Supporting Wikipedia

[uni57]

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."

— Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

"Why should I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation? (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Questions/en#Why_should_I_donate_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation.3F)

The job of the Wikimedia Foundation is to provide easy access to information, for people all over the world - free of charge, and free of advertising. As a non-profit, it is dependent on your help to do that. Your donations directly support some of the most popular collaboratively-edited reference projects in the world, including Wikipedia, one of the world's top ten most popular websites and the largest encyclopedia ever compiled in human history."

Wikipedia is looking for donations. I'm thinking about donating. I thought it would be nice to discuss it here. Hardly a day goes by that I don't look up something on Wikipedia. It's a great place to start when you know nothing about a topic (and it's frequently sufficient to satisfy a passing curiosity). It either gives you what you need to know or tells you where to go to get it. Besides, I doubt that any other encyclopedia in the world has an entry on the Passaic River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passaic_River) (a river in northern New Jersey) and Geddy Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geddy_Lee) and the Forth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_(programming_language)) programming language. They have everything.

[Wheel Rider]

I gave a donation lastweek. Wikipedia is a useful tool.

Recently, I made an update to an article. That is when I found out how easy it is to make updates. The easy update makes me realize how easy it would be for someone to post incorrect information. You should not use Wikipedia as proof of information for important matters. A lawyer friend has suggested that information from Wikipedia would probably not be acceptable as support or proof in court.

[surfer1024]

I gave a donation lastweek. Wikipedia is a useful tool.

Recently, I made an update to an article. That is when I found out how easy it is to make updates. The easy update makes me realize how easy it would be for someone to post incorrect information. You should not use Wikipedia as proof of information for important matters. A lawyer friend has suggested that information from Wikipedia would probably not be acceptable as support or proof in court.
We can't use it as a source for school papers either.

[mornish]

I donated, wikipedia is amazing.

[uni57]

We can't use it as a source for school papers either.I hope that's true for any encyclopedia.

About.com is also a good resource, although I'm using it less and less. Here's the Wikipedia article on about.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/About.com).

[uni57]

Wow, this is a very lively discussion. Nobody cares about Wikipedia? Or is it that everyone knows what it is and there's nothing to talk about?

On my FreeBSD system, I was surprised to see a user named toor with a uid of zero. Wikipedia to the rescue. It's root spelled backwards (see toor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toor)). I am continually amazed at the breadth of topics they cover.

I find Wikipedia useful enough -- and I use them frequently enough -- that I'm going to send them some of my hard-earned money. Do you use them a lot? Or do you just go wherever "the google" leads you?

What do you think about the quote from the founder --

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."

Profound? Over-reaching? Impossible?

[captainconcarne]

wikipedia is awesome, most of the stuff i look up is not that important so its probably mostly true, but its fun to see where I end up after clicking on random link-words

[GILD]

About.com is also a good resource, although I'm using it less and less. Here's the Wikipedia article on about.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/About.com).
That is very funny.

I use Wikipedia quite extensively for artist trivia.
When talking about music still coming up in the show, it's nicer to say "...a song off the first album the CD-version of which outsold it's LP counterpart...".
This makes the listener either want to guess at it, and then stay tuned to find out if they're right, or to stay tuned to find out who/what it is.
I get a lot of that kind of info from the Wiki.

I will donate, but only after tax-month.

[Gilby]

We can't use it as a source for school papers either.
But Wikipedia cites it's sources, so you can use Wikipedia to find the information and then cite the original source.

[ivan]

I donated all that I had - 13$. I donated something before when they had some other race to raise some money.

I really appreciate wikipedia. Indispensable sourse of information. I really can't give it nothing more right now, so I did what I could.

[habbywall]

But Wikipedia cites it's sources, so you can use Wikipedia to find the information and then cite the original source.

Why is it that apparently no one seems to understand this?

[johnfoss]

The other day I was looking for information (Google searching) on an old friend of mine to send him a Christmas card. His got returned; he'd moved! I haven't seen him in many, many years but we still exchange cards and his are handmade and unique. He's the guy who designed & drew the Unicycle Factory logo. The first hit was his reference in Wikipedia! Fascinating. Unfortunately, nothing that led me to a current email or address. And no card from him! Was he only sending to me in response to my cards? :confused:

[Wheel Rider]

But Wikipedia cites it's sources, so you can use Wikipedia to find the information and then cite the original source.

