Happy 10th Birthday To Wikipedia 137
Greg writes "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, first launched on January 15, 2001. Today, the website is thus 10 years old. To celebrate its 10th anniversary, Wikipedia is hosting some 400 conferences and parties across the globe. In traditional Wikipedia style, the events are being organized by its community of users. After a decade of growth, Wikipedia is an important source of information for millions of topics and remains among the Internet's top 10 most visited sites. It has over 400 million readers each month and has a very small budget for a website its size: just $20 million. Almost all its revenue comes from donations. In its last fundraising push, the organization saw 500,000 users donate $16 million."
Happy Birthday! (Score:2)
Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday to you!!! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
We Are Not Amused (Score:4, Funny)
Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
United Kingdom
Is that sufficient royalty payment?
Re: (Score:1)
Nice. But this [youtube.com] is still my favorite birthday song.
Why is this posted here? (Score:3, Funny)
Not notable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's wrong and I'll keep reverting the page because I KNOW it can't be Wikipedia's 10th birthday.
Re: (Score:2)
This article is semi-locked for creatively common barnstar abuse.
Re:Why is this posted here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because almost every thread eventually has a reference to Wikipedia in one of the comments. I think that counts as notable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, Slashdot isn't considered a respectable enough source to meet notability requirements. The article on Slashdot itself has been deleted more than once for not being notable enough.
may it die soon (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia's done a lot to damage the 'net. It used to be that autonomous entities acting under often well-known editorial control would be first ports of call for various subjects, but now everyone wastes their time in the edit war game that is Wikipedia. It's the worst example of centralisation of Internet control - Facebook may be larger, but it is primarily an entertainment service. Google's flawed popularity ranking algorithm (does anyone remember when nerds used to point out that popular does not imply
Re: (Score:2)
May the next decade see it turn into something perceived as valuable to humanity as Facebook.
The best thing wikipedia could do is list subjects and the people or organizations that are considered useful sources of information on them. This would go some way to getting rid of the most-popular-is-correct bias of the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoo had its directory back in '94. Lists of lists would be good, where the source of each list is very clear and can be filtered on. Then I don't get an ever-increasing list of biased sources, but can stick to lists prepared by academics, professional organisations, recognised hobbyist groups, etc.
Re:may it die soon (Score:5, Informative)
The best thing wikipedia could do is list subjects and the people or organizations that are considered useful sources of information on them.
Go to any article rated B or better. Scroll down to "References". You'll find a list of reliable sources that are useful enough to use for an article.
Re:may it die soon (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll find a list of resources used to support the article, which is nowhere near the same as finding an unbiased, exhaustive list of resources recommended by known individuals with a reputation to maintain.
Re: (Score:2)
May the next decade see it turn into something perceived as valuable to humanity as Facebook.
The best thing wikipedia could do is list subjects and the people or organizations that are considered useful sources of information on them. This would go some way to getting rid of the most-popular-is-correct bias of the thing.
So what would keep Wikipedia from listing "Wall Builders" as a "useful" source for information on The Constitution and U.S. History? I don't see how turning it into a link farm is any improvement. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, competition can only work if the incentive is provided on achievement of part of the goal.
There is no incentive for Wikipedia editors to produce an encyclopedia. Ssimilar applies to any Wikipedia-style project (though not necessarily any project using a Wiki: it's quite possible to have editorial oversight).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point entirely. The incentive in Wikipedia isn't to produce an encyclopedic information resource. Just because it's popular and large it doesn't mean it's achieved any of its stated goals.
Imagine me setting up a large room and filling it with cans of beer. I then declare the purpose of the room is for scientists to gather and find a cure for cancer. It's likely that room will be very popular for a while while everyone rushes in to drink beer and have a laugh. But at the end of the day all
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to know a few bits of information about a plant that I saw with a friend while trekking, I'll look it on wikipedia.
If I want to know the origin of some food recipes, I'll look it on wikipedia.
If I want to learn approximately what happened regarding a historical fact, I'll go to wikipedia.
If I want find about the discography of a band, without loading useless flas
Re:may it die soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Naw, you're completely wrong. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's very much a positive.
