The first Wikipedia

Wikipedia

No, this is not an article about Wikipedia. It is an article about ideas and the sharing of knowledge, something Wikipedia excels at. It is a look back to find the ancient ancestor of Wikipedia, where the idea of sharing information began. But, before we can look back, we have to know a little about Wikipedia and how in the space of ten years it has impacted the world.

From the Origin of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is a multilingual, free and an open content encyclopedia project which is operated by Non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia’s name is portmanteau of the terms wiki and encyclopedia. Wikipedia was launched in the year 2001 by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. At present, it is the largest, most popular and the fastest-growing common reference work accessible on the internet. 

From Facts and Figures:

Started in January 2001, The world's fastest-growing, most current, and largest encyclopedia, 6 million articles in over 250 languages. The largest sites are English, German, and French. Created entirely by volunteers. We have no paid editors. One of top five brands in the world [1]. Wikipedia is self-correcting for both content and users. The more eyeballs the higher our accuracy. An estimated 7 billion page views a month.

To see how truly international Wikipedia has become, view the index page of http://www.wikipedia.org/. To see how Wikipedia impacts its readers, and for real numbers, go to the page where Wikipedia keeps stats on the readers of articles. Wikipedia article traffic statistics.

But, this article is not about Wikipedia. Rather, it is about the idea that idea sharing is the best way to gather and disseminate information. The free sharing of information is not a new idea. One only has to think back to the organization of colleges and universities where teachers and students gather to remember that learning and teaching is a worthy endeavor. Wikipedia records that the distinction of the first university goes to The University of Bologna, which adopted an academic charter, the Constitutio Habita, in 1158 or 1155, guaranteeing the right of a traveling scholar to unhindered passage in the interests of education. The idea of speaking one's mind freely and without fear of punishment must have been a welcome thought. One must remember that heresies were punished by swiftly and extremely by secular and religious institutions alike.

Universities might have taken credit for being the first Wikipedia but for the fact that ideas could not be widely published and disseminated. Scholorship during the Renaissance was confined to the scholars themselves and the few princes who could afford the hand copied and embellished books that were transcribed one book at a time.


The first Wikipedia

The idea of the first Wikipedia would have to wait, and two events combined to make it possible. First was the expansion of travel in during the 1400's that opened up new worlds to European traders. Thus, the Portuguese who rounded the Cape of Good Hope found a new route to the East Indies. And Holland built its maritime trade on that fact. Second, Christopher Columbus discovered America, even if he did not then realize it, and made possible the discovery of new riches and new colonies. The second event was Johann Gutenberg's invention, the Chinese would say reinvention, of the printing press.

History had arrived at the point where a middle class had the money to spend and for books and industry had the means of producing them cheap enough.

In my opinion, the Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales award of being the first Wikipedia inventor goes to Abraham Ortels or Ortelius as he is more commonly known. He was born in Antwerp, Holland and died there in 1598. He was in the right place at the right time and he possessed the skills that made it possible to create a new and modern atlas of the world. Consider that the last time an atlas of the world had been completed was Ptolemy's atlas in 150 AD.

The incentive for Ortelius' venture was money. Unlike Wikipedia, Ortelius would have to sing for his supper and it was necessary that someone would pay for his work. And the success of the venture would again depend on the public's purchase of printed volumes.

Ortelius made up a volume of about thirty maps. The patron of this venture was a Dutchman by the name of Hooftman. He needed the maps so that he could decide on the safest and best routes for his merchant ships to travel. Commerce and capitalism then as now was the driving force behind invention and innovation.

What made Ortelius' project Wikipedia-like was the manner in which he proceeded. He was talkative and he was collaborative. Thus, he spoke to Mercator, the most famous of cartographers, and to others about reducing the size of their maps to something that could be easily handled and printed. Then, like Wikipedia he developed a Commons sort of idea, getting the permission of cartographers to use their maps in his publications. The process took ten years to complete, but by May of 1570, the first modern geographical atlas was issued.

