopedia: ma [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_an_encyclopedia che cosa è un'enciclopedia]? what sort of knowledge is included in an encyclopedia?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "Wikipedia è un'enciclopedia che comprende gli elementi tipici delle enciclopedie "generiche", delle enciclopedie "specialistiche" e degli almanacchi. Wikipedia non è una raccolta indiscriminata di informazioni. Quindi non è una fonte primaria ma piuttosto uno strumento di divulgazione secondaria; non è un dizionario né un palco per comizi, né un giornale; non è neanche un luogo dove fare autopromozione, o un banco di prova per l'anarchia o la democrazia; non è neppure una web directory né un posto dove inserire le proprie opinioni, esperienze o argomentazioni; tutti i contributori devono sforzarsi di seguire le politiche comunitariamente basate sulla verificabilità e sul divieto di ricerche originali."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * {{Citazione|Wikipedia’s growth caught Wales and Sanger off guard. It forced them to make quick decisions about what Wikipedia would be, how to foster cooperation, and how to manage it. In the beginning it was by no means clear what an “open” encyclopedia should include. People posted all manner of things: dictionary definitions, autobiographies, position papers, historical documents, and original research. In response, Sanger created a “[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not What Wikipedia Is Not]” page. There he and the community defined Wikipedia by exclusion—not a dictionary, not a scientific journal, not a source collection, and so on. For everything else, they reasoned that if an article could conceivably have gone in Britannica, it was “encyclopedic” and permitted; if not, it was “not encyclopedic” and deleted. |"The Hive"<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==== NPOV ====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * "There is one important result, however, of the fact that general encyclopedias codify "human knowledge": it is that it is appropriate that general encyclopedias be written from a neutral point of view. Where one controversial view is presented as fact, or is asserted as being probably true when a substantial number of experts or concerned parties would disagree with that, the reader of the encyclopedia is given a skewed view about what "human knowledge" of the topic consists of. To be given a really accurate view of "how the experts think" about a topic, it is important to represent, fairly, all the views of the experts, whoever they might be."
| + | |
| − | * "I guess I agree that, to qualify as such, this knowledge has to have some sort of warrant, in the sense that indeed there are certain criteria a bit of information would have to meet to constitute "human knowledge" or "expert knowledge."
| + | |
| − | * articolo di Marshall Poe su NPOV<ref>Marshall Poe, [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia-sidebar A Closer Look at the Neutral Point of View (NPOV)], August 1, 2006</ref>: potrebbe essere molto utile analizzare una voce come ha fatto lui per spiegare il NPOV.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Articolo su NYT====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Questa è l'opinione di James O'Donnel, un professore di studi classici e vice ''provost'' all'Università della Pennsylvenia che ha esaminato l'influenza dei media digitali sulla scrittura nel suo libr "Avatars del mondo" (Harvard University Press, 1998), ''Ho avuto la forte impressione, quando entrai, di trovarmi in una comunità di persone che si parlavano fra loro'' disse riguardo ad una delle sue esplorazioni in Wikipedia.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ''La cosa stessa e l'esperienza potrebbero essere molto più preziose per coloro che lo stanno creando piuttoso che per qualcuno da fuori che entra dicendo, 'Allora quando c'è stata la Seconda Guerra punica e che è successo?' '' ha detto O'Donnell. ''Una comunità che trova il modo di parlare in questo modo stra creando educazione e una conversazione online ad un più altro livello.''<ref>[http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/circuits/20ENCY.html New York Times] 2001/09/20 ''Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You''</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Ottobre-novembre 2001===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Wikipedia has ~13,000 articles
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * {{Citazione|Both Wales and Sanger thought that the software might be useful, but that it was no way to build a trusted encyclopedia. Some sort of authority was assumed to be essential. Wales’s part in it was clear: he owned Wikipedia. Sanger’s role was murkier.