In areas where it "works" -- science, engineering, other technical subjects, reference information (e.g. documenting the stations of a country's rail networks) -- Wikipedia has vastly increased the consistency, coverage, and quality of easily-available information on a huge number of subjects. Prior to Wikipedia, even with a good search engine it was much less likely you'd find information on a particular subject, and if you found something, it was often very incomplete and of lower quality, or if high-quality, was often behind a paywall. What's on Wikipedia now is often a little less well-written than a professional reference would be, because of the multiple authors -- but that's in fact often not really a bad thing, because many wikipedia articles end up covering subjects in a way that's approachable to multiple levels of ability (e.g. they'll have sections targeted at experts, and easy examples for novices)
There are other references on technical subjects that are occasionally of higher quality than Wikipedia., but they're balkanized, often less complete even within their specialty simply because of the effort required to be complete, and far, far, more difficult to find in the first place (often the best way is through the references at the bottom of a corresponding Wikipedia page!). Of course these are useful as a sanity check or different of view for the corresponding information in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's role, of binding together multiple subjects, and covering all the gritty details, is very valuable, and increases the usability and accessibility of these other sources (much as a traditional encyclopedia or survey might for more specialized sources).
Wikipedia is so useful for these technical subjects that I'm not sure what to think about people whining that "Wikipedia is crap!1!", other than they've never actually used it for anything other than looking up "George W Bush" and "abortion"...
'Verifiability, not truth' stops it working well (Score:2)
In areas where it "works" -- science, engineering, other technical subjects, reference information (e.g. documenting the stations of a country's rail networks) -- Wikipedia has vastly increased the consistency, coverage, and quality of easily-available information on a huge number of subjects.
It would be good to think that it "works" at least in those areas --- but I'm afraid that's not true without qualification.
There are many technical and scientific topics where there are popular misconceptions around.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to claim WP is so wonderful on technical articles, I suggest you take a stroll over to "Digital Audio Broadcasting". Its a complete piece of crap, filled with blatantly factually incorrect information. For years it was zealously guarded by a couple individuals with a heavy anti-DAB bias, and financial interest in the same. Numerous appeals to admins have been made over the years, with absolutely no mediative action ever taken. In fact the admins will dutifully block people for the 3RR with
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least that's what the Wikipedia article says (Score:2)
What's their source on the age of Wikipedia? A Wikipedia article?!
Re: (Score:2)
What's their source on the age of Wikipedia? A Wikipedia article?!
I read that, in the last six months, the Wikipedia's age has tripled.
Re: (Score:1)
What's their source on the age of Wikipedia? A Wikipedia article?!
I read that, in the last six months, the Wikipedia's age has tripled.
In that case, Wikipedia must be nine months now.
"a very small budget for a website" (Score:1)
just $20 million
Uh. Yeah. That's a really small budget . . . ?
Re:"a very small budget for a website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That revenue stream is tiny.
Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?
Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.
Re:"a very small budget for a website" (Score:5, Insightful)
That revenue stream is tiny.
Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?
Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.
Better yet, imagine if advertisers were allowed to buy space in the articles itself, and to buy removal of links to their competitors? Yearly bidding, highest bidder gets ownership of an article for a year (to improve it and make it more accurate, of course)
Re:"a very small budget for a website" (Score:5, Insightful)
That revenue stream is tiny.
Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?
Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.
Better yet, imagine if advertisers were allowed to buy space in the articles itself, and to buy removal of links to their competitors? Yearly bidding, highest bidder gets ownership of an article for a year (to improve it and make it more accurate, of course)
Then it would be worth almost nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like FB.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That revenue stream is tiny.
Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?
Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.
Better yet, imagine if advertisers were allowed to buy space in the articles itself, and to buy removal of links to their competitors? Yearly bidding, highest bidder gets ownership of an article for a year (to improve it and make it more accurate, of course)
Then it would be worth almost nothing.
I don't think an average marketing manager would realize that, so it doesn't affect viability of the business model, at least not during the first few quarters... And majority of the articles would stay "non-sponsored" anyway, and there's no real competition, and people are dumb, so it might even be a viable long term strategy...
