I LOOOOVE Wikipedia!
I think the open source approach enables Wikipedia to gather valuable facts that might otherwise have remained locked/lost in braincells around the world. Per a quote on Wikimedia (Wikipedia's parent organization):
"Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
Do I think all the content on Wikipedia is 100% complete and accurate? Nope and I can't image that it ever will be. Do I think any written set of non-fiction information is 100% complete and accurate? Nope. Do I believe that there are information authors out there that publish inaccurate facts with good intentions or to meet the needs of an underlying agenda? Absolutely, but as with most encyclopaedias, Wikipedia's percentage of accurate content FAR outweighs the inaccurate content.
This recent Nature.com study shows that Wikipedia has an accuracy rating similar to Encyclopaedia Britannica. Check out the peer review results summary.
Wikipedia doesn't rely on advertising for it's source of funding and it still provides the us with it's service for f-r-e-e. Instead, as a non profit organization, they rely on public donations. A well-spent donation, I'd say.
That said, I would have never thought that I'd feel so passionate about an encyclopaedia...must be age setting in.
"Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
Do I think all the content on Wikipedia is 100% complete and accurate? Nope and I can't image that it ever will be. Do I think any written set of non-fiction information is 100% complete and accurate? Nope. Do I believe that there are information authors out there that publish inaccurate facts with good intentions or to meet the needs of an underlying agenda? Absolutely, but as with most encyclopaedias, Wikipedia's percentage of accurate content FAR outweighs the inaccurate content.
This recent Nature.com study shows that Wikipedia has an accuracy rating similar to Encyclopaedia Britannica. Check out the peer review results summary.
Wikipedia doesn't rely on advertising for it's source of funding and it still provides the us with it's service for f-r-e-e. Instead, as a non profit organization, they rely on public donations. A well-spent donation, I'd say.
That said, I would have never thought that I'd feel so passionate about an encyclopaedia...must be age setting in.
Posted by Anonymoose on December 18, 2005 at 12:43 PM MST #
Posted by The Mason on December 20, 2005 at 10:39 AM MST #
indeed you are correct. wikipedia rules!
Posted by Allen on December 20, 2005 at 05:47 PM MST #
i also support WP strongly. yes, it has its problems, but blown out of proportion to a surprising degree. [as lem put it: <em>in evolution, a negative gradient operates in the perfecting of structural solutions.</em>] WB vs EB study is actually quite noteworthy, even if [as the mason notes] there is content weakness around the softer edges: <em>EB has been at this since 18th century.</em> the indication is that wikipedia may cover that distance in a decade. i can hardly wait.
Posted by oz on December 22, 2005 at 12:27 AM MST #