| + | |
| − | Citing the communal nature of the project, Sanger refused the title of “editor in chief,” a position he held at Nupedia, opting instead to be “chief organizer.” He governed the day-to-day operations of the project in close consultation with the “community,” the roughly two dozen committed Wikipedians (most of them Nupedia converts) who were really designing the software and adding content to the site. Though the division of powers between Sanger and the community remained to be worked out, an important precedent had been set: Wikipedia would have an owner, but no leader. |"The Hive"<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * '''The Cunctator''': {{Citazione|By October 2001, the number of Wikipedians was growing by about fifty a month. There were a lot of new voices, among them a user known as “The Cunctator” (Latin for “procrastinator” or “delayer”). “Cunc,” as he was called, advocated a combination of anarchy (no hierarchy within the project) and radical openness (few or no limitations on contributions). Sanger was not favorably disposed to either of these positions, though he had not had much of a chance to air his opposition. Cunc offered such an opportunity by launching a prolonged “edit war” with Sanger in mid-October of that year. In an edit war, two or more parties cyclically cancel each other’s work on an article with no attempt to find the NPOV.|"The Hive"<ref name=TheHive/>}} Primo caso di edit war? Sicuramente esemplare!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Citazione|With Cunc clearly in mind, Sanger curtly defended his role before the community on November 1, 2001:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "I need to be granted fairly broad authority by the community—by you, dear reader—if I am going to do my job effectively. Until fairly recently, I was granted such authority by Wikipedians. I was indeed not infrequently called to justify decisions I made, but not constantly and nearly always respectfully and helpfully. This place in the community did not make me an all-powerful editor who must be obeyed on pain of ousting; but it did make me a leader. That’s what I want, again. This is my job. "
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Seen from the trenches, this was a striking statement. Sanger had so far said he was primus inter pares; now he seemed to be saying that he was just primus. Upon reading this post, one Wikipedian wrote: “Am I the only person who detects a change in [Sanger’s] view of his own position? Am I the only person who fears this is a change for the worse?”
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On November 4, the Sanger-Cunc contretemps exploded. Simon Kissane, a respected Wikipedian, accused Sanger of capriciously deleting pages, including some of Cunc’s work. Sanger denied the allegation but implied that the excised material was no great loss. He then launched a defense of his position in words that bled resentment:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "I do reserve the right to permanently delete things—particularly when they have little merit and when they are posted by people whose main motive is evidently to undermine my authority and therefore, as far as I’m concerned, damage the project. Now suppose that, in my experience, if I make an attempt to justify this or other sorts of decisions, the people in question will simply co-opt huge amounts of my time and will never simply say, “Larry, you win; we realize that this decision is up to you, and we’ll have to respect it.” Then, in order to preserve my time and sanity, I have to act like an autocrat. In a way, I am being trained to act like an autocrat. It’s rather clever in a way—if you think college-level stunts are clever. Frankly, it’s hurting the project, guys—so stop it, already. Just write articles—please! "
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The blowup disturbed Wales to no end. As a list moderator, he had tried hard to keep his discussants out of flame wars. He weighed in with an unusually forceful posting that warned against a “culture of conflict.” Wikipedia, he implied, was about building an encyclopedia, not about debating how to build or govern an encyclopedia. Echoing Sanger, he argued that the primary duty of community members was to contribute—by writing code, adding content, and editing. Enough talk, he seemed to be saying: we know what to do, now let’s get to work. Yet he also seemed to take a quiet stand against Sanger’s positions on openness and on his own authority:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "Just speaking off the top of my head, I think that total deletions seldom make sense. They should be reserved primarily for pages that are just completely mistaken (typos, unlikely misspellings), or for pages that are nothing more than insults. "
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Wales also made a strong case that anyone deleting pages should record his or her identity, explain his or her reasons, and archive the entire affair.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Within several weeks, Sanger and Cunc were at each other’s throats again. Sanger had proposed creating a “Wikipedia Militia” that would deal with issues arising from sudden massive influxes of new visitors. It was hardly a bad idea: such surges did occur (they’re commonly called “slash-dottings”). But Cunc saw in Sanger’s reasonable proposition a very slippery slope toward “central authority.” “You start deputizing groups of people to do necessary and difficult tasks,” he wrote, “fast-forward two/three years, and you have pernicious cabals.”
