6 ms·

Peititon for Wikpedia to become first digital World Heritage Site

152 points by Fargren 15y ago

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
World Heritage Sites are meant to be preserved aren't they? Wouldn't that mean that it couldn't be changed.... ;-)
davidw 15y ago
> This is why as a cross-border cultural achievement, WIKIPEDIA deserves recognition and protection as UNESCO’s first digital World Cultural Heritage Site. What, pray tell, is the point of any of this? I get 'UNESCO' for, say, nice places that deserve recognition and protection, but... a web site? Are they going to cough up cash? Whose cash?
- yannickmahe 15y ago
  For heritage site, it generally means more money for the site. I think part of it comes from the UN and part of it from the country of the site (so the US in this case?). Wikipedia could gain by becoming somewhat independant for its many expenses in keeping the site running.
- brightbyte 15y ago
  technically, Wikipedia is seeking protection as intangible cultural heritage (examples include french cuisine and agentinian tango), not as a heritage site. But that is such a mouthful. Let's go for "World Heritage Website" :)
mseebach 15y ago
Frankly, this is overly pompous. Yes, Wikipedia is a remarkable feat, but let's take a deep breath before we elevate it to the same status as the Great Wall of China, Notre Dame, Taj Mahal and Angkor Vat. And think the idea through: If Wikipedia can get on, is there any reason, what so ever, that Facebook can't? And hasn't the world heritage list lost all meaning by then?
- edanm 15y ago
  I completely disagree. Wikipedia is, to my mind at least, much "grander" than any of the other things you mentioned. It is literally the largest collection of human knowledge ever assembled. And it was done by combining the work of millions of contributors. In impact it is more important than any of the things you mentioned, and in construction, it involved far more work.
  - mseebach 15y ago
    We have no idea what Wikipedias impact is or will be over any kind of significant time frame. PG writes that there is still room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Encyclopedia Britannica without stirring controversy. I'm also not so sure about the amount of work involved. The monuments I listed consumed staggering amounts of work, and then we haven't even compared casualties yet.
    - niels_olson 15y ago
      > PG wrote Oh, well, the messiah has spoken </sarcasm> /* await downvotes */
      - jokermatt999 15y ago
        You'll be downvoted for a bad attitude, not what you're saying. Also, the "I'll be downvoted" meme is rather obnoxious, and I make a point to downvote it every single time I see it. Leave it on reddit. Let your words stand alone, don't rely on manipulating the voters. However, you do have a good point. It should not matter that it was pg saying it. It should only matter what the actual possibility of Wikipedia being overtaken is. Personally, I don't think that's likely to happen. There's just been too much put into Wikipedia for it to be disrupted, for better or worse.
        mseebach 15y ago
        It doesn't matter that PG was saying it, it matters that the statement has been widely cited and linked, yet didn't and hasn't caused controversy. If Wikipedia was really world-heritage material, it's strange that a public figure like PG could get away with such a statement with no controversy.
mooism2 15y ago
What would be different if Wikipedia was a digital World Heritage Site? And Wikipedia's been going ten years: that's not a lot of heritage.
- Fargren 15y ago
  There's millions of man-hours of heritage. I don't have data to back me up, but I'd wager more time and effort has been spent in building Wikipedia than in any World Heritage, maybe more than all of them combined. But I don't really know what difference would it make if it became a World Heritage.
  - rrrazdan 15y ago
    Umm according this link http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/01/pyramid-at-giza.cfm http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/01/pyramid-at-giza.cfm the figure for the Great Pyramid at Giza is 3.5 billion man hours. Wikipedia has aroun 18 million articles. Assuming 2 hours per article, fair enough since most of these are 1-2 para stubs, that's not much.
    - albedoa 15y ago
      That information seems pretty suspect to me. They are assuming an average force of 100,000 men working at any one time to reach that figure. Funny enough, this Wikipedia article gives significantly smaller average work forces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#Great_Pyramid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_t...
      - rrrazdan 15y ago
        Yes but even if we assume a figure of 30000 men and a 10 year timeline, that amounts to half a billion man hours. To reach that level Wikipedia should have a total spend of 27 manhours per article which seems improbable. Let alone other projects.
- flipbrad 15y ago
Vlasta 15y ago
And while we are at it, why don't we put the http protocol on the list as well? This is insane.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tshtf 15y ago
Will UNESCO stop the rampant deletionism if Wikipedia becomes a World Heritage Site?
- brudgers 15y ago
  [snark]Yes, Pokemon scholarship will continue to flourish. [/snark]
- bane 15y ago
  It's a good question. Suppose somebody went to a physical WHS and started removing parts of the structure they didn't think were necessary.
- brightbyte 15y ago