Long term strategy to make money that is, not a long term strategy to create a reliable encyclopedia, of course... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
That revenue stream is tiny.
Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?
Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.
I'm sure that was in a recent movie? But they broke up didn't they?
Jimmy Whales: I think we should just be friends.
Mark Zuckerberg: I don't want friends.
Jimmy Whales: I was being polite, I had no intention of being friends with you. As if every thought that tumbles through your head was so clever it would be a crime for it not to be shared. You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah? All the grunt work is free and they don't use $20m worth of hardware and bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen and toured Wikipedia's cage in Tampa I was impressed with the actual quality of the equipment and Internet feeds. $20M worth, no. But I would say at least half that. Lawyers, staff and office get the rest.
(In Tampa look for the building with the big gecko on the side.)
Compare it to facebook, google, etc. (Score:2)
This slide [wikimedia.org] pretty much sums it up.
The Wikimedia Foundation is extremely efficient in its server operation.
We Are Not Amused (Score:2)
Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
United Kingdom
Is that sufficient payment?
Re:We Are Really Not Amused Now (Score:2)
Grumpalopes. Hit reply on the wrong post.
Wow! (Score:2)
Two tenth birthdays in one week - that's impressive!
Well at least (Score:1)
I don't have to puke everytime I visit wikipedia anymore, Mr HappyFace is gone and I hope he won't make another appearance.
10? Acts more like a 2-year-old. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouting nonsense, throwing tantrums when you try to make it do the right thing, always trying to get more out of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Already working on the article (Score:2)
The 10th Birthday of Wikipedia
- Introduction
- History of Wikipedia
- In Animé
- In Manga
- In Graphic Novels
- In Western Animation
- External Links
Anybody have a blurry, grainy cell phone camera to take a shot of the main page?
I realised... (Score:2)
I saw the giant banner at the top of the page. Good thing people donated - thereby ensuring that they don't need to move to an ad-supported model - adding giant banners at the top.
The irony.
free edits (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Due to recent edits on wikipedia, wikipedia is today, in fact, having it's 250th anniversary.
That was ten minutes ago. It's on its 8 billionth birthday now.
PLEASE READ: a personal appeal (Score:5, Funny)
Sir,
My name is Jimmy Wales. Ten years ago not a lot of people believed a second-rate day trader turned pornographer would be able to follow the Rand dream by exploiting thousands of people across the Internet into wasting their time writing a successful web site for him, the only purpose of which was to further his fame and bank account.
At that time it would have been silly to suggest that antisocial twenty-somethings would spend months - sometimes years - warring over some irrelevant fact to establish their bias in an atrociously written article covering some topic related to their political belief or esoteric interest. I would have been laughed at if I'd have suggested that people across the world wouldn't consider me bordering on racially exploitative if I suggested that people should donate toward this project to help the "child in Africa".
But it's 2011, guys, and, fuck me! I did it.
So, if you learnt just a little bit about how a lack of scruples and a solid cult of personality can earn a creepy middle aged man world-wide fame while diminishing the usefulness the world's most important information medium, why not donate at least £5/$5/€5? After all, if I can do it, maybe you can. Let me sell you a drop of the most pathological corruption of the capitalist dream. And that's why you're really donating, isn't it?
Sincerely,
Jimmy Wales
Sole Founder
Wikipedia.org
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch. Harsh.
Despite the fact that I agree with your assessment of the situation, I've contributed a bit to Wikipedia here and there, to clear up some obvious issues in the articles that bothered me. For that, I've been accused of many things, including being someone's publicist, because I removed a clear personal attack on a living person from their biography. It's pretty clear to me that the vast majority of people editing Wikipedia are not interested in following the guidelines, and they're merely inte
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has witnessed the removal of an article on a mens rights activist and author by a radical feminist and lesbian moderator without a trace of irony or concern about conflict of interest or the evils of censorship I would state that Wikipedia is the finest example of group think and social conformity available in the western world outside of Face book of course!