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Given the structure of Wikipedia there was little Sanger could do to defend himself. The principles of the project denied him real punitive authority: he couldn’t ban “trolls”—users like Cunc who baited others for sport—and deleting posts was evidence of tyranny in the eyes of Sanger’s detractors. A defensive strategy wouldn’t work either, as the skilled moderator’s tactic for fighting bad behavior—ignoring it—was blunted by the wiki. On e-mail lists, unanswered inflammatory posts quickly vanish under layers of new discussion; on a wiki, they remain visible to all, often near the tops of pages. Sanger was trapped by his own creation.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Wales saw that Sanger was having trouble managing the project. Indeed, he seems to have sensed that Wikipedia really needed no manager. In mid-December 2001, citing financial shortfalls, he told Sanger that Bomis would be cutting its staff and that he should look for a new job. To that point, Wales and his partners had supported both Nupedia and Wikipedia. But with Bomis suffering in the Internet bust, there was financial pressure. Early on, Wales had said that advertising was a possibility, but the community was now set against any commercialization. In January 2002, Sanger loaded up his possessions and returned to Ohio.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Cunc responded to Sanger’s departure with apparent appreciation:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "I know that we’ve hardly been on the best of terms, but I want you to know that I’ll always consider you one of the most important Wikipedians, and I hope that you’ll always think of yourself as a Wikipedian, even if you don’t have much time to contribute. Herding cats ain’t easy; you did a good job, all things considered."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Characteristically, Sanger took this as nothing more than provocation: “Oh, how nice and gracious this was. Oh, thank you SO much, Cunctator. I’m sure glad I won’t have to deal with you anymore, Cunctator. You’re a friggin’ piece of work.” The next post on the list is from Wales, who showed a business- as-usual sangfroid: “With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for funds.”
| + | |
| − | |"The Hive"<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==2002== | | ==2002== |
| − | === January 2002: MediaWiki ===
| + | * 25 gennaio 2002: introduzione del software MediaWiki (Fase II) |
| − | | + | * 26 febbraio 2002: The Spanish Fork |
| − | * January 25 - Phase II MediaWiki software | + | * 1 marzo 2002: dimissioni di Larry Sanger |
| − | | + | * XX Agosto 2002: Wikipedia.com diventa Wikipedia.org |
| − | Summer 2002: Phase III software
| + | * 17 agosto 2002: un articolo del Daily Telegraph online cita WP |
| − | | + | * 20 novembre 2002: Lettera di Sanger a Wales |
| − | ===26 febbraio 2002===
| + | * 12 dicembre 2002: Lanciato Wiktionary |
| − | | + | |
| − | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre The spanish fork]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Possibile flash-forward
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === 1 marzo 2002 / Larry's resignation===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{Citazione|The main figure of the early history of wikipedia was Larry Sanger. He was the Editor-in-Chief of Nupedia, and self-titled "Main Instigator" of Wikipedia. During the first months, the number of contributors made it possible to resolve all matters by consensus, and Larry's role was mainly to craft guidelines, and write columns about different aspects of Wikipedia. These guidelines form the backbone of what Wikipedia is today, and without Larry its shape would probably be different (and without a paid "instigator" it would have take much more time to take off). Larry Sanger's contribution to Wikipedia in the early days was invaluable. His own work and editing of articles added by others, his guidance and steering of Wikipedia meant quite a lot then. However, his strong opinions and authoritarian style caused conflicts with several Wikipedians. Today we might say he wasn't prepared to be a mediator, maybe a fierce arbitrator.
| + | |
| − | As time went by, however, some discussions were dragging along without solution: Larry began to make use of his implicit authority, and finally acknowledge that authority. Several recurrent disputes arose, the most bitter of them with The Cunctator, who saw in almost every action of Larry's an abuse of power that did not belong in Wikipedia, and took actions that Larry (justly in many minds) considered harassing. Though Cunc's views were considered extreme by most of the contributors, that didn't tone down the discussion. Some Meta-Wikipedia articles dating from this period (some by Sanger, some by his detractors) are at History of Wikipedia/Articles by and about Larry Sanger.|[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia#Expansion_.282001_-_2002.29 Meta, History of Wikipedia]<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia#Expansion_.282001_-_2002.29 Meta, History of Wikipedia</ref>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger | + | |
| − | * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/My_resignation--Larry_Sanger | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Controversy ===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Political controversy became a major focus of editorial policy in mid-2002 - Larry Sanger returned after his resignation to wade in to the following:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In March 2002, the user "24" (named after his internet address) began to make a large number of controversial edits. Discussions about these edits became heated, and many people felt that 24, while knowledgable about various topics, was unable to work well with others. After posting what was perceived as a threat against Larry Sanger, Jimbo Wales banned his IP from the site for two days in April 2002 after lengthy debate on the mailing list. Many of his contributions remain in the encyclopedia.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "H.J." was banned from Wikipedia in September 2002. See [http://web.archive.org/web/20040113091308/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:H.J./ban] for details.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===August 2002===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Shortly after Jimbo Wales announced that he would never run commercial en:advertisements on Wikipedia, the en:URL of Wikipedia was changed from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===November 2002===
| + | |
| − | Sanger [[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/000047.html proposes]] and Wales [[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/000086.html concedes]] to nonnegotiable policies
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===dicembre 2002===
| + | |
| − | [[December 12]]: [http://wiktionary.wikipedia.org Wiktionary], the parallel lexical project to Wikipedia is launched. Wikipedians telling people that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" now point people to the sister project.