  this is about protecting the culture, not the content, of wikipedia. and the ongoing deletionism vs. inclusionism-debate is part of that culture (and so are edit wars, i'm afraid...)
rrrazdan 15y ago
My 2 cents on this is that the decision for something to be considered a worldwide heritage cannot be taken in such haste. Time averages and moderates the opinion. Sure Wikipedia is a nice achievement. But its merits, benefits and importance would have to stand the test of time. Perhaps our future generations can take such a decision, but for Wikipedia to propose that right now, is 'overly pompous' as someone commented. EDIT: Downvoted for this! It stands to reason that a true measure of greatness comes with time. This is the reason that the 'pontification' process has these checks of time. To let reason and proper debate hold sway over other considerations.
safgerherer 15y ago
ONLINE STORE : ====( http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com )===== The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal jordan shoes $32 nike shox $32 Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23 Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15 ed hardy short_tank_woman $16 Sandal $32 christian louboutin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27 handbag $33 AF tank woman $17 puma slipper woman $30 ====( http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com )=====
safgerherer 15y ago
ONLINE STORE : ====( http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com )===== The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal jordan shoes $32 nike shox $32 Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23 Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15 ed hardy short_tank_woman $16 Sandal $32 christian louboutin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27 handbag $33 AF tank woman $17 puma slipper woman $30 ====( http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com )=====
zalew 15y ago
when wikipedia becomes heritage, wouldn't it mean that it has to be left untouched from that point?
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  No. To do so would clearly harm the heritage site, just as removing some of the statues in a protected cathedral would.
bane 15y ago
I wonder if anybody's taken a shake at estimating the number of man hours spent in creating wikipedia?
aghilmort 15y ago
Internet Archive / Wayback Machine (http://archive.org http://archive.org) also merits considering for digital World Heritage inclusion.
azar1 15y ago
Selection Criteria (grabbed from Wikipedia) (i) "represents a masterpiece of human creative genius" (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" (iii) "bears a unique or exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared" (iv) "is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural, or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage in human history" (v) "is an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture, or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change" (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" I'd say Wikipedia passes all of these to an extent, although maybe it is a bit too soon to say so. Who are we to say that our current period is a "significant stage in human history"?
- ugh 15y ago
  Who are we to say that our current period is a "significant stage in human history"? Well, we have history to compare to. Our world is quickly changing right now – faster than in the past. I’m pretty confident that the rise of the internet and its first unique widespread applications (of which Wikipedia is one) will be a long chapter in future history books. I’m not yet ready to compare it to the other significant events of the past few centuries (first and foremost certainly the industrial revolution) but I wouldn’t be surprised if it (the internet as a whole – not just Wikipedia) comes close to the disruptive force of the industrial revolution.
lukejduncan 15y ago
Maybe I should have, but I didn't know what UNESCO was. In case you're like me here's a link to the World Heritage Convention which isn't on the wikipedia site: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list http://whc.unesco.org/en/list
peterbotond 15y ago
wikipedia World Heritage? i believe not. 1. it is heavily biased. 2. censored. 3. not always as acurate as it could be. (down vote me, it will still not change the fact that for example what is deleted is someones priority, not necessary in accordance with academia.)
- hugh3 15y ago
  (down vote me, it will still not change the fact that for example what is deleted is someones priority, not necessary in accordance with academia.) I downvoted you for making a vague statement which could have been interesting if properly backed up, and then I downvoted you again for inviting me to downvote you.
  - peterbotond 15y ago
    thanks. next time it will be more interesting.
nanoanderson 15y ago
Main issue against this: Wikipedia is not in danger of any kind. Although "need for protection" is not listed in the criteria for selection according to UNESCO's website (http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria), the "Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage" which established the concept of World Heritage Sites specifically states that World Heritage Sites are to be used for protection of threatened sites. Page 1 of http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf states it all quite clearly.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  > Main issue against this: Wikipedia is not in danger of any kind. Many of the places on the list - Notre Dame, for example - are in no such danger, either.

