Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Wikipedia publishes 500,000 articles in 50 languages

By jrincayc in News
Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:02:30 AM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

February 25, 2004 (The Internet): Wikipedia (Wikipedia.org), a volunteer-created, multi-language encyclopedia, announced today that the project has reached a milestone of 500,000 articles, spread across 50 different languages.


More than 300,000 new articles were created in the last 12 months alone, making Wikipedia the world's largest and fastest-growing open content encyclopedia. Every day, another two thousand articles are added to this collaborative endeavour. All articles on Wikipedia can be edited and improved by anyone at any time. The English-language Wikipedia has also revamped the design of its front page and created a community portal to welcome new editors.

Presently, the greatest increase in growth is in the non-English editions, demonstrating the increasingly multilingual nature of the undertaking. In fact, there are now more articles in other languages combined than there are in English. Ten Wikipedia versions now have over 10,000 articles each (rounded to the nearest thousand):

An additional eighteen have more than 1,000 articles (rounded to the nearest hundred):

This surge in growth has, according to Alexa.com, resulted in Wikipedia.org surpassing Britannica.com, Infoplease.com and Encyclopedia.com in terms of its Internet traffic rank and has placed Wikipedia.org firmly within the top 1,000 websites that Alexa tracks.

"Wiki" principle enabled early, rapid growth

Wikipedia is a public WikiWikiWeb, where anyone can edit nearly any page at any time. Wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian: no registration or special knowledge is required to participate. Users build upon one another's edits, working together even on sensitive issues, by trying to find a neutral point of view. Incorrectly edited pages are quickly repaired by others.

The Wikipedia project was founded in January 2001 by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Bomis (bomis.com), an Internet web portal owned by Wales, supplied the financial backing and other support, while Sanger led the Wikipedia project during its first year, as a full-time paid editor. Since then it has operated mostly on consensus, using policies refined over time by its contributors.

The project has recently been transferred from Bomis to the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (wikimediafoundation.org). Bomis still provides free bandwidth and basic server maintenance to Wikimedia.

Jimmy Wales comments that "Wikipedia owes its success to the presence of a strong core group of well-educated and articulate contributors from around the world who together maintain community standards of civility, quality and neutrality." Explaining one of the mechanisms to ensure that the article quality remains high, he said, "Participants all keep a watchful eye over the 'recent changes' page. They edit each other's work constantly." Even articles covering controversial topics can be worked on using this process.

The motivation of Wikipedians is very different, but all share a love of knowledge. "For years, I've been collecting old almanacs and encyclopedias," comments Oliver Brown, who writes under the nickname "Kingturtle". "To stumble on a thriving community devoted to sharing information gave me a tremendous thrill and a curious sense of relief."

Wikipedia has been the subject of articles in the news media, among them, The New York Times, MIT's Technology Review, and TIME magazine, as well as, articles on high-profile technology websites such as Slashdot, Wired, and Kuro5hin. More recently, Wikipedia has been featured on news programs, such as National Public Radio's All Things Considered, and CNN's television program TechWatch. It is also increasingly being used as a reference source by students, journalists, organizations, and any other individual who needs a starting point for doing Internet research.

All Wikimedia content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which permits anyone to reuse Wikimedia content in any way they wish, including commercially, as long as they, too, pass on that right to others and credit the editors of the particular Wikimedia project as the source.

MediaWiki (mediawiki.org), the software that runs the various Wikimedia projects, is also available for free under the terms of the GNU General Public License, the same license used by the free GNU/Linux operating system. "The MediaWiki software is the best solution yet to the problem of easily creating and maintaining hypermedia," says Nicholas Pisarro, Jr. of Aperture Technologies, Inc. The company uses MediaWiki to run an internal wiki knowledge base. "In the six weeks since it has been made available internally, it has already become an indispensable part of our development department's operation."

With edits being made every minute of every day, it is impossible to predict where Wikipedia and its sister projects will be one year from now. Thanks to the GNU licenses, however, one thing is certain: the content, and the software that serves it, will remain free.