Sources are there if the person writing the article puts them there. Wikipedia does not write anything and they do not provide sources.

[critter]

Don't they get money from advertising?

[mornish]

Don't they get money from advertising?


They don't advertise.

[Unreal-Wheel]

I love wikipedia!!!

But my French teacher is crazy and this is what she said when she saw me on wikipedia:

"That website isn't genuine, none of it's information is accurate. All of it's sources are fake.":confused:

[poofengle]

I like to play 6 degrees of separation on wikipedia just using the blue in-text links. I'll pick a destination and see if I can get there in 6 clicks or less, it's really quite fun

[johnfoss]

"That website isn't genuine, none of it's information is accurate. All of it's sources are fake.":confused:From a teacher's point of view, that description is a little off, but basically accurate. Though most entries appear to be perfectly fine, there is never a guarantee that they are accurate, or that they aren't even totally wrong. As a research tool, it can only be a beginning, but not the end of your info-gathering.

[phlegm]

A friend told me last week how much he likes Wikipedia because you can change any page to support whatever argument you make. :p

Wikipedia does have its limits. It's great for technical and pop culture type stuff. However, information about very specific academic topics is hit and miss. Perhaps the people that really should be writing those articles are too busy writing books to sell in relatively small quantities within academia.

Better though is Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics), where all the atheist homosexual Barack Obama supporters hang out. :p

[GILD]

Let's not forget about the UNCYCLOPEDIA no (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)w.

Especially their insightful piece on the un (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Unicycle)icycle.

[TimeTraveler]

I let my students use it, just not as the sole source. For factual information, it's great, but when it comes to some kind of analysis, Wikipedia is far from comprehensive.

I also use it to show how to do citations in their papers. Even the articles that don't have a lot of citations have a lot of [citation needed] tags.

David

[critter]

They don't advertise.

ohhhhhhhh.:o


I'm starting to rely on it more. I don't have it bookmarked, but it comes up quite often when I do google searches.

[Seager]

I hope that's true for any encyclopedia.
[/URL].


Why? People use regular encyclopedias as sources for school papers all the time. If someone has a project on Brazil how else are they going to get information? An encyclopedia is best.

[habbywall]

I like to play 6 degrees of separation on wikipedia just using the blue in-text links. I'll pick a destination and see if I can get there in 6 clicks or less, it's really quite fun

5 Clicks to Jesus is more fun.:p

[uni57]

Why? People use regular encyclopedias as sources for school papers all the time. If someone has a project on Brazil how else are they going to get information? An encyclopedia is best.I've been out of it for a long, long time. Maybe I was thinking of papers at the college level. Or maybe times have changed.

Here's a reference to what I had in mind...

How To Select Scholarly Sources (http://essay-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_select_scholarly_sources)

"Discerning sources to be used in a formal research paper or essay is one of the most crucial aspects of writing. Not all sources are reputable nor do they carry equal weight. [...] Mass media encyclopedias such as World Book and Britannica should not be used as paper sources."


Can't the student, for his essay on Brazil, find books on Brazil? Journal and magazine articles? And primary sources such as publications from Brazil (possibly available at a university library)? Or interview a person from or living in Brazil?

I dropped out of college 23 years ago, so I'm certainly not arguing with you. Just asking.

[dudewithasock]

Dave: Yes, for college papers, most professors (at least the ones I know of) would not accept encyclopedias as sources, and most certainly would not accept Wikipedia.org as a source. If you're looking for a source of changing times, they do accept internet sources nowadays, though there are still the profs who vastly prefer books and journals.

[nick]

I donated 5 bucks, which is about two percent of my monthly income.

[hobo_chuck]

But Wikipedia cites it's sources, so you can use Wikipedia to find the information and then cite the original source.

I just let the Wiki-monkeys do all my source-finding instead of combing the web myself.
I donated 5 bucks, which is about two percent of my monthly income.
lol.