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==2003== | | ==2003== |
| − | | + | * 28 gennaio 2003: articolo su Wired |
| − | ===gennaio 2003===
| + | * 01 febbraio 2003: Copertura della news dell'esplosione dello Shuttle |
| − | January 15 - second anniversary. Shortly thereafter, 100,000 article mark is passed (an article is defined as a file with a comma in it, ruling out redirects or simple lists). 1,000,000 page views (page views per month? or since a particular date?) also passed about this time.
| + | * 26 aprile 2003: WP viene menzionata nel BMJ come modello |
| − | | + | * 06 giugno 2003: Sito della settimana per PC magazine |
| − | ===febbraio 2003===
| + | * 20 giugno 2003: Nascita della Wikimedia Foundation |
| − | February 1 - coverage of Space Shuttle Columbia disaster appears in more or less real time, much like the 9/11 editing flood, with facts entered from the news. Background articles on space exploration, national space programs and the like appear. Suggestion that Wikews (Wiki news) might be viable project.
| + | * XX giugno? 2003: Nascita di Wikiquote |
| − | | + | * 15 luglio 2003: esperimento di Andrew Lih |
| − | agganciare qui wikinews e parlare di "recentismo"?
| + | * 15 luglio 2003: ne parla la National Public Radio |
| − | | + | * ?? luglio? 2003: nascita di Wikibooks |
| − | ===June 2003===
| + | * 04 agosto 2003: ne parla la CNN |
| − | | + | * 12 agosto 2003: ne parla il Time ("L'enciclopedia della gente") |
| − | Consensus begins to develop on how to deal with claims and thinking regarding Wikipedia itself in the text of the Wikipedia. Main issue: how each language version can develop on its own and collaborate on meta, and remain coordinated.
| + | * 05 settembre 2003: ne parla Science |
| − | | + | * ?? settembre 2003: morte di Nupedia |
| − | occasione per parlare dell'autocoscienza di sé?
| + | * ottobre-novembre 2003: introduzione del Mediation committee e del Arbitration committee |
| − | | + | * 12 ottobre 2003: introduzione in en.wiki del logo Nohat |
| − | Da Wikipedia e Nupedia fu creata, il 20 giugno 2003, la Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia e i progetti fratelli da allora operarono sostenuti da questa organizzazione non profit.
| + | * 28 ottobre 2003: primo incontro di Wikipediani |
| − | | + | |
| − | Wikiquote, una raccolta di citazioni (una settimana dopo il lancio di Wikimedia);
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===July 2003===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On July 15, Andrew Lih ("Fuzheado") set 80 Hong Kong University students loose on Wikipedia, with an assignment to write articles on Hong Kong related topics. The students were well received, and quickly found their work being edited and discussed by regular Wikipedians. On August 4, CNN aired a report on the experiment, on their TechWatch segment.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | interessante esperimento... da riproporre?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Wikibooks, una raccolta di manualistica libera da copyright e riportata sul web in modo collaborativo (il mese successivo al lancio di Wikimedia). luglio?!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===September 2003===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Nupedia goes off-line (server crash) never to return
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===October/November 2003===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In an attempt to take some of the pressure off "benevolent dictator" Jimbo Wales's shoulders, as well as reduce the number of Wikipedia's single points of failure and make Wikipedia more democratic, two committees, the Mediation committee and Arbitration committee are set up. Members of the mediation committee are tasked with helping users find amicable solutions to arising problems. The arbitration committee is equipped with more powers and can make binding decisions, such as to ban users.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | October 12 - The English Wikipedia switched to the Nohat logo ([http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_history Logo history])
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | October 28 - The first time a "real" meeting of Wikipedians happened in Munich. Since then in a lot of cities worldwide regular meetings of fellow Wikipedians are being held.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Late 2003: The non-english Wikipedias are collectively bigger than the English Wikipedia for the first time. The All-Wikipedia total of 350,000 articles is reached before the English Wikipedia total gains the 175,000 mark.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *Christmas 2003
| + | |
| − | ** A major computer crash takes wikipedia offline for a week and prompts Jimbo Wales to launch a fund-raising drive. In less than a week more than $30,000 is raised, thanks partly to another healthy dose of publicity on Slashdot. The money allows nine new computers to be purchased. These are brought online during January 2004, and as a result the location of the Wikimedia computers moves from San Diego to Florida, within an hour of Jimbo's home, allowing a better emergency response in the future. The editing and viewing experience is dramatically improved. (Full explanation of new server set-up at [[Wikimedia servers]]).
