I just did something I rarely do, which is give money away. But I read this guy’s appeal for loot to keep Wikipedia running and I thought I would give something back as I use the site a lot. FWIW I gave US$25 which I reckon is better than nowt. Anyway, it appears to be one of the last bastions of what the internet is supposed to be about apart from porn: the sharing of knowledge. Now with that good deed done I am off out to kick some beggars.
I think everyone should also give money to it too so here is the link:
Here ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the Wikipedia Party. (If he sells the site next week to Google though I will burn his house down.)
IMO, Wikipedia is worth exactly what it costs to use.
If one uses Wikipedia as a sole source, their credibility is zero.
Its a fun tool and it can have lots of neat added info. But it is subject to subjective/personal opinion additions.
If one supports it - fine But as it is, its not really much more than elevated public opinion and graffitti.
Fun to use, but always verify withother sourcing.
Good God man, has the Taipei Times taught you nothing?
[/quote]
:roflmao:
I myself like to casually browse wikipedia from time to time. But I see it as more of a quick reference than a very serious source of primary information.
I suppose I should also give the lad a dollar or two though…
The power of Wikipedia is that all users are potentially writers. The site has access to experts in every field it covers, plus consultation from experts in other fields. Not to mention a built-in, automatic peer-review system.
Go check out some areas where you are either well-informed or an expert. Find an artcle and read up on it. You’ll probably find the entry to be exceptional in detail in accuracy. And you know what happens if you DON’T find it to be exceptional? You may be tempted to edit the entry to reflect what you know. Then it becomes good.
I’ve found that articles on history and science tend to be rich and well-written. However, articles on things like comic book characters often have a lot of detail, but poor writing or organization.
It’s true, Wikipedia should not be a primary source for a scholarly or professional paper. But that doesn’t make it valueless.
I don’t think it’s intended to be an authority. It helps with getting a basic knowledge of something, enough to point the user in the right direction to do some more in-depth searching if necessary.
Scary is, that Wiki will replace conventional encyclopedias.
I mean, a source which is usually correct is fine, but it is only a fun tool, as TC said, not a reliable source.
And the style could mislead people and create strange results by reading too quickly. I mean, Wiki contains that the Eugenic wars started in the 1990s on Earth and have erased most state structures.
Can’t remember it? Well OK it is in a Star Trek article. But I whish they would totally seperate descriptions of fiction and facts about real life.
Soon the “Truth” will be a non-existing term. True is, what is in Wiki.
[quote=“Miranda”]I just did something I rarely do, which is give money away. But I read this guy’s appeal for loot to keep Wikipedia running and I thought I would give something back as I use the site a lot. FWIW I gave US$25 which I reckon is better than nowt. Anyway, it appears to be one of the last bastions of what the internet is supposed to be about apart from porn: the sharing of knowledge. Now with that good deed done I am off out to kick some beggars.
I think everyone should also give money to it too so here is the link:
Here ends the party political broadcast on behalf of the Wikipedia Party. (If he sells the site next week to Google though I will burn his house down.)[/quote]
Only problems I have are:
If the guy is clever enough to start this thing why isn’t he clever enough to set up some revenue generating adverts or such.
As you say, if and when he sells it you have to wonder why you donated to line his pockets with no benefit to yourself.
As above, he could sell 49% of his site and be rolling in money right now. Say you purchased .0001% of the site for USD25.00 and I’d look at spending that sort of money for a potential windfall at the end as well as the small pleasure of being a very minor shareholder in something that looks to me like it could become the definitive site in years to come.
He’d be raising 12.25mil USD if my maths is roughly right and if he then sold the whole shebang for a billion or more later you’d get a huge return.
Damned, Wiki has opened my eyes. Just wiki-up “Eugenic wars”. We are right in the middle of it! Geneticaly enhanced humans have created the Gulf war I and II, the Bosina/Serbia war and the heck knows what else.
Guess that makes Chirac, Bush and Saddam geneticaly enhanced superbrain humans …
:roflmao:
(thanks Wiki)
… OK OK they mention this is Star Trek, but a great approach to combine it with reality. Just what you expect from an enceclopedia
Of all the genetically enhanced manipulators who rose to power during this period, none were as ambitious or as ruthless as the man known as Khan Noonien Singh. The son of Dr. Kaur, Khan Singh’s presence was felt throughout the world, perhaps most discreetly. He fought against Soviet soldiers outside Lenin’s tomb, where he stopped a coup, and maintained the safety of President Mikhail Gorbachev while he was attending the summit in Reykjav
Here’s the link to the Nature article that compared Wikipedia and Britannica.
I think the point is that with popular articles it’s a pretty good resource and the editing system works well to keep it current and balanced. When you get off the beaten track and look up articles on less reknowned subjects such as this humble site then you have to bear in mind that it doesn’t have the same sort of community keeping the facts straight.
So to echo what others have said - it’s a great resource. I use it all the time. But even with Britannica I fact-check and Wikipedia users should do likewise.
To you ‘you get what you pay for’ nay-sayers:
It’s free, yes. But thousands of people have devoted many hours of their time to the project because they believe in free information and access to that information. Which is no bad thing, surely? Now let’s all just hold hands and think on the merits of human co-operation. Come on TainanCowboy, give everyone a hug.
Semi-seriously, my post was not meant to be a slam at Wiki-world. As others have mentioned, it can be a quick use for fun info and added tid-bits that may be related to what you are searching for.
I like Ironmans idea for revenue generation and ground floor opportunities.
:bravo: