- At present I am overworked and the [Nupedia] project is suffering to some extent as a result ... I just don't have the time to find lead reviewers for the articles listed [in "General and Other"]. The problem is that it is VERY difficult to find *specialists* on each of those topics.
- Larry Sanger, Thread: General and Other editor and editorial changes?, Nupedia-l mailing list (5 January 2001)
- It's an idea to add a little feature to Nupedia. ... "Wiki," pronounced \wee'-kee\, derives from a Polynesian word, "wikiwiki," but what it means is a VERY open, VERY publicly-editable series of web pages. ... I can start a page ... Anyone else (yes, absolutely anyone else) can come along and make absolutely any changes to it that he wants to. ... On the page I create, I can link to any other pages, and of course anyone can link to mine. The project is billed and pursued as a public resource. There are a few announced suggestions or rules. ... As to Nupedia's use of a wiki, this is the ULTIMATE "open" and simple format for developing content. We have occasionally bandied about ideas for simpler, more open projects to either replace or supplement Nupedia. ... [It] can be a place where additional changes and commentary can be gleaned ... The content can be licensed under an open content license. On the front page of the Nupedia wiki we'd make it ABSOLUTELY clear that this is experimental ...
- We wouldn't call it "the Nupedia wiki" though that's what it would be. ... On the "wikipedia" we would say that this is a supplementary project to Nupedia which operates entirely independently.
- Hello, World!
- Jimmy Wales, first edit on the UseModWiki home page on 15 January 2001, as cited by Biz Carson, The first words on Wikipedia were a nerdy programmer in-joke (13 March 2016), and confirmed by Wales in User talk:Jimbo Wales (24 October 2010)
- Larry Sanger resigned on March 1st, 2002. He won't even stay as a volunteer. The project now no longer has a leader (or, put another way, everyone is a leader now).
- AnonymousDonor on Meatball Wiki in March 2002, as quoted in "My role in Wikipedia (links)" (c. 2009)
- Now that Larry Sanger is gone, Wikipedia's owners will have to watch whether the project manages the transition to effective self-regulation and step in if necessary.
- The bar to contribution is very low, and if there is any elite in charge, then with all due respect [...], our elite would seem rather less than impressive compared to the leading members of the intelligentsia that contribute to the likes of Britannica. ... The free encyclopedia movement [...] doesn't seem to be travelling in the direction of being led by world-class thinkers, scholars, and scientists, ... Basically, Wikipedia is the only game left in town as far as the free encyclopedia movement is concerned.
- Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.
- However closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler.
- The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
- For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War – and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge – get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
- Wikipedia's promise is nothing less than the liberation of human knowledge – both by incorporating all of it through the collaborative process, and by freely sharing it with everybody who has access to the internet. This is a radically popular idea.
- The Economist (20 April 2006)
- Shoppin' online for deals on some writable media.
I edit Wikipedia.
- When I visited the offices [in St. Petersburg, Florida] in March, the walls were bare, the furniture battered. With the addition of a dead plant, the suite could pass for a graduate-student lounge.
- Stacy Schiff, "Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?", The New Yorker (31 July 2006)
- If I want to say he didn't that's my right, and now, thanks to Wikipedia — it's also a fact.
- In the media age, everybody was famous for 15 minutes. In the Wikipedia age, everybody can be an expert in five minutes. Special bonus: You can edit your own entry to make yourself seem even smarter.
- Hofstadter: The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kind of depresses me.
Solomon: So fix it.
Hofstadter: The next day someone will fix it back.
- Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.
- As the popular joke goes, "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work."
- Miikka Ryokas (User:Kizor), quoted by Noam Cohen, "The Latest on Virginia Tech, From Wikipedia", The New York Times (23 April 2007); the earliest known variant is from the user page of User:Gareth Owen (20 January 2006): "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it's a total disaster.")
- Hayek's work on price theory is central to my own thinking about how to manage the Wikipedia project. … [O]ne can't understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding Hayek.
- You just can't put something with commercial motive into Wikipedia. Admitting it is hardly better; it is still a crime. The Wikipedians and bloggers will attack hard and they will deserve what they get.
