So I was trying to get a listing of books by an author I like and one of the sites was Wikipedia.  At the top of the page it said to click for a message from the founder...this is what it was...interesting. ::) ::)


I got a lot of funny looks ten years ago when I started talking to people about Wikipedia.

Let's just say some people were skeptical of the notion that volunteers from all across the world could come together to create a remarkable pool of human knowledge – all for the simple purpose of sharing.

No ads. No agenda. No strings attached.

A decade after its founding, nearly 400 million people use Wikipedia and its sister sites every month - almost a third of the Internet-connected world.

It is the 5th most popular website in the world but Wikipedia isn't anything like a commercial website. It is a community creation, written by volunteers making one entry at a time. You are part of our community. And I'm writing today to ask you to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

Together, we can keep it free of charge and free of advertising. We can keep it open – you can use the information in Wikipedia any way you want. We can keep it growing – spreading knowledge everywhere, and inviting participation from everyone.

Each year at this time, we reach out to ask you and others all across the Wikimedia community to help sustain our joint enterprise with a modest donation of $20, $35, $50 or more.

If you value Wikipedia as a source of information – and a source of inspiration – I hope you'll choose to act right now.

All the best,

Jimmy Wales

Founder, Wikipedia

No agenda? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Solar on November 12, 2010, 04:24:42 PM
No agenda? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

:o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o

Maybe Wiki has no agenda but it being opensources, the writers definitely do. Some people think it's a valid source but finally some are realizing that Wiki is no more a valid source than is the DU.

Yes and no.

A lot of what's in Wikipedia isn't politically interesting so doesn't get much attention from the ideologues. What is political tends to attract both sides and that's a problem Wikipedia is wrestling with.

It is worth noting that a global warming extremist managed to get himself banned from editing any climate change-related articles for six months due to his abuses so there's at least an understanding that coming to be viewed as an instrument of partisan politics would be bad for Wikipedia.

My thought on this is, if he doesn't want the leftist branding, then he needs to get serious about cleaning it up.

I use Wiki for weights and measures and other things like insects, or geology, but everything else seems to have a liberal bent to it.
His fact checkers need to be removing all opinion, period.

Wikipedia is a JOKE.  Doesn't this sound like NPR soliciting for donations?    :)) :o

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on November 13, 2010, 03:11:42 PM
Wikipedia is a JOKE.  Doesn't this sound like NPR soliciting for donations?    :)) :o

;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes it does, indeed.
Like all lib outlets, they can't survive on their own, they need other peoples money.
I'm surprised the Dims didn't pour money into it from the so called stimulus.

From what I understand, anyone can post anything, valid or not, as fact on Wikipedia.  I wouldn't use it for factual info at all.  Haven't been there in a long time.  It might have changed, but I doubt it.

That's absolutely correct, Crepe.  I've gone in there and corrected a few glaring errors that I saw. 

Any wack job with an agenda can go in there, spew their nonsense, and it gets passed off as FACT.

The whole idea of a utopian "everybody contributes and everybody forms a circle and sings Kumbaya" format where everybody is honest and objective, is absolute NONSENSE.  I doubt Jimmy Wales is that ignorant, and I bet dollars to donuts that he knows EXACTLY what he has created....................a subjective, agenda-driven, left-wing website masquerading as an on-line objective fact-filled "encyclopedia".

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on November 14, 2010, 05:53:58 AM
That's absolutely correct, Crepe.  I've gone in there and corrected a few glaring errors that I saw. 

Any wack job with an agenda can go in there, spew their nonsense, and it gets passed off as FACT.

The whole idea of a utopian "everybody contributes and everybody forms a circle and sings Kumbaya" format where everybody is honest and objective, is absolute NONSENSE.  I doubt Jimmy Wales is that ignorant, and I bet dollars to donuts that he knows EXACTLY what he has created....................a subjective, agenda-driven, left-wing website masquerading as an on-line objective fact-filled "encyclopedia".

:D
Well said AF, couldn't have said it any better.
Just like a lib to ignore the reality of human nature.
If I build it, they will come, and come they did.
It's what commies always do, corrupt.

Quote from: crepe05 on November 14, 2010, 03:52:12 AM
From what I understand, anyone can post anything, valid or not, as fact on Wikipedia.  I wouldn't use it for factual info at all.  Haven't been there in a long time.  It might have changed, but I doubt it.

My experience is very different. I find Wikipedia to be a pretty good source, comprehensive and very accessible. In those areas where I have some knowledge and something's kind of thin I can just make an addition or change which I've done.

That's not to say Wikipedia doesn't have some shortcomings but on balance I'd say the strengths vastly outweigh the shortcomings. If I'm checking anything vaguely controversial I'll use Wikipedia as a starting point and go from there but that's just common sense. Any source is liable to be compromised in some way so if you're interested in accuracy you double check.

Like I wrote above, the people who run Wikipedia aren't unaware of the problem of being seen as a hostage of one side or the other and they are willing, if grudgingly, to deal the problem.