Fuck Wikipedia
Happy birthday indeed. truly. (Score:2)
wikipedia changed it for me. sufficient detail on each article, sufficient detail in each of the relevant topics you can go into from in-site links, a
Time to change the Wiki Slogan (Score:2)
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit
Really, when was the last time you edited a Wikipedia article via Tor or an anonymous proxy server? So, no, the "anyone" part needs to be changed since Wikipedia discriminates against users of those services, who can only edit when their proxy is fresh enough not to be included in the list of banned IPs. Yeah, I know, there's a reason behind the anti-open-proxy policy but, still, not everybody (who wishes to maintain their anonymity) can edit Wikipedia.
How to use Wikipedia (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, so many slashdotters crying about the suckiness of Wikipedia are just using it wrong. Wikipedia is not the source of all truth. (protip: neither is Britannica)
Debate about Wikipedia is too consumer-oriented (Score:4, Insightful)
You think that article X is [wrong] [incomprehensible] [incomplete]? So fix it yourself.
There's too much on X and not enough on Y? Go on then, write the Y article.
The editors are [self-serving] [elitist] [evil]? Come back and complain after you've done a thankless stint reverting vandalism.
Wikipedia is crazy not to take ads? Would you work for free in order for someone else to get paid?
The Wikipedia criticism industry is a pure product of the me-me-me consumer age. The marvel of Wikipedia is precisely that it is not a consumer product. It is about the producers and their astounding feat of working together, unremunerated, while sorting out their differences, to create an incredible body of written knowledge that didn't exist before.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is crazy not to take ads? Would you work for free in order for someone else to get paid?
Wikipedia is run by a non-profit. I am a Wikipedia editor (same name there as here), and I would happily continue editing if Wikipedia had a small amount of advertising to pay server costs and the costs of running the foundation. Just as I make other donations to charities I support.
I'd rather see small Google style ads every day than those ugly banners for a couple of months a year solid
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising can/will have editorial impact on information and bias.
Re: (Score:2)
If an information site carries advertising but does not control that advertising (e.g. through a hands off use of adsense) and does not have a pressure to maximize advertising revenue then there is no reason I can see why it should affect information or bias.
This is especially so on Wikipedia where the editors and the foundation largely interact at arms length and nearly all communications and discussions are in public.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation-needed] ;)
Re:Happy b-day! (Score:5, Funny)
Feli[citation needed]!
For my next angioplasty.... (Score:2)
Re:Important not not authoriative (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject.
I've seen plenty of articles that contained correct information. That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.
I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.
What's stopping you from fixing it?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject.
I've seen plenty of articles that contained correct information. That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.
Sure. 90% correct would do fine but you can't be sure if any article really is 10% or 100% correct without doing a whole load of research. If I'm doing that kind of research anyway what use is wikipedia? Sure it's great on subjects You know nothing about because any knowledge will be an improvement.
I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.
What's stopping you from fixing it?
Edit wars and editors pushing an agenda. Administrators who go off the deep end at anything they perceive as a 'personal attack'.
And spelling and grammer nazi's who revert entire passages for one misspelling. And
Re: (Score:3)
90% correct would do fine but you can't be sure if any article really is 10% or 100% correct without doing a whole load of research.
It's the same for everything else.
If I'm doing that kind of research anyway what use is wikipedia?
A place where other people can benefit from your research.
As for the rest of your post, I admit that I'm not sure how often such things happen, so I can't really comment on that.
Re: (Score:2)
90% correct would do fine but you can't be sure if any article really is 10% or 100% correct without doing a whole load of research.
It's the same for everything else.
If I'm doing that kind of research anyway what use is wikipedia?
A place where other people can benefit from your research.
As for the rest of your post, I admit that I'm not sure how often such things happen, so I can't really comment on that.
The problem is that we are not discussing "everything else" but only Wikipedia. And if the poster actually put his/her research on Wikipedia or updated an inaccurate page, it wouldn't matter, there still is no way of knowing if it is accurate or not (although citations help tremendously).
Wikipedia is to legitimate research what blogging is to legitimate journalism. Both provide interesting reads, but where one requires accountability, the other only suggests it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same for everything else.