Sister projects seek to emulate success

On June 20th 2003, the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (wikimediafoundation.org) was created to manage and fund the operations of Wikipedia and its sister projects. These include:

  • Wiktionary, a multilingual dictionary and thesaurus (wiktionary.org)
  • Wikiquote, a compendium of famous quotations (wikiquote.org)
  • Wikibooks, a collection of e-book resources, aimed at the needs of students (wikibooks.org)
  • Wikisource, a repository of public domain historical documents and books (wikisource.org).

Since its first fundraising appeal in December 2003, the Wikimedia Foundation has raised nearly US$40,000 to support these projects, half of which has already been invested in infrastructure. See wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising for more information.

This press release was created collaboratively by Wikipedians from many different countries.

Additional information

For questions and interviews, please contact:

Jimmy Wales, Chairman, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (English only)
Phone: (+1)-727-527-9776
Email: jwales@bomis.com

Andrew Lih, Asia region press contact, Hong Kong, China (English, Chinese Putonghua)
Phone: (+852)-9759-0220
Email: alih@hku.hk

Robert Merkel, Australian region press contact, Melbourne, Australia (English only)
Phone: (+61)-425-712-883
Email: rgmerk@mira.net

For further background information, please see:

This press release was collaboratively drafted on the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki (meta.wikipedia.org - page history). Before its release it was edited 259 times by 37 different volunteer authors, and drafted in 18 different languages. The text of this press release is placed into the public domain.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Slashdot
o Kuro5hin
o Wikipedia. org
o English
o German
o Japanese
o French
o Polish
o Swedish
o Dutch
o Spanish
o Danish
o Esperanto
o Italian
o Catalan
o Chinese
o Hebrew
o Romanian
o Slovenian
o Finnish
o Croatian
o Estonian
o Interlingu a
o Norwegian
o Afrikaans
o Portuguese
o Latin
o Russian
o Walloon
o Czech
o Malay
o Alexa.com
o bomis.com
o wikimediaf oundation.org
o GNU Free Documentation License
o mediawiki. org
o GNU General Public License
o wikimediaf oundation.org [2]
o wiktionary .org
o wikiquote. org
o wikibooks. org
o wikisource .org
o wikimediaf oundation.org/fundraising
o jwales@bom is.com
o Wikipedia' s article about Wikipedia
o Wikipedia' s article about Wikimedia
o Wikipedia Statistics
o Some responses to common criticisms of the WikiWiki concept
o Selected articles that are considered to be well written and researched
o A page tracking Wikipedia.org's Alexa ranking compared to other websites
o Past press coverage of the project
o meta.wikip edia.org
o page history
o Also by jrincayc


Display: Sort:
Wikipedia publishes 500,000 articles in 50 languages | 101 comments (89 topical, 12 editorial, 7 hidden)
Esperanto? (1.25 / 27) (#6)
by I Hate Jesus on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:01:49 AM EST

Who in his right mind would want to read an article in Esperanto?

If you are going to be reading anything other than children's books in Esperanto you are really screwed up.

Any sane person would read in a language they can understand better than some Russian based cheap ass excuse for a language.

If you want a universal language, then use English. English has more words than any other language, therefore it is the best choice.

I just hope they standardize on American English, all that "re" sounds like "er" and adding in 'u's where they aren't needed make British and Austrian English too ass-backwards for somebody not used to using a sophisticated language.

Do you hate Jesus too?
Re: Esperanto? (2.80 / 5) (#23)
by Yekrats on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:46:27 PM EST

I use Esperanto because I like to know how people from other cultures think and write. There is no way I have the time to learn Spanish, German, Korean, or Portuguese, but thanks to Esperanto, I've chatted with folks from from Spain, Germany, Korea, and Brazil, making some good friends in the process. Having a free source of Esperanto articles at Wikipedia makes for good reading practice.


[ Parent ]
Ah, the joys... (1.60 / 5) (#24)
by Verbophobe on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:51:08 PM EST

...of speaking a language without history, litterature or personality.