- You set up this fantastic site, with people sending information all around the world, and you don't make any money of it! It's practically an un-American activity!
- There are a lot of bad things said about Wikipedia, the ninth most-visited destination on the internet. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit, critics argue, is one that is vulnerable to endless mistakes. Such criticisms have been raised by skeptics since Wikipedia's creation in 2001. … While that ultimate goal imagined by Wales for Wikipedia has not yet come to fruition, there is no questioning the breadth and usefulness of Wikipedia. Those who refused to believe that a user-generated encyclopedia could compete with the monolithic, traditional encyclopedia written by experts and organized by professional editors, were no doubt shocked when Nature magazine published a 2006 article comparing Wikipedia to the well-known Encyclopedia Britannica. The article concluded that Wikipedia articles were comparable in accuracy and thoroughness to those of the older, paper encyclopedia.
- Dick Clark, in "Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?," Mises Daily (19 September 2007)
- The man credited with founding Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales…was a finance major at Auburn University when the Mises Institute's Mark Thornton suggested he read "The Use of Knowledge in Society," a now-famous essay written by Austro-libertarian economist and Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek. The essay argues that prices in the market represent a spontaneous order that results from the interaction of individuals with diverse wants, allowing them to cooperate to achieve complex goals. According to a June 2007 Reason magazine interview, this insight of Hayek's is what led Wales to found Wikipedia. The rather lofty vision that inspired Wales? "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
- Dick Clark, in "Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?," Mises Daily (19 September 2007)
- But how does such a polycentric—even anarchic—system, composed of editors acting independently and for their own reasons, result in such an utterly useful resource? The answer goes back to the Hayekian inspiration for the project. Because editors receive both psychological satisfaction and material usefulness from their contributions, the project has grown to include safeguards that help guarantee that the development of the project will move in a positive direction—towards broad, accurate articles that depend on reliable, verifiable sources.
- Dick Clark, in "Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?," Mises Daily (19 September 2007)
- One could very aptly describe the Wikipedia system for directing the development of the project as being a common law system of sorts. The encyclopedia has basic policies—the constitutional law of Wikipedia—which require that articles be written from a neutral point of view, make use of verifiable sources, and include no original research. … Whenever a content dispute does arise between editors on the "talk" pages that accompany each article, there are a host of dispute resolution options available.
- Dick Clark, in "Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?," Mises Daily (19 September 2007)
- Wikipedia's reflection of market dynamics is most easily observed in what many people view as the project's weakest areas: obscure articles that draw little traffic. In articles about third-rate garage bands and other topics of limited interest, one will often find factual and typographical errors at a much higher rate than in high-traffic articles such as those on "England" or "Barry Bonds." The much higher demand for information about the latter topics means that many more eyes will be combing those much-demanded articles for mistakes. Since Wikipedia is open to correction by anyone, it stands to reason that the articles attracting more potential editors will be of a higher quality. Rather than a failure, this is a great demonstration of Wikipedia's efficient allocation of resources.
- Dick Clark, in "Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?," Mises Daily (19 September 2007)
- The Tsunami article is well researched and extensive, only at two places a little inaccurate. The scientific Wikipedia articles are, according to my judgement, almost always good.
- The article [Martin Luther] is ample and solidly written. Someone was really occupied with Luther and read some church histories. I give extra points for quoting from sources and the pictures.
- There is nothing to add to that entry [Marinade]. In my view it contains all important information. I use Wikipedia often for food chemistry. Sometimes you find something you didn't even think about.
- I think there’s more information about culture in Wikipedia than anywhere else in the world, ever.
- Tyler Cowen "Why everything has changed: the recent revolution in cultural economics" in Journal of Cultural Economics (2008), 32, p. 266, DOI 10.1007/s10824-008-9074-y
- Wikipedia's version of reality has already become a monopoly. And all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators are imposed too.
- Beware corporate executives posing as social visionaries. The hype may be about the fulfillment of human potential, but the reality is the exploitation of digital sharecropping.