The atlas was a commercial success. The atlas was made up of sheets folded once, in folio, and contained 35 leaves of text and 53 copperplate maps. Again, wikipedia-like, Ortelius included 87 names of geographers who he had consulted or used as sources. The first publication was sold out within three months, and a second publication followed with an errata sheet and minor changes. These changes often came from the public itself as both the Illuminati and the ordinary public sent him their own maps or wrote in with helpful suggestions of how to improve the atlas.

By being honest with his readers, inviting criticism, sharing ideas, and corrections, Ortelius gets the honor of being the first Wikipedia. By the time Ortelius died in 1598, the atlas was published in at least 28 editions in the languages of Latin, Dutch, Spanish, German, and French.

Nobody Gives a Shit

Nobody gives a shit. Well, actually there are 246 people that like this Facebook page, Nobody Gives a Shit.

I am not quite sure why even 246 people cared, because there is not much of a point to the posts that appear there. I only mention this because I tried to get my family involved in a worthy cause and the response was underwhelming. I mentioned to my loving family the parable of the Good Samaritan, and guess what, no one cared.

Just think about it.

It's is the same old thing, being misunderstood, that is. I say one thing, the other person hears something else. Just think about it.

Communication is not an easy thing. We talk, we listen. That is it. But what happens once the spoken word leaves the lips and before it reaches the brain seems to be a mystery. I could give a hundred examples of being misunderstood. We all could. That is why miscommunication seems to rank high on the chart of human conditions that needs addressing.

I guess the problem stems from the old cliche that we hear what we want to. After all, if the message is not one that sings to the ear, change the tune. A mother listening to her child's plaintiff cry, hears a cry for help. A stranger hearing the same thing, finds the cries annoying, that is, unless the stranger has his or her own small child and has a visceral transfer of emotion.

If I had to put my finger on the problem, I would chalk it up to a lack of empathy. Empathy, the ability to feel someone else's pain. Speaking of which, isn't that what the life of Christ was all about. Jesus is born to humble beginnings, preaches a message of love and understanding, is betrayed and crucified. His crucifixion symbolizes an atonement for the sins of the world. But Christ did not commit those sins. Why then did God demand that he be sacrificed for our sins? Well, just another example of transference. Let someone else deal with it. It is another day in Paradise for those of us who are well off.

Excuse me, if for a moment I become political. Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for President of the United States says in an interview "I don't care about the poor." Yes, I know, he followed that up saying that there is a safety net, and, if that is broke' he'll fix it. Nor does he care about the rich, he just cares about the hard working Middle Class whose votes he needs to get elected.

I like Mitt, he is a likable guy, and if he had a Facebook page, I would press the like button. Mitt's problem is not just his choice of words. How, after all can a candidate announce that he doesn't care about a voter. And sure enough, silver-tongued Newt Gingrich announces the next day that he cares about everyone.

I guess it is another example of Mitt not feeling the pain. I can sympathize with him. He is well-to-do, never wanted for anything, except votes, and has a hard time understanding what it means to struggle day to day. If he is going to communicate to the electorate, he better get the message. We are all struggling, we all have problems, and we all need to be heard. Empathize.

Enough of politics.

So, I am over half way into this essay, and I find myself talking about how others fail to relate to me. That, in itself, points to the problem. The major problem with communication is not with the talking or the writing of words. Rather, it is with the listening. Christ spoke rarely, saving his words for important occasions. Most of the time he was all about dealing with the problems of others. His most famous words, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." is itself a role reversal.

So, I will try to listen, and then, maybe in understanding, I will be understood. A good start is Phil Collins song, Another Day in Paradise. Here are the lyrics, You can also listen to it on Youtube in another window.

Just think about it. No, do something about it.

Another Day in Paradise, official version.

She calls out to the man on the street, "Sir, can you help me? It's cold and I've nowhere to sleep. Is there somewhere you can tell me?" He walks on, doesn't look back, he pretends he can't hear her He starts to whistle as he crosses the street, seems embarrassed to be there Oh, think twice, it's just another day for you and me in paradise Oh, think twice, it's just another day for you, you and me in paradise.