152 points by Fargren 15y ago

World Heritage Sites are meant to be preserved aren't they? Wouldn't that mean that it couldn't be changed.... ;-)

> This is why as a cross-border cultural achievement, WIKIPEDIA deserves recognition and protection as UNESCO’s first digital World Cultural Heritage Site. What, pray tell, is the point of any of this? I get 'UNESCO' for, say, nice places that deserve recognition and protection, but... a web site? Are they going to cough up cash? Whose cash?

yannickmahe 15y ago
For heritage site, it generally means more money for the site. I think part of it comes from the UN and part of it from the country of the site (so the US in this case?). Wikipedia could gain by becoming somewhat independant for its many expenses in keeping the site running.
brightbyte 15y ago
technically, Wikipedia is seeking protection as intangible cultural heritage (examples include french cuisine and agentinian tango), not as a heritage site. But that is such a mouthful. Let's go for "World Heritage Website" :)

mseebach 15y ago

Frankly, this is overly pompous. Yes, Wikipedia is a remarkable feat, but let's take a deep breath before we elevate it to the same status as the Great Wall of China, Notre Dame, Taj Mahal and Angkor Vat. And think the idea through: If Wikipedia can get on, is there any reason, what so ever, that Facebook can't? And hasn't the world heritage list lost all meaning by then?

edanm 15y ago
I completely disagree. Wikipedia is, to my mind at least, much "grander" than any of the other things you mentioned. It is literally the largest collection of human knowledge ever assembled. And it was done by combining the work of millions of contributors. In impact it is more important than any of the things you mentioned, and in construction, it involved far more work.
- mseebach 15y ago
  We have no idea what Wikipedias impact is or will be over any kind of significant time frame. PG writes that there is still room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Encyclopedia Britannica without stirring controversy. I'm also not so sure about the amount of work involved. The monuments I listed consumed staggering amounts of work, and then we haven't even compared casualties yet.
  - niels_olson 15y ago
    > PG wrote Oh, well, the messiah has spoken </sarcasm> /* await downvotes */
    - jokermatt999 15y ago
      You'll be downvoted for a bad attitude, not what you're saying. Also, the "I'll be downvoted" meme is rather obnoxious, and I make a point to downvote it every single time I see it. Leave it on reddit. Let your words stand alone, don't rely on manipulating the voters. However, you do have a good point. It should not matter that it was pg saying it. It should only matter what the actual possibility of Wikipedia being overtaken is. Personally, I don't think that's likely to happen. There's just been too much put into Wikipedia for it to be disrupted, for better or worse.
      - mseebach 15y ago
        It doesn't matter that PG was saying it, it matters that the statement has been widely cited and linked, yet didn't and hasn't caused controversy. If Wikipedia was really world-heritage material, it's strange that a public figure like PG could get away with such a statement with no controversy.

mooism2 15y ago

What would be different if Wikipedia was a digital World Heritage Site? And Wikipedia's been going ten years: that's not a lot of heritage.

Fargren 15y ago
There's millions of man-hours of heritage. I don't have data to back me up, but I'd wager more time and effort has been spent in building Wikipedia than in any World Heritage, maybe more than all of them combined. But I don't really know what difference would it make if it became a World Heritage.
- rrrazdan 15y ago
  Umm according this link http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/01/pyramid-at-giza.cfm http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/01/pyramid-at-giza.cfm the figure for the Great Pyramid at Giza is 3.5 billion man hours. Wikipedia has aroun 18 million articles. Assuming 2 hours per article, fair enough since most of these are 1-2 para stubs, that's not much.
  - albedoa 15y ago
    That information seems pretty suspect to me. They are assuming an average force of 100,000 men working at any one time to reach that figure. Funny enough, this Wikipedia article gives significantly smaller average work forces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#Great_Pyramid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_t...
    - rrrazdan 15y ago
      Yes but even if we assume a figure of 30000 men and a 10 year timeline, that amounts to half a billion man hours. To reach that level Wikipedia should have a total spend of 27 manhours per article which seems improbable. Let alone other projects.
flipbrad 15y ago