- Seth Finkelstein, "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says", The Guardian (25 September 2008)
- This term "democratic" gets tossed around a lot, usually in a positive, "power to the people rather than some arbitrary ruler" sense. By that meaning, Wikipedia is indeed democratic. Yet, unlike a state democracy, 51% at the polls will not necessarily trump a Wikipedia adversary. So in the sense that the word "democracy" comes loaded with a "one man, one vote" ideology, Wikipedia is not democratic at all. And it is a good thing that Wikipedia isn't a democracy.
- Dick Clark, "Is the Free Encyclopedia a Democratic Encyclopedia?," Mises Daily (2 October 2008)
- Wikipedia is so dangerous. You go online to look up the definition of eclampsia, and three hours later you find yourself reading this earnest explanation of tentacle porn in anime.
- It seems that Wikipedia.com, that splendid source for all kinds of information, is no longer dedicated to the truth, assuming it ever was.
Individuals who have tried to edit the pages about Barack Obama—to reflect the incontrovertible fact that he is not God, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan—report that their contributions have vanished within minutes of posting them, and that they, themselves, have been suspended for three days following each 'infraction'.
When some sort of official at Wikipedia was contacted about this, she stonewalled, claiming that this censorship was the work of 'volunteers', implying they were somehow beyond control of Wikipedia itself.
- It's said that aeronautical theory says bumblebees ought not to be able to fly. Likewise, the idea that a useful, serious reference work could emerge from the contributions of thousands of "ordinary" internet users, many without scholarly qualifications, would until comparatively recently have been dismissed as absurd.
- John Naughton, "Face facts: where Britannica ruled, Wikipedia has conquered", The Guardian (5 April 2009)
- Even the founders of Wikipedia had no clue when they started the project of what it would accomplish. They dug a hole to find water, and struck oil instead.
- We now see the strong emergence of the Social Web instead of the Semantic Web, and a proposal has been made to use Wikipedia, the largest hierarchical collection of information in the world, as bottom-up input for the ontologies required to give shape to the Semantic Web.
- Wikipedia is effectively one-of-a-kind. No other mass-market or topically broad wikis have had meaningful success to date. Even Wikimedia's other wiki projects are not nearly as active as Wikipedia. If successful wikis are rare, Wikipedia might be a one-in-a-million lightning strike — some unique combination of factors succeeded in this case, but those circumstances are unlikely to replicate. If so, Wikipedia's rarity might also highlight its fragility.
- Goldman, Eric, Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and its Consequences, 8, Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law
- When I write, I consult Wikipedia 30–40 times a day, because it is really helpful. When I write, I don't remember if someone was born in the 6th century or the 7th; or maybe how many n's are in "Goldmann"… Just a few years ago, for this kind of thing you could waste a lot of time.
- So I finally gave in and coughed up a donation for Wikipedia. It was no trouble at all, and felt good. Now I have a sense that I'm a partial owner—a stakeholder of sorts—in this apparatus that I use every day. … Giving like this can be habit forming. … It's true that giving this way doesn't make rational sense according to a neoclassical idea of what constitutes economic rationality. Wikipedia is free and it will be there whether I give or not. The same might be said of the Mises Institute. If all we cared about were commercial exchange, I have every incentive to use the free good and never pay. There is no harm done in free riding, right?
Mises himself had a broader view of rationality. He said that all actions are rational from the point of view of the actor. I'm glad to embrace that idea. Giving in this way is not strictly a capitalist act if you define capitalism as only commercial exchange based on contract. But if we see capitalism as the voluntary sector of society characterized by private property relationships, this kind of micro-giving is part of that.
- Wikipedia is, for many users, the primary site for information on the Web … At present, Wikipedia hosts more than 2.9 million English-language articles, with a total of 13 million articles available in more than 250 different languages … Wikipedia is the second-most searched site on the Internet, behind only Google.
- Michael Miller, in Sam's Teach Yourself Wikipedia in 10 Minutes (2010), p. 3 & 5 ISBN 978-0-672-33123-7
- As Wikipedia founder Jim Wales revealed, back in 2005, 50 percent of all Wikipedia edits were made by just 0.7 percent of users; 75 percent of all articles were written by less than 2 percent of the user base. These numbers reveal that the active Wikipedia community is a lot smaller than you might think. It's understandable, then, for this active group to be somewhat self-centered, and not always accommodating to new or casual users.