Not really, that's why I still read books and magazines. They are professionally edited and their accuracy and authenticity is attested to by their reputation. That is why Wikipedia requires you to cite them; there are no expert editors who can check and corroborate the information.
That creates a situation where an article can either contain factually incorrect information that has not been flagged up yet (lack of editorial oversight and peer review), or omit important information because no-one did the res
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, that's why I still read books and magazines.
Ah, so books and magazines are infallible (no, but "professionally edited" ones may be assumed to be more likely to be correct, I guess). I see. Always double check your information. I've seen many articles that contained correct information (admittedly, they are usually the ones that provide citations, but that's why they are there).
but it claims to be more than that so criticism is legitimate I feel.
There's rarely such a thing as illegitimate criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no expert editors who can check and corroborate the information.
There are some. The really sad thing is that an expert with a PhD who has written countless well respected books has less say in an article in his field of expertise than someone with no real knowledge but more free time.
I'll bet real experts don't contribute because it's pretty sickening to see someone with little idea but good intentions trashing your hard work.
Re:Important not not authoriative (Score:5, Insightful)
What's stopping you from fixing it?
Have you tried contributing lately? More hoops to jump through than a building permit. Chances are what you write will be removed even if you give good references. I use to contribute but I quickly came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried contributing lately?
Well, I have. And I've had pretty much no problems, no hoops to jump through. The worst response I've got was an 'unreferenced' message put on a new page I created. Which was quite accurate. I added one reference, and the page has seen no further problems.
Of course, the fact that it's still working pretty well isn't nearly as interesting as complaining about idiots reverting your changes, so carry on.
Re:Important not not authoriative (Score:5, Insightful)
Other people on Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:1)
What's stopping you from fixing it?
The mods/editors?
I have anonymously edited once or twice some obscure article of wikipedia (articles from Mexico and Spanish based stuff) which get "undone" after a couple of days just because some mod does not agree with the truth ... or "just because".
After doing it several times it gets tyring and you just give up... wikipedia is just the encyclopedia of the hundred few to choose to spend their majority of time working the "politics" of such site.
But, (Score:2)
I've seen plenty of articles that contained correct information. That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.
Yes, but even Star Trek contains correct information on plenty of things. That doesn't make it authoritative.
Historically, encyclopaedias relied on experts for their information (yes, I know, they were put together by editors, not the experts themself). With Wikipedia, just about anybody can contribute and the information stays there and incorrect information stays there until somebody who knows the correct information a) stumbles upon the incorrect information, b) cares enough to correct the incorrect inf
Re: (Score:3)
Historically, encyclopaedias relied on experts for their information (yes, I know, they were put together by editors, not the experts themself).
While this is true, that is what citations are for. Really, you shouldn't assume anything to be 100% correct, and no matter where you got your information from, you should double check it. This applies not only to Wikipedia, but to everything (when possible).
Re: (Score:2)
What's stopping you from fixing it?
Primarily, lack of persistence to "fight" the trolls who have nothing better to do with their lives than to squat their pet articles to "preserve and protect" their versions of the articles forever.
Re: (Score:3)
the lack of so called citations required
There's actually a very good reason for this.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know this? Did you double check the information (something you should always do no matter where you get your information from)? My point is that you should always question the source of the information and verify its correctness. Although you can likely assume that information written by an expert is more likely to be correct, it is by no means infallible.
Re: (Score:2)
I've encountered plenty of bias and inaccuracies over the years, but it's often a good starting point along with Google.
What makes it a real pain in the ass is the ridiculous bureaucracy that has developed over the years. It's treated as a god-given truth, to be enforced by a swarm of rabid followers with a need to prove something to the world.
Re:Useful not not authoriative (Score:2)
FTFY.
Wikipedia isn't important. Without it, Google would get you the data
In fact, without Wikipedia, Google would probably be even more useful than it is, as people link to things themselves from their pages instead of just letting Wikipedia do it. That would push up Google pagerank for real informational pages, making them show up sooner above all the linkspam.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia has the nofollow attribute on all of its external links * [wikimedia.org], so the Google's pagerank would not be affected. ** [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point.