Just think about it She calls out to the man on the street, he can see she's been crying She's got blisters on the soles of her feet, she can't walk, but she's trying Oh, just think twice, it's just another day for you and me in paradise Oh yes, think twice, it's just another day for you, you and me in paradise

Just think about it, uh - huh, just think about it.

Pity the poor billionaire

Pity the poor billionaire.

Okay,  I say this with sarcasm. By that, I mean, I am speaking with a touch of ridicule. The billionaire, after all, is neither poor, nor in need of pity. Billionaires are blessed in that. they are rich and they live in a country that celebrates their right to enjoy and to spend money.

We still need to give a little thought to the fact that, lately, billionaires have come under intense criticism. It is as if they are responsible for the recent poor showing of the world economy. They are blamed for the disparity in the haves and have nots. That criticism seems unfair.

The world economy is as robust as it is because of and not in spite of  billionaires. Imagine a country without billionaires. There are many to choose from. Niger, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Chad, Somalia, Yemen, are a few that come to mind, and they aren't doing so well. No, billionaires live in countries like America, Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and even China. And those economies are doing fairly well. And when they aren't, it is because the national governments who run those economies fail to balance spending and revenues.

A second criticism of billionaires is that they don't pay their fair share of taxes. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice,  "the top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes." Of course, there is Warren Buffet lamenting the fact that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does. And, there is Mitt Romney who paid only 15% of  his income in taxes. Romney points out that he also gives three million dollars in charitable donations to his church.

The tax system is screwed up. On that, everyone agrees. Now the President and the Democratic majority in the Senate want to raise 100 billion dollars in new revenue and put that burden on the backs of the billionaires who have suffered the least since the economic meltdown.

That seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. By that I mean that wealth is created by those billionaires that are going to be punished. If we love our economy, and our babies, then we shouldn't be treating them with such contempt.

To give the President credit, he has had to walk a fine line between appeasing democratic liberals who believe in sharing the wealth evenly, and conservatives who want to truly find a way of reviving a moribund economy and putting people back to work. The President recognizes that the US economy depends on business and billionaires who will invest their capital in growing the economy and putting displaced workers back to work. To do so the Government will have to make the United States a healthy place in which to invest. Over taxation and over regulation drives business off shore. Fair taxation and proper regulation results in infr5a structure spending that drives the economy and keeps a fair playing field for everyone in which to compete.

Franklin Roosevelt is often cited for his economic strategy during the Great Depression. He taxed the rich, took over the banks and fired bank managers when he could. He passed regulation after regulation that tied the hands of capitalists. In the process, a third of the economy was out of work. And the depression lasted from 1929 until the end of the Second World War in 1945, when the American economy and American capitalism triumphed over fascist Germany and imperialistic Japan. From 1945 until 1989, the political and economic battle was between Soviet socialism and Western free enterprise. We know who won that battle. Then, came Communist China's turn. After flirting with political disaster in Tiananmen Square, the communist in charge traded political control for economic freedom. The result has become the fastest growing economy in the world.

Where does this leave the billionaire? I think it means that he or she must recognize that with wealth comes responsibility. Fairness has to be the catch word, and at least, at that, the President has it right.
The billionaire has to shoulder a fair share of the tax burden and, perhaps, even a greater part of the obligation to get the economy back up and running. Democrats by and large get it. Both Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were from the wealthier strata of the American economy. And while Roosevelt heartily believed in taking from the rich and giving to the poor, Kennedy charted the opposite course, and in a time of falling revenues signed into law a tax cut for the wealthy that stimulated the economy. An early example of the school of trickle-down economics, whereby lower taxation yields greater wealth and fresh innovation.

There are billionaires out there deserving of praise. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given away tens of billions of dollars for charitable purposes. But don't forget that it was capital and capitalism that made possible the wealth formation that allowed for the giving.

I say pity the poor man who can't find a job because an American business moved overseas. I say pity the poor man who finds that regulation prevents the drilling of oil or the construction of a pipe line.