- Michael Miller, in Sam's Teach Yourself Wikipedia in 10 Minutes (2010), p. 163 ISBN 978-0-672-33123-7
- Concerns among the academic community about the reliability of information from Wikipedia are unlikely to ever be fully alleviated, but this has never been Wikipedia’s fundamental goal. Much greater speed in adding and updating information, and involvement of the many rather than the few, have always been seen as ample compensation for any inaccuracies that emerge in the initial posting of entries. Wikipedia, like Castalia, is a flawed ideal but it is, as far as can reasonably be predicted, here to stay.
- Peter Roberts & Michael A. Peters, From Castalia to Wikipedia, in E-Learning and Digital Media, vol.8, no.1, 2011, pp. 36-46
- Intuitively [students] are using Wikipedia as one of those [new] tools, creating a new layer of information-filtering to help orient them in the early stages of serious research. As a result, Wikipedia's role as a bridge to the next layer of academic resources is growing stronger.
- Casper Grathwohl, Wikipedia Comes of Age, The Chronicle of Higher Education (7 January 2011)
- America's daily political vitriol is an undeniable fact. Against that depressing background, it is good to be able to celebrate an American invention which, for all its faults, tries to spread around the world a combination of unpaid idealism, knowledge and stubborn civility.
- Timothy Garton Ash, "We've seen America's vitriol. Now let's salute Wikipedia, a US pioneer of global civility," The Guardian (12 January 2011); and "Look it up: Wikipedia is turning 10," The Los Angeles Times (14 January 2011).
- It can be stunningly good on obscure corners of popular culture, and strikingly weak on mainstream matters.
- Timothy Garton Ash, "We've seen America's vitriol. Now let's salute Wikipedia, a US pioneer of global civility", The Guardian (12 January 2011)
- The kind of social production that Wikipedia represents has turned from a laughable utopia to a practical reality. That's the biggest gift that Wikipedia has given to us – a vision of practical utopia that allows us to harness the more sociable, human aspects of who we are to effective collective action.
- Yochai Benkler, "All-Star Thinkers on Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary", The Atlantic (13 January 2011)
- Wikipedia underscores an evolutionary lesson: We've always gotten farther as a species collaborating than going it alone. [...] In the past, the groups that cooperated best lived longer and had more kids – and we inherited those tendencies. Groups would correct cheaters (people who didn't share info or goods) through social pressure. So Wikipedia is like humanity's social nature writ large electronically, complete with ongoing disputes and corrections.
- Mariette DiChristina, "All-Star Thinkers on Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary", The Atlantic (13 January 2011)
- The generation of an infinite number of bogusly 'objective' sentences in an English of agonizing patchwork mediocrity is no cause for celebration, even if it eventually amounts to a Borgesian paraphrase of our entire universe. [...] I liked the internet better before. The mistakes had flavor, passion, transparent purpose.
- Jonathan Lethem, "All-Star Thinkers on Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary", The Atlantic (13 January 2011)
- The fundamental flaw in the way Wikipedians think about what they do is that they are entirely absorbed in rules and procedures and arguing fine points with one another and earning merit points; it has all the flavour, as has been suggested before, of a great online game. Users – the ostensible audience – are hardly considered.
- An authority isn't a person or institution who is always right – ain't no such animal. An authority is a person or institution who has a process for lowering the likelihood that they are wrong to acceptably low levels. [...] And this is what I think is really worth celebrating as Wikipedia begins its second decade. It took one of the best ideas of the last 500 years – peer review – and expanded its field of operation so dramatically that it changed the way authority is configured.
- Clay Shirky, "All-Star Thinkers on Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary", The Atlantic (13 January 2011)
- Every single day for the last 10 years Wikipedia has got better because someone – several million someones in all – decided to make it better. [...] Wikipedia is best understood not as a product with an organisation behind it, but as an activity that happens to leave an encyclopedia in its wake.
- Warm, kindly, humane Wikipedia didn't grow up in today's Internet. Now it's like a hothouse orchid the size of a barn.