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==2004== | | ==2004== |
| − | | + | * 4 maggio 2004: WP vince il premio ''Prix Ars Electronica'' nella categoria ''Comunità digitali'' |
| − | ===Gennaio 2004===
| + | * 12 maggio 2004: WP vince il premio ''Webby Award'' nella categoria ''Comunità''. |
| − | | + | |
| − | English Wikipedia hits 200,000 articles, just over a year after hitting 100,000. A further slashdotting occurs, but Wikipedia rides the extra traffic with barely a hint of a slow down. See [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Milestones Milestones].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Febbraio 2004===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | February 2004
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 500,000 articles across all Wikipedias is reached. Non-English Wikipedias are now growing much more rapidly than English. A world-wide press release is released on February 25 2004 to announce this fact. The response is particularly good in Germany, with features in a major newspaper and TV news programme.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On February 26 2004 Jimbo Wales announces on the mailing list ([http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/011045.html]) that he has been approached by a major publisher to create a cut-down print edition of the English Wikipedia. Technical possibilities and difficulties abound. The target date for publication is October 2004.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===April 2004===
| + | |
| − | The English Wikipedia reaches a quarter of a million articles.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===maggio 2004===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * May 4, 2004 | + | |
| − | ** Wikipedia wins a [[en:Prix Ars Electronica|Prix Ars Electronica]] in the category ''Digital Communities''.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * May 12, 2004 | + | |
| − | ** Wikipedia wins a [[en:Webby Award|Webby Award]] in the category ''Community''.
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==2005== | | ==2005== |
| − | | + | * gennaio 2005: Il dominio wikipedia.org diventa un portale per tutte le lingue. |
| − | ===gennaio 2005===
| + | * aprile 2005: La Fondazione Wikimedia diventa un'organizzazione caritatevole esentasse negli Stati Uniti. |
| − | | + | * maggio 2005: Donazione di immagini d'arte da Directmedia Publishing |
| − | ** The Wikipedia website [http://www.wikipedia.org www.wikipedia.org domain] changed from a redirect to the English Wikipedia into a portal showing all Wikipedia languages having over 100 articles
| + | * dicembre 2005: il caso Seigenthaler |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===February 2005===
| + | |
| − | The English Wikipedia main page locked down after major vandalism
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===March 2005===
| + | |
| − | English Wikipedia: half-million English articles
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===April 2005===
| + | |
| − | Wikimedia Foundation tax-exempt charitable organization in the United States | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===May 2005===
| + | |
| − | ** German publishing company Directmedia Publishing donated digital images of some 10,000 works of art to the Wikimedia Commons
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===September 2005===
| + | |
| − | Wikimedia adds second full-time employee
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===November 2005===
| + | |
| − | 800,000th article created
| + | |
| − | Wikipedia breaks Alexa Top 40
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===December 2005===
| + | |
| − | * USA Today published a column by its former editorial page editor, John Seigenthaler Sr., who told of finding his own false biography
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * {{Citazione|There are, of course, exceptions, as in the case of the journalist John Seigenthaler, whose Wikipedia biography long contained a libel about his supposed complicity in the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy. But even this example shows that the system is, if not perfect, at least responsive. When Seigenthaler became aware of the error, he contacted Wikipedia. The community (led in this instance by Wales) purged the entry of erroneous material, expanded it, and began to monitor it closely. Even though the Seigenthaler entry is often attacked by vandals, and is occasionally locked to block them, the page is more reliable precisely because it is now under “enough eyeballs.” The same could be said about many controversial entries on Wikipedia: the quality of articles generally increases with the number of eyeballs. Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow.|The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==2006== | | ==2006== |