Becoming Franz Kafka

The other day I realized that I was becoming a bit like Franz Kafka. I know that sounds disturbing. Franz Kafka, after all, wrote The Metamorphosis, a story about a human being turning into a bug. Gregor Samsa wakes up one day to find that he has changed into a giant insect. He can's observe the change directly, but notices that things around him look differently. The change is readily evident to Gregor's sister and to his parents and their reaction to him is how he realizes that the change has happened. Eventually, Gregor accepts that his family would be better off without him and so he starvesw himself to death. That is a bit of literary realism, Kafka would do the same while in a ssanitorium suffering from tuberculosis.

I don't think that there is any danger of that happening in my case, but I do realize that I am becoming different in a way that I didn't anticipate. My change is the subtle one that takes place with the accompanying passage of time. The hair becomes a little thinner, the stomach paunchier, skin paler, teeth longer, eyes weaker. This change is evident every time that I look in the mirror, but it is also evident in the way others look at me.

We type cast people by the way they look. The young are foolish and immature. The old foolish and irrelevant. And somewhere in between extremely young and extremely old, the change begins.

You will realize that the metamorphosis has begun when others start calling you "sir" or "madam", when they hold the door open for you, step back and let you enter first, or, at the grocery store, offer to carry a single bag of groceries out to your car. Then there is the "senior discount" on coffee at McDonalds or tickets at the theater. My local university has a program that seniors can take classes for free. Now that's great, but you have to wonder if they are offering those free classes to help in the fight against pre-Alzheimer's.

At this point you feel like your ready to be put out to pasture. Not that I mind saving money, that I enjoy. It is just society's idea that your useful time has expired. Why not accept the change, turn into that horrible creature, and fly off?

There is another way that I felt Franz Kafkaesque. That is, that I am writing these articles only for my own pleasure. No one will ever read them, or, if they do, then they will realize that I have gone over the edge like Franz's character in his story.

I

Bah Humbug

Everything will change, ...if not today, then tomorrow, ...if not tomorrow, then the day after that.

"Bah Humbug",  said Ebenezzer Scrooge. Christmas is just another day for picking the pockets of employers and getting another day off without any work.

I keep thinking that everyone else is going to "get it". By that I mean each and everyone of them, you know who they are, will wake up Christmas morning and understand that life is beautiful and meant to be enjoyed. Yet, Christmas never comes. Everyone around me continues to look at the world personally. What is in it for me?

I have decided, finally, that the world is not going to change for me, that the one who needs to do the waking up is me.

Merry Christmas everyone, it's a beautiful world.

Did I Learn Anything Last Week

Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday by a special operations unit of  U.S. Navy SEALs. The killing took place at 1:30 in the morning. Four Chinook helicopters flew into Abbottabad a military town and home to three Pakistani regiments. Abbotabad is not in the rugged border area where bin Laden was thought to be hiding, but a mere 30 miles from Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. The mansion where Osama bin Laden and his family was hiding out was the largest in town and 10 minutes by foot from a major Pakistani military post.

The Navy SEALs were done with their task in under an hour. A local resident unknowingly tweeted the event as it occurred. The soldiers went from room to room searching for their target. The President and his National Security Team watched the events in real time. The SEALs located their target and uttered the words the President waited to hear, "Geronimo ekia," or Osama bin Ladin enemy killed in action. Three other males were killed in the action including bin Laden's adult son and one woman who was caught in the crossfire. The others in the compound were escorted to safety and released to the Pakistani authorities.

Osama Bin Laden was killed in a hail of bullets. Osama bin Laden, if he were asked, would probably claim to be a martyr, suffering death for his religion. Most Americans simply viewed bin Laden as a coward. For what is holy and right in using innocent men and women in airplanes to kill other innocent men and women in buildings?

America's spontaneous reaction to news of bin Laden's death was to celebrate. First, it began outside the White House as hundreds and then thousands of young college students gathered to hear the news. They came from nearby George Washington and Georgetown Universities. Their collective voices joined in song and prayer. On 9/11 they were but children. They have not known of life without airliners as bombs, suicide bombs, underwear bombers, and constant security checks.Will a post-Osama world be different?