- Bruce Sterling, "All-Star Thinkers on Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary", The Atlantic (13 January 2011)
- Watching pornography [..] is like going to a Wikipedia page. You search for a specific thing, a specific feeling, a specific result, and that’s exactly what you find.
- We don't want Wikipedia to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica: We want it to have 55 times as many entries, present contentious debates fairly, and reflect brand new scholarly research, all while being edited and overseen primarily by volunteers.
- Rebecca J. Rosen, "Does Wikipedia Have an Accuracy Problem?", The Atlantic (16 February 2012)
- Despite being staffed entirely by an army of volunteers, Wikipedia — which is not, strictly speaking, a news site — is keeping pace with conventional media outlets. Official results make their way to athletes’ Wikipedia pages within hours, and sometimes minutes, of their finish. With dedicated editors working 24/7, Wikipedia pages are proving to be faster, leaner and more popular alternatives to traditional reporting.
- Brian Mossop, "How Wikipedia won Olympic Gold", wired.com (10 August 2012)
- Wikipedia, as you well know, is a fraudulent encyclopedia. It's sort of invented. And we all go to it. The entry under Michael Savage – I have one person who keeps trying to correct the truth. But the soviets, that is the communists, that is the liberals, that is the democrats, have at least ninety-nine people who attack my site, every time he makes a correction. For example, when he reenters that Michael Savage single-handedly stopped the Dubai Ports Deal? They take it out of there. They don't want anyone to know it. In other words, they revise my history, the way the soviets did to individuals that they wanted to destroy in their country. Now you understand why I'm not allowed on any television station. Why Michael Savage is an unknown individual in America, except to its millions of listeners. And why this show is number two on the Internet and radio. And why I have six best sellers in a row. Because somehow the truth is getting out. But I'm warning you about Wikipedia. If Wikipedia doesn't stop these ninety-nine democrat liberal soviets from modifying things that are true, then how could you rely upon a website that's so fraudulent? You can't. You can't! But I can't fight every battle every day, you understand that?
- The site I avoid at all cost is Wikipedia, which for many subjects I’ve found to be a trove of misinformation. I don’t even have any desire to read my own Wikipedia article.
- Gwenda Bond, The Changing World of Reference: Focus on Reference 2013, Publishers Weekly (12 April 2013)
- As they say, history is written by the victorious Wikipedia editors.
- Marya Hannun, "The Wikipedia War Over Egypt's 'Coup'", FP Passport (7 July 2013)
- Dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife.
- Anonymous Wiki-PR client, cited by Judith-Newman in "Wikipedia-Mania", New York Times (9 January 2014)
- With such a massive amount of rules and regulations to adhere to, how is it not absolutely deterring for newcomers to join Wikipedia? Most likely, because they do not even know these rules exist. Counter-intuitive as it may sound, in spite of all the regulations, it is perfectly fine and acceptable to just use common sense when editing Wikipedia, relying on one’s best judgment on how to make it a better encyclopedia. In fact, one of the Wikipedia policies goes even further and states that “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it,” and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia claims that “Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception.” In a similar spirit, there is a rule stating that instruction creep should be avoided and that pettifogging is not welcome. One policy, which describes what Wikipedia is not, insists that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
- Whether or not Wikipedia has managed to attain the authority level of traditional encyclopaedias, it has undoubtedly become a model of what the collaborative Internet community can and cannot do.
- The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, "Wikipedia", Encyclopædia Britannica (28 October 2014)
- When Wikipedia launched, it raised immediate concerns about the sanctity of accreditation—could knowledge be created by amateurs? But its steady rise in utility meant that, in time, nearly everyone made their peace with it — some more happily than others.
- Paul Ford, "The Chaotic Wisdom of Wikipedia Paragraphs", New Republic (8 October 2015)
- The Wikimedia Foundation has gotten far off track. Every year, it builds its campaign around a budget many millions larger than the year before.
- Pete Forsyth (Wikipedia consultant and former member of Wikimedia Foundation’s fundraising team) in Wikipedia Has Lots of Money, by Caitlin Dewey, The Washington Post (6 December 2015)
- If you’re selling to customers that you’re familiar and competent with new media, and you can’t manage something like Wikipedia, that’s a failure.