Vlasta 15y ago

And while we are at it, why don't we put the http protocol on the list as well? This is insane.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tshtf 15y ago

Will UNESCO stop the rampant deletionism if Wikipedia becomes a World Heritage Site?

brudgers 15y ago
[snark]Yes, Pokemon scholarship will continue to flourish. [/snark]
bane 15y ago
It's a good question. Suppose somebody went to a physical WHS and started removing parts of the structure they didn't think were necessary.
brightbyte 15y ago
this is about protecting the culture, not the content, of wikipedia. and the ongoing deletionism vs. inclusionism-debate is part of that culture (and so are edit wars, i'm afraid...)

rrrazdan 15y ago

My 2 cents on this is that the decision for something to be considered a worldwide heritage cannot be taken in such haste. Time averages and moderates the opinion. Sure Wikipedia is a nice achievement. But its merits, benefits and importance would have to stand the test of time. Perhaps our future generations can take such a decision, but for Wikipedia to propose that right now, is 'overly pompous' as someone commented. EDIT: Downvoted for this! It stands to reason that a true measure of greatness comes with time. This is the reason that the 'pontification' process has these checks of time. To let reason and proper debate hold sway over other considerations.

safgerherer 15y ago

ONLINE STORE : ====( http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com )===== The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal jordan shoes $32 nike shox $32 Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23 Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15 ed hardy short_tank_woman $16 Sandal $32 christian louboutin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27 handbag $33 AF tank woman $17 puma slipper woman $30 ====( http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com )=====

safgerherer 15y ago

zalew 15y ago

when wikipedia becomes heritage, wouldn't it mean that it has to be left untouched from that point?

ceejayoz 15y ago
No. To do so would clearly harm the heritage site, just as removing some of the statues in a protected cathedral would.

bane 15y ago

I wonder if anybody's taken a shake at estimating the number of man hours spent in creating wikipedia?

aghilmort 15y ago

Internet Archive / Wayback Machine (http://archive.org http://archive.org) also merits considering for digital World Heritage inclusion.

azar1 15y ago

Selection Criteria (grabbed from Wikipedia) (i) "represents a masterpiece of human creative genius" (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" (iii) "bears a unique or exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared" (iv) "is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural, or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage in human history" (v) "is an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture, or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change" (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" I'd say Wikipedia passes all of these to an extent, although maybe it is a bit too soon to say so. Who are we to say that our current period is a "significant stage in human history"?

ugh 15y ago
Who are we to say that our current period is a "significant stage in human history"? Well, we have history to compare to. Our world is quickly changing right now – faster than in the past. I’m pretty confident that the rise of the internet and its first unique widespread applications (of which Wikipedia is one) will be a long chapter in future history books. I’m not yet ready to compare it to the other significant events of the past few centuries (first and foremost certainly the industrial revolution) but I wouldn’t be surprised if it (the internet as a whole – not just Wikipedia) comes close to the disruptive force of the industrial revolution.

lukejduncan 15y ago

Maybe I should have, but I didn't know what UNESCO was. In case you're like me here's a link to the World Heritage Convention which isn't on the wikipedia site: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list http://whc.unesco.org/en/list

peterbotond 15y ago

wikipedia World Heritage? i believe not. 1. it is heavily biased. 2. censored. 3. not always as acurate as it could be. (down vote me, it will still not change the fact that for example what is deleted is someones priority, not necessary in accordance with academia.)

hugh3 15y ago
(down vote me, it will still not change the fact that for example what is deleted is someones priority, not necessary in accordance with academia.) I downvoted you for making a vague statement which could have been interesting if properly backed up, and then I downvoted you again for inviting me to downvote you.
- peterbotond 15y ago
  thanks. next time it will be more interesting.

nanoanderson 15y ago

Main issue against this: Wikipedia is not in danger of any kind. Although "need for protection" is not listed in the criteria for selection according to UNESCO's website (http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria), the "Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage" which established the concept of World Heritage Sites specifically states that World Heritage Sites are to be used for protection of threatened sites. Page 1 of http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf states it all quite clearly.

ceejayoz 15y ago
> Main issue against this: Wikipedia is not in danger of any kind. Many of the places on the list - Notre Dame, for example - are in no such danger, either.