Like an ember this spirit of hope rose into the air. It lit at the site of the World Trade Center in New York the site where two planes crashed into buildings killing almost three thousand innocent souls. By this time, the President had spoken and news reporters were confirming the death of bin Laden. The joyous celebration spread from campus to campus and city to city across the United States.

Earlier in the day, before I heard the good news of Osama's demise, my son asked me if I learned anything this week. He, of course, was talking about something completely different, but the question stuck. Do we learn anything from this?

I learned that the President is one hell of a good speaker. Other politicians came on later and spoke, but none spoke with the authority or demeanor of our President. The ancient Romans would use the term "gravitas" to describe Obama's ability to connect with the public. Obama takes seriously his responsibilities, but handles the criticism he receives with good humor. This is a rare gift.

I learned that terrorists can run from justice, they can even hide for a while, but you can't hide forever. Goodness and justice triumph in the end, for that is the dominant nature of mankind. What has happened in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya, revolutions in which bin Laden shared no part, demonstrate the power of good people everywhere to make a difference. The reality of life is that we seek a better life.

And even then one wonders at the logic of Osama Bin Laden. His religion was one of  intolerance. Moreover, toleration was a crime punishable by death.

I have heard Osama bin laden described by some of his family and friends as a good Muslim. Like many other good Muslims, Christians, and Jew, I struggle with this. For how can a good Muslim believe that God justifies the purposeful death of  innocents in any struggle.Yet, this is the teaching in many, though thankfully not all, of the madrasas in the Muslim world.This I will never understand.

If one truly and rightly dates the war on terror, it began not on September 11, but on September 9, 2001. It was on that date that bin Laden carried out the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, Lion of Peshawar and the leader of the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden did this in typical fashion though the use of two suicide bombers posing as reporters.

At the time, Massoud and the Northern Alliance were waging their own struggle against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Massoud was a former engineering student and commander of the struggle against the Soviet intervntion in Afghanistan.  "It is our conviction", he said, that,  "and we believe that both men and women are created by the Almighty. Both have equal rights. Women can pursue an education, women can pursue a career, and women can play a role in society -- just like men." On the contrary the Taliban and bin Laden subjected the women of Afghanistan to virtual house arrest and denied them any opportunity for education and meaningful employment.

I learned that friends will be with you not only in times of difficulty, but also in times of triumph. The people who matter, our friends spoke out and hailed the death of Osama Bin Laden as a triumph for freedom loving people in the world. And as President Obama note our fight against terrorism is not based on religion, race, or ethnicity. Our fight is based on principles, those of justice for all. All of Western Europe celebrated the death of Osama. Israel hailed the death of Osama a a great victory. Turkey, Jordan, and other responsible states congratulated the United States and the President.

I learned that recriminations come quickly. For immediately Pakistan was questioned for its role in "hiding" Osama bin Laden in plain site. How quickly we forget that Pakistan has lost more citizens in the war against terror than have we. In 2007, Benazir Bhutto a former prime-minister was assassinated for her views on human rights.During the war on terror, Pakistan has committed more troops, suffered more casualties, and paid a higher price in terms of its economy than the United States.

I learned that the world changes by a matter of degrees. Al Jazeera, the voice of the Arab world, carries a front page story quoting President Obama as saying the world is safer without Osama. At the same time, Al Jazeera in a banner headline implores the Syrian government to find and release its reporter Dorthy Parvez.America may have its faults, but it remains the best hope for a safer and freer world.

I have learned that Americans, as the President noted, pull together in times of trouble and triumph. I only hope that this national celebration of the end of evil that Osama bin Laden represented will give us some respite. For evil does not die with the death of one man.

Did I learn anything last week? Time will tell. Will there be retaliation by those of Al Queda who believe in continuing an unholy and unjust war on civilization? Will partisan politics bring us back to querulous bickering over public policy? Will this era of good feeling evaporates? Time will tell, but, for now, the President expresses the thoughts of all Americans when he simply says, "We can all agree this is a good day for America." .