Luca de Paris, auteur: artiste photographe, philosophe, anthologiste, enquêteur curieux.
Du 26 au 28 août 2009, je serai à Buenos Aires pour le congrès de Wikipedia, car j'ai été sélectionné pour une bourse afin de contribuer au projet Wikipédia, avec le projet suivant.
Since 15 years, I learn more and more things that are almost not diffused in medias, or very shortly, without any analysis. As Guy Debord wrote in his book "Spectacle Society" (1967), " In the inversed world, truth is a moment of false.". Wikipedia, is made by anybody who has informations about anything., normaly without influence of dominant groups. The important thing, overall if what you add seems unbelievable but is true, is that you source what you add, if not, it can and should be deleted. But I saw that a part of members, the administrators, can make impossible (for example "Loïc Le Ribault") or very difficult (for exemple "Mirko Beljanski") to create entries, for example about pionniers, even if their name is quoted in several other entries. So my interrogation is about the modalities to create entries and to add informations. Should it remain as it is now: a kind of "elite" that selects the other members by cooptation, so by similiraty, which makes difficult alternative informations? Or should it be more democratic (by a web-petition of a determinated number of members) or automatic (by a number of occurrences of the name of the new entry in actual entries)? It's a very important question to determinate if there should be a control of allowed information by an official way.
At the beginning, it was to add informations that seemed important to diffuse. Now, that I'm more involved by the importance of Wikipedia and of its credibility, it's also to increase the credibility of Wikipedia, by correcting faults in texts and by connecting informations.
Dimanche 19 avril 2009