- Pete Forsyth of Wiki Strategies, The Big Oops: Sunshine Sachs’ Wikipedia Whitewash, Observer News (17 December 2015)
- A lot of students write a paper for a class, and eventually it winds up in the dustbin. When students write an article for Wikipedia, they have to learn to collaborate, to research and to write for a popular audience, and their work will benefit the millions of people using the site.
- Phoebe Ayers, MIT Libraries’ Phoebe Ayers accepts Erasmus Prize on behalf of Wikipedia, MIT News (5 January 2016)
- Linux and Wikipedia (as well as other, less known achievements) show unambiguously that the idea of requiring any kind of payment for great tools, culture, or knowledge to come into being is an utter falsehood.
- Rick Falkvinge, Copyright industry rhetoric ignores the existence of Linux and Wikipedia, TorrentFreak (10 January 2016)
- For a website with no paid writing staff that is still overcoming an out-of-date reputation for inaccuracy, Wikipedia punches above its weight. ... it is especially powerful in an election season: On the day of the 2012 election, Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s entries alone were read 1.6 million times. ... you can see a virtual version of the presidential race playing out every day.
- Jeremy B. Merrill, "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate" (1 February 2016)
- It turns out there are people, typically they're probably unemployed kids with student debt you know that are stuck in their parents' basement with Cheetos stains on their t-shirts that haven't been able to get their first job so what they do is they play games to see how long they can edit Wikipedia pages in order to have games with their friends all around the world. So my advice to you is, if you do have a Wikipedia page, check it once in a while....
- ... what Wikipedia and Facebook teach us is that social models of content curation and collaboration do scale. ... organisations will increasingly need to crowd-source a lot of their meta-data. ... In other words, [organisations] will need to build a Corporate Data Catalogue that looks and feels a lot like Wikipedia, but which borrows the “like” and “share” concepts from Facebook.
- Martin Willcox, What Enterprise Information Management Can Learn From Facebook And Wikipedia, Forbes / Business (11 March 2016)
- Wikipedia is the most comprehensive compendium of up-to-date knowledge assembled at gargantuan scale almost entirely by volunteers. It works, too, because they form a huge community that for reasons of camaraderie, rivalry, vanity, purity and sometimes just deep suspicion constantly monitor and vet one another’s work. There are flaws in the process, but each entry is a living organism that matures and self-corrects over time.
- Wikipedia is an exceptional case. If we can figure out how it becomes sustainable, that would be a major contribution. Because it’s a new way of managing human resources.
- We thought, let’s not fight Wikipedia, but instead teach students to use it better.
- Ashley Downs, librarian at Mann Library, in Cornell takes big red pen to Wikipedia life sciences content, by Amruta Byatnal, CornellChronicle (22 March 2016)
- ...people have talked about open politics and things like that, and its really hard sometimes to say that yes, you can apply the same principles in some other areas ... So, obviously open source in science is making a comeback. Science was there first. But then science ended up by being pretty closed with very expensive journals and some of that going on. And open source is making a comeback in science with things like arXiv and open journals. Wikipedia changed the world too. ... So there are other examples. I am sure there are more to come. ... It is up to you guys to make them.
- Like many university lecturers, I used to warn my own students off using Wikipedia (as pointless an injunction as telling them not to use Google, or not to leave their essay to the last minute). I finally gave up doing so about three years ago, ...
- Peter Thonemann, The all-conquering Wikipedia?, The Times Literary Supplement (25 May 2016)
- Progress has been slow, but several independent ventures show how the attitudes of major players in the biomedical ecosystem are beginning to shift further, and take Wikipedia more seriously.
- Thomas Shafee, Wikipedia is already the world’s ‘Dr Google’ - it’s time for doctors and researchers to make it better, The Blog, Huffington Post (18 October 2016)
- Regardless, this new research shows that Wikipedia editors of different opinions have strived for consensus over time. That’s opposed to Facebook or Twitter, where people are siloed into their own self-reinforcing echo chambers. ... Consider this a version of the “miracle of aggregation” – that large groups of people are able to act rationally and solve problems despite having vastly different interests.