Proud member of the Canadian Broadcorping Castration
[ Parent ]
Forfikigu. Vi konas nenion pri Esperanto. (n/t) (none / 3) (#28)
by topynate on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:33:02 PM EST




"...identifying authors with their works is a feckless game. Simply to go by their books, Agatha Christie is a mass murderess, while William Buckley is a practicing Christian." --Gore Vidal
[ Parent ]
Fakte! (none / 1) (#100)
by Vesperto on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 11:13:52 PM EST

Sed ne indas respondi al kretenoj, ignoru aŭ moku ;) Ĝis!
_____________________________
If you disagree post, don't moderate.
Not a Premium User.
[ Parent ]
Re: Ah, the joys... (1.75 / 4) (#62)
by Yekrats on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:39:55 PM EST

Esperanto history:
Although it's scarcely 100 years old, Esperanto and its users have a fair amount of history:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_history)

Esperanto literature:
Sylvan Zaft: "Esperanto: A Fine Literary Language."
(http://esperanto.ie/english/zaft/zaft(19).htm)

Don Harlow's guide to Esperanto literature:
(http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Literaturo/literaturo.html)

Esperanto personality:
J. R. R. Tolkien: "My advice to all who have the time or inclination to concern themselves with the international language movement would be: 'Back Esperanto loyally.'"
(http://donh.best.vwh.net/Languages/tolkien1.html)

Passport Service: Free international Esperanto hospitality service. Therefore, one could tour the world and spend nothing on lodging.
(http://www.tejo.org/ps/ps_lingv/ps_en.htm)

Of course, nobody is obligated to learn Esperanto, but it's pretty foolish to mock those of us that choose to use Esperanto. Esperanto is a tool for communication. It's just a tool. It's fun to get a window into the mind of people from other cultures, but in the end, it's just a tool. Esperanto is a living language, despite what the naysayers say.

It's not perfect -- no language is -- but I think it's better than the usual and rather rude alternative: which is, expecting everyone else to speak English with us.

[ Parent ]

Vi tute pravas. (none / 1) (#99)
by Vesperto on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 11:13:12 PM EST

Sed la vero estas... tiu unua afiŝo estis "troll"... ne zorgu, ne indas. :)
Bonfartu fuŝagu.
_____________________________
If you disagree post, don't moderate.
Not a Premium User.
[ Parent ]
don't need to learn a new language to chat (2.25 / 4) (#36)
by thankyougustad on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 09:12:44 PM EST

Far be it from me to criticise another's hobby, but I've done the same thing in English.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Re: don't need to learn a new language to chat (1.75 / 4) (#63)
by Yekrats on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:05:56 PM EST

You're right, you don't need Esperanto to chat.

But "Every language both liberates and imprisons its users, giving them the ability to communicate among themselves but barring them from communication with others." (PM) If we are barred communication with people from other cultures, I think it cuts that culture off from us. I think it's interesting to find out what other cultures think about us Americans.

Learning a native language has both pluses and minuses. When I learn a national language (like French, for example) I not only learn the language, but something about the rich French culture. Unfortunately, I will never speak French like a native, no matter how much I am immersed in the language and study it. (And I have studied French and been immersed in language. It didn't help much.) Speech between me and a native French speaker, I will always have a lesser ability. I'm sure non-English native speakers have a similar problem when trying to communicate with us over here.

On the other hand, learning Esperanto gives just a little Esperanto culture, a fraction of what one would have with a national language. However, with it, you get a real sense of "world" culture, as Esperanto spans most countries of the world. Also, I stand a chance of speaking Esperanto "like a native," since it is -- by definition -- a second language to most of its users.

[ Parent ]

Animal House (none / 1) (#44)
by Eccles on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:27:22 AM EST

I just hope they standardize on American English, all that "re" sounds like "er" and adding in 'u's where they aren't needed make British and Austrian English

Otter: Austrian English?

Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

[ Parent ]
re comes from...... (none / 1) (#54)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:23:08 AM EST

the fact that the words originated in France. So using Liter or Meter is just wrong.

[ Parent ]
-er is much older than French (none / 1) (#67)
by thankyougustad on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:46:03 PM EST

English's er comes from a lot of places. Old English had an ere ending, and can mean things like earlier, later, sooner, better, etc. It's also used to denote somone who does something, miller, singer, swimmer, and so on. Later on in middle English the second e was dropped. -Er and -ar were adopted as standard suffixes, with -er eventually superceeding -ar. . . and being added to old words. . . astrologien became astrologer, sorcer became sorcerer. A lot of germanic languages share this, not just English (being innondated with french words during the norman period) so in english we get miller, baker, hunter, slater, wheeler. . . and then place names like southerner, londoner, islander, villager, etc.