If there were no wikipedia, people wouldn't rely on wikipedia's reference links.
Each of those links would appear in thousands more pages, because they wouldn't be in the wikipedia at all, because it wouldn't exist.
Huge pagerank karma bump, and more informational links in Google searches.
Wikipedia is eroding Google's usefulness by aggregating those paths to the endpoint. And further by turning on the nofollow.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia has a big advantage over Google when looking for information on a given subject: The articles have been written to summarize all the important bits for quick and easy absorption. If you want to get a basic grasp of something you can use Wikipedia for a summary, and then the citations, references, footnotes etc. for deeper investigation.
Not very
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you could have googled up a table with all of them in one place. 10-20% chance the table's in Wikipedia, more chance it's not. Oops. unit probability [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My main gripe with the site is that tends to be content weighted towards hero worship of currently popular entertainers, athletes and other celebrities. Some articles read like they were written by a publicist's or agent's office and others by obsessed fans.
Re: (Score:2)
My main gripe with the site is that tends to be content weighted towards hero worship of currently popular entertainers, athletes and other celebrities. Some articles read like they were written by a publicist's or agent's office and others by obsessed fans.
Maybe that is because they were written by a publicist's or agent's office, or by obsessed fans.
Remember, everyone can write an article, and most articles are written by people who particularly care about the subject, i.e. in this case the celebrity. Now who cares about celebrities? Well, usually either those who live from them (publicists, agents) or those who are fans of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You just described encyclopedias in general.
Where can I sign up for your newsletter?
Re: (Score:2)
Right after seeing these issues, you clicked the Edit button and corrected them, yes?
Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.
Perhaps it's **you** who have an agenda... Who knows...
Re:Important not not authoriative (Score:5, Insightful)
Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.
Perhaps it's **you** who have an agenda... Who knows...
Truth is _everyone_ has an agenda in some way or another. The notion of absolute neutrality is a fallacy and anyone who claims to be 100% neutral is fooling themselves. Striving for neutrality is another issue and with such a large user base contributing there is always likely to be some bias on issues people really care about (which is almost everything) and there's very little you can do about it other than get your information from many sources in an attempt to triangulate the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
The notion of absolute neutrality is a fallacy and anyone who claims to be 100% neutral is fooling themselves.
If you think that means that two messages are equally valid and worthwhile then you need your head examined.
I prefer the agenda of people who are doing their best to inform and enlighten me and make me aware of all the alternatives that they are aware of and think are worth knowing.
I detest people who have an agenda of maximizing their profit, regardless of the cost to me.
---
There are many corpor
Re: (Score:2)
It's only okay to have someone else present their selection of options to you if you are educated enough to understand what that means and see beyond the terms they present the arguments in. Unfortunately most people are never taught how to do that. Instead of wasting time with Religious Studies we should teach philosophy and methods of critical thinking.
If people just understood how to evaluate the morality of an action without simply forcefully comparing it to something they think of as related an absolut
Re: (Score:1)
Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.
Perhaps it's **you** who have an agenda... Who knows...
Spoken like a Wikipedia administrator.. Strange how WP:no personal attacks never applies to them.
I have no agenda. I tend to do something more productive when my perfectly valid edits get revoked. The people who spend the most time pushing normally get what they want. That creates bias.
Re: (Score:1)
A field of turds neither loses its foul smell nor becomes my fault just because I have neither the time nor the inclination to clean it up.
Re: (Score:3)
After I got into an edit war because some douchebag admin doesn't know the difference between affect and effect, and isn't willing to let anyone change his precious article... yeah, no.
Re: (Score:1)
[ This article does not cite any references or sources ]
[ Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed (January 2011) ]
[ This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions (January 2011) ]
Wikipedia is 10 years old [citation needed]. 10 years helping students to do copy&paste thinking they would get good marks at school [1]. 10 ye
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Wikipedia started out with GFDL content. RMS even made a special exception in the new version of the GFDL to allow Wikipedia to switch to CC.