Why I love Wikipedia

[Nemesix]

Its fast, accurate (at least 95% of the time) and i have yet to come across any article that is completely inaccurate. although some of the articles may not be perfect, it gives a great gernalization of a wide range of topics. there are many sites that are said to be "more accurate" such as brittanica or worldbook online, but from what i have found, wikipedia articles actually more in depths as they contain information collaborated through a large variety of sources. whenever there is something i want to know, the first thing i always do is type it in on yahoo, and if that does not yield any results, i turn to wikipedia, which has never yet let me down.

wikipedia.com ^.^

thoughts on the site? anyone else love it as much as i do?

[crazy white guy]

the reason i love it is because i can get a shit load of info and own people within 10 seconds of typing in a topic.

wikipedia = almost instant win

[odin_dax]

If you're seeking information, how do you know if it's good or not? Just because Wiki puts it up? Can't users edit the information?

Yes, Wikipedia is good, but it's limited. There were many times I couldn't find information, but that was for very specific things. It's one of the first places I go, but I could never use it in an academic paper. I don't think anyone really can without using their footnotes in any article.

[Th0r]

Since Wikipedia became in the top ten Google results for everything you search I have noticed a strong decline in the quality of the work. The quality of grammar, plus how the site is now edited by retards who cant write for shit. Wikipedia is meant to be formal, not informal.

Plus the amount of thirteen year old "kewl l33t folkz" who get various articles locked because they change Bush's middle name from Walker to Wanker...

Apart from that it pretty much is the best site on the Internet!

[headcase]

I was studying genetics today and the four tabs I had open were past exam questions, lecture notes, Wikipedia and Google (for misc stuff). Few other sites give as concise a brief as Wikipedia usually does with it's opening paragraph, with further reading and, more importantly, further links if necessary. All too often, when using Google alone, do you get hits which seem to assume some prior knowledge of the subject matter that you don't have, are too complex or too basic. Wikipedia is a godesnd to students.

On top of that, I tend to get passing notions about random topics. I was wondering how Bob Marley died a few days ago so I went straight to Wikipedia. Given how often these rather random questions pop into my head, I'd be lost without it. Even that is a more tame example.

[Th0r]

I received a warning today for correctly editing an article on Wikipedia. I corrected a spelling from Vibrato to Vibrator... I aparently am a Wikipedia vandal.

[DoubleTShiftty]

I have to admit, I on several occasions (about 2 years ago), edited the whole Wikipedia page that was dedicated to my former Secondary School, I changed the Headmasters name, changed the link to the Schools URL to some random gay porn site... etc. I found it pretty funny at the time, and still do looking back when it was mentioned in an assembly to the whole school.

[Th0r]

My schools principals name was changed to...

Mr.Blobby

And on a later occasion, Noel Edmonds...

[Esophagus]

I had a conversation with a friend recently about Web 2.0, and I brought up (briefly) Wikipedia, and the idea of a hive mind that comes along with it. It wasn't until the advent of the web, and more specifically Web 2.0, that we have had such a communal wealth of knowledge.

Some days I just wonder how I ever got along without Wikipedia. Great reference lists for school projects, and at the very least it allows you to reverse engineer the information you were looking for, and find it in an established paper. Very handy.

Also nice for comic fans like myself. Continuity just wouldn't be as manageable if Wiki weren't by my side.

[Raverous]

edit.

[.VX]

I don't bother editing it anymore, it always gets changed back. I find a lot of it is very biased too.

[Th0r]

Some of the Wikipedia Editors are complete Douchebags.

My friend was so pissed off about the constant revision and editing to his article to completely incorrect garbage he went to talk to the Editor. The messages went unanswered so he started a discussion on the editors page. This guys 'defender' comes along and banned everyone who contributed to highlighting this Editors total shit.

Such is life.

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

Such is life.

Edward Kelly fan th0r?(1855-1880)

[Th0r]

I prefer De Maupassant who used a lot of similar terms as a matter of fact.

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

Ah ok than, poor ned.

[Micro]

Some of the Wikipedia Editors are complete Douchebags.

My friend was so pissed off about the constant revision and editing to his article to completely incorrect garbage he went to talk to the Editor. The messages went unanswered so he started a discussion on the editors page. This guys 'defender' comes along and banned everyone who contributed to highlighting this Editors total shit.

Such is life.

Everybody knows that wikipedos have constant political wars over the control of the sandbox. And in the war for control, content is just a weapon.