But it is true that French had an enourmous influence on modern English, and did introduce the -er into new contexts, but it often became -ar in english. Collar, scholar, cellar, and poplar are all examples of this. All this comes from Latin, anyway (-are -ior -ari, etc).

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Ignorance is bold (none / 3) (#90)
by svampa on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 10:14:19 AM EST

If you want to say that English is the international language de facto, just do it, I agree you. But don't try to support it with linguistic arguments, because they are absurd and only show your ignorance. I bet that the only language you speak is English, so you can't compare to state any linguistic argument.

if you want a universal language, then use English

You are right:

I don't like it, but it's fact. English, as universal language, beats any other, it's more widspreaded than any other. K5 is an evidence.

Another question is that is less known than you could think. I can read English (and write to certain extend), but I almost don't understand spoken English, and problably none would understand my spoken English.

If you are going to be reading anything other than children's books in Esperanto you are really screwed up.

The idea that Esperanto is only usefull for child sentences is quite common, but absolutely false. There are translations of Shakespeare, The Bible, etc. Esperantists theirself are responsible of this misconception, they have been claiming that Esperanto is very easy, and that's false.

Esperanto is easier than any natural language (very much easier), so you can use it in a very simple manner after short time, and if tou speak a west language (German or Latin language) you know a lot of vocabulary. But unfortunately, it's a full language, as must be studied and put a lot of work to master it, there are a lot of forever-lerning people.

English has more words than any other language

??!!. Ridiculous, absurd, nosense...

How many words has English? How many words has Spanish? How many words has French? how many words has Japan? in fact, What is the concept "word" for you? is "get in" a word or two and "enter"?. You don't have the first idea what are you talking about. The source of such stupid statement is your brain, and it's not supported by any fact, knowledge or information, not even by an error, it's supported by your will of state your opinion.

therefore it [english] is the best choice.

I agree, today, English is the best choice as international language. But it's only because EEUU dominance. Years ago (before 1914 and probably before 1960) French was the international language, before was Spanish, before was Latin...

There is no "linguistic virtue" in English to be a good international languages. In fact, from a linguistic point of view is one of the worst choices.

The virtues of English as international languages are:

  • A simple verbs syntax.
  • Almost invariant roots.
  • And Problably it's arguable they are virtues

    The flaws:

  • To many vowels (sounds), Spanish has only five, Other languages have even less, Arabian has only a,i,u
  • Cluster of consonants difficult for most language speakers
  • Written English is too different from spoken English and quite irregular
  • Prepositions may change the meaning of verbs in unexpecterd ways.
  • Don't try to support English as international language because of the language itself. It's a politic issue. Period



    [ Parent ]
    Walloon (1.50 / 8) (#8)
    by godix on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:11:16 AM EST

    I'd ask what the hell walloon is but I'm afraid someone would actually answer so nevermind. Sounds like the official language of loonie bins everywhere though.

    It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
    - Terry Pratchett
    It's a good thing you didn't want the answer (1.80 / 5) (#12)
    by guyjin on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:55:39 AM EST

    otherwise, I wouldn't have looked for this just to irk you. ;)

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=walloon

    -- 散弾銃でおうがいして ください
    [ Parent ]

    Ah, France (none / 2) (#14)
    by godix on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:26:54 PM EST

    That explains everything I need to know about Walloon.

    It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
    - Terry Pratchett
    [ Parent ]
    hey now. . . (2.00 / 3) (#15)
    by thankyougustad on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:29:32 PM EST

    those are belges you're talking about, not french, and no one likes the belges.

    No no thanks no
    Je n'aime que le bourbon
    no no thanks no
    c'est une affaire de goût.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm American (none / 3) (#43)
    by godix on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:07:44 AM EST

    Do you really expect me to know the difference between belges and french? Hell, you should be happy I know what continent we're talking about.

    It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
    - Terry Pratchett
    [ Parent ]
    Ask your questions about Wikipedia here (2.71 / 7) (#22)
    by Eloquence on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:24:37 PM EST

    In case you want to know anything about Wikipedia or MediaWiki: I will watch this thread and respond to questions. I've been a Wikipedian since 2002 and am also one of the MediaWiki developers.
    --
    Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
    spread the word!
    iA (none / 1) (#33)
    by mumble on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:41:45 PM EST

    2 questions:

    Why have you left iA for dead?