- Robert Gebelhoff, Science shows Wikipedia is the best part of the Internet, The Washington Post (19 October 2016)
- ... phishing on Wikipedia is effective enough – and lucrative enough – to retain the interest of the dark net’s richest dwellers. ... Although Wikipedia’s editors work to root out the false links, it’s a slow and never-ending fight.
- Patrick O'Neill, Dark net crooks wage an easy and profitable phishing scheme on Wikipedia, Cyberscoop (27 January 2017)
- The researchers ... found that the Wikipedia entries were written at a much higher reading level compared with the medication guides and well above the average consumer reading level, which could contribute to patient misunderstanding of medication information. ... The study authors conclude that as the public use of Wikipedia increases, the need for health care professionals and the pharmaceutical industry to actively educate and provide reliable resources to patients remains important.
- Mary Warner, JAPhA study shows incomplete and inaccurate patient drug information on Wikipedia, pharmacist.com (30 January 2017)
- Page views of Wikipedia are immense compared with views of primary literature articles. As a result, if you edit a page to include results from your research, your audience will likely expand by at least an order of magnitude.
- Evan B. Goldstein, Three Reasons Why Earth Scientists Should Edit Wikipedia, eos.org (27 January 2017)
- For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability.
- Spokesman for Mail Newspapers, Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source, by Jasper Jackson, The Guardian (8 February 2017)
- The fate that befell the Mail happened for one reason, and one reason alone: it’s terrible, and by banning it, Wikipedia sends a message that it values its credibility.
- Matthew Hughes, Wikipedia just banned contributors from citing the Daily Mail as a source, Insider (10 February 2017)
- Wikipedians this week added greatly to the amusement of the internet after around 40 contributors loftily declared that the Daily Mail was not a reliable source for citations. Much public hilarity ensued – for the reason that The Mail and Wikipedia are really far more alike than either would care to admit. ... Both can resemble a real chamber of horrors.
- Andrew Orlowski, The Mail vs Wikipedia: They're more alike than they'd ever admit, The Register (13 February 2017)
- However clumsy the Youth Parliament’s approach to Wikipedia may be, it’s still an improvement on a government order issued by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev last August, when he established a working group to study the creation of an all new Russian-engineered Wikipedia clone.
- Kevin Rothrock, Russian Government Youth Group Wants to Make Wikipedia More Patriotic, Global Voices (24 February 2017)
- ... for an organisation that calls itself a ‘small non-profit’ business and begs users for donations (‘the price of a cup of coffee’) to keep it afloat, it enjoys bulging cash reserves. The Foundation’s accounts show it has assets of more than $90 million (£73 million), and spent $31 million (£25 million) in salaries last year, up from $26 million (£21 million) the year before. ... Are these amounts not excessive?
- ... this ban has set a dangerous precedent, raising profoundly troubling questions about free speech and censorship in the online era. ... a social media giant whose pages are riddled with inaccuracies, unilaterally deciding, at the request of a handful of people, that a major newspaper is somehow not valid.
- False information is being disseminated at a far greater rate when it seems to have been vetted by a brand name and Wikipedia’s branding is global. It would be ideal if a more credible site like Encyclopedia Britannica or a useful news site like Reuters could be granted the “zero-rate” – but those sites [...] do [not] have the same foundational interest in spreading their content without financial gain that Wikipedia has.
- Jillian Sequeira, The Strange Case of Wikipedia Zero, Law Street (5 March 2017)
- Wikipedia, as it is currently run, is simply and literally out of control, and a potential menace to all kinds of institutions and individuals. This is an organisation that – quite scandalously – polices itself, judges itself, and legitimises itself. It is always right because it decides what is right. You are always wrong because it decides what is wrong. ... And it has power without responsibility or accountability. ... It is high time this arrogant, self-admiring, self-regulating, often bullying organisation be placed under the formal supervision of an independent watchdog.
|Find more information on Wikipedia by searching Wikiquote's sister projects|
|Encyclopedia articles from Wikipedia|
|Dictionary definitions from Wiktionary|
|Textbooks from Wikibooks|
|Source texts from Wikisource|
|Images and media from Commons|
|News stories from Wikinews|
|Learning resources from Wikiversity|