| Riga 337: |
Riga 90: |
| | ===senso di WP=== | | ===senso di WP=== |
| | | | |
| − | {{Citazione|I“Can someone please tell me what’s the end point/goal of Wikipedia?” Wales responded, only half jokingly, “The goal of Wikipedia is fun for the contributors.” He had a point. Editing Wikipedia is fun, and even rewarding. The site is huge, so somewhere on it there is probably something you know quite a bit about. Imagine that you happen upon your pet subject, or perhaps even look it up to see how it’s being treated. And what do you find? Well, this date is wrong, that characterization is poor, and a word is mispelled. You click the “edit” tab and make the corrections, and you’ve just contributed to the progress of human knowledge. All in under five minutes, and at no cost.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Yet Wikipedia has a value that goes far beyond the enjoyment of its contributors. For all intents and purposes, the project is laying claim to a vast region of the Internet, a territory we might call “common knowledge.” It is the place where all nominal information about objects of widely shared experience will be negotiated, stored, and renegotiated. When you want to find out what something is, you will go to Wikipedia, for that is where common knowledge will, by convention, be archived and updated and made freely available. And while you are there, you may just add or change a little something, and thereby feel the pride of authorship shared by the tens of thousands of Wikipedians.
| |
| − | |The Hive<ref name=TheHive/>}}
| |
| | | | |
| | ===pagine di discussione=== | | ===pagine di discussione=== |
| Riga 393: |
Riga 142: |
| | }}</ref> | | }}</ref> |
| | | | |
| | + | ===MediaWiki Phase III=== |
| | | | |
| | ==Note== | | ==Note== |
| − | {{Sezione note}} | + | {{references|3}} |
Jimbo Wales afferma sinteticamente che Wikipedia ha raggiunto il volume sufficiente di voci e di spessore e chiede forse un accento sulla qualità e sui mezzi.
}}{{#if: | ({{{formato}}})
}}{{#if: | in '
}}{{#if: | , pp.
}}{{#if: | .
}}{{#if: 26 giugno 2007
|{{#if: |,|.}} {{#if: 26 giugno 2007
A gennaio, il Guinness dei primati inserisce Wikipedia come enciclopedia più grande del mondo.
Il 27 marzo Wikipedia con la voce hu:Nicholas Hilliard raggiunge il traguardo dei 10 milioni di voci (considerando tutte le sue oltre 250 edizioni in lingue diverse).
Il 3 ottobre Wikipedia in italiano raggiunge 500000 voci.
In November 2004, a demonstration wiki was established to show how such a collaborative news site might work. Template:As of, the site was moved out of the "demo" stage and into the beta stage. A German language edition was launched at the same time. Soon editions in Italian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Swedish, Bulgarian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Japanese, Russian, Hebrew, Arabic, Thai, Norwegian, and Chinese (in that chronological order) were set up.
A partire dal 2004 iniziò a costituirsi una rete di organismi su base nazionale collegati alla Wikimedia Foundation; i primi furono Wikimedia Deutschland (13 giugno 2004), Wikimedia France (23 ottobre 2004) e Wikimedia Italia (17 giugno 2005).
Wikipedia è stata bloccata dalla Repubblica Popolare Cinese più volte. I blocchi più importanti sono stati effettuati:
L'accesso alla Wikipedia persiana è stato bloccato dal governo per due o tre giorni nel 2005 a causa di voci diffamatorie nei confronti dello stato.
Wikipedia e tutti i siti della Wikimedia foundation sono stati bloccati in Tunisia il 23 e il 27 novembre 2006, per cause ancora da chiarire ma c'è il sospetto di scarsa libertà mediatica.
}}{{#if: | ({{{formato}}})
}}{{#if: | in '
}}{{#if: | , pp.
}}{{#if: heise online | . heise online
}}{{#if: 26 giugno 2007
|{{#if: heise online |,|.}} {{#if: 26 giugno 2007
| ({{#if: | {{{mese}}} }}{{{anno}}})
}}
}}{{ #if: 4-4-2008 |. URL consultato il {{ #if: 4-4-2008|4-4-2008| }}.}}</ref>