    Why didn't you mention the thriving wiki at iA?

    -----
    stats for a better tomorrow
    bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
    "They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
    "I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.
    [ Parent ]

    2 answers (none / 0) (#38)
    by Eloquence on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 10:04:58 PM EST

    1) iA isn't dead. There's about one or two stories per week. That seems reasonable for a weblog with a limited scope. Feel free to submit more. I always intended the site to be self-sustaining, and it seems to have reached that point.

    2) infoAnarchy and by extension its wiki are linked from my signature.

    Is there anything in particular you would like me to do on iA?
    --
    Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
    spread the word!
    [ Parent ]

    Stuff to do (none / 0) (#39)
    by mumble on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 10:20:15 PM EST

    Well, you could update the poll once in a while. The current one has been there forever.

    It is a good point that the site is now mostly self-sustaining. As the founder, I thought you would like to take a more active role. I guess not.

    Reviews of the latest and greatest p2p app would also be nice. As well as occasional articles commenting on the state of the infoanarchic field.

    Probably other stuff too.

    -----
    stats for a better tomorrow
    bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
    "They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
    "I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.
    [ Parent ]

    Reviews, state of the onion (none / 3) (#41)
    by Eloquence on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:54:32 PM EST

    I just updated the poll. If you have any good suggestions for new polls do not hesitate to email me (see FAQ).

    I stopped writing reviews not because I lost interest but because I switched to Linux. But I could do a comparison of cross-platform networks, I suppose (eMule/xMule, MLDonkey, BitTorrent, MUTE etc.). The state of the field is pretty good, the attempts by the **AA to demonize and criminalize sharing have been fairly ineffective. The one thing they really fear is technological progress. Bandwidth increases have been pretty slow so far, but this could change with ever increasing wireless deployment.

    The other, much underestimated area where technology marches on is storage media. DVD-R exchange is already pretty strong and will only get bigger, with terabyte consumer harddrives on the horizon HD exchange also becomes an increasingly interesting possibility. Just like cassettes in the 1980s there's no good way for the **AA to stop this, and DRM is just not taking off. Microsoft knows exactly that if they move too fast with DRM, Linux will become more viable on the desktop. Linux in the meantime becomes more viable every day regardless. In my opinion every young person with an interest in technology can and should already be using it. And there's no way in hell storage media DRM is gonna become the default on Linux.

    So I'd say things are pretty good. The crackdown on 15-year-olds was forseeable, as was the media backlash against the **AA that followed. I doubt they can achieve anything with that strategy. File sharers have more to fear from tempting online offers which successfully smuggle DRM into private homes.
    --
    Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
    spread the word!
    [ Parent ]

    OT comment on wildcards (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jacques Chester on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 10:38:24 PM EST

    You write "**AA", I suppose to stand for both RIAA and MPAA.

    All very well, but it has been common practice for the asterisk symbol to stand for any string of arbitrary length. Arguably, ** = *, and **AA could return a whole range of strings ending in AA, to whit: "He just started going to AA".

    The symbol for "any single character" has traditionally been ?. So in your case, you'd write ??AA.

    Just a nitpick. :)



    --
    Well now. We seem to be temporarily out of sigs here at the sig factory. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
    [ Parent ]
    Wikipedia = villages, cottages, barns .. (2.50 / 4) (#25)
    by Highlander on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:30:29 PM EST

    I'm not surprised that Wikipedia has so many pages considering that every tiny little town in the USA now is present, as far as I can tell from trying a few random pages. They will have to do something about this one day, this somewhat spoils the fun of trying random pages.

    Moderation in moderation is a good thing.
    Heh, (none / 1) (#32)
    by kraant on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:00:42 PM EST

    It's an encyclopaedia... Of course it's comprehensive... What were you expecting exactly?
    --
    "kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
    Never In Our Names...
    [ Parent ]
    Suggestion (none / 1) (#50)
    by Highlander on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:49:52 AM EST

    Well I would expect the encyclopedia to give me a random page from certain realms of information only, and to exclude places because they are not much fun when looking at random pages as a start.

    Moderation in moderation is a good thing.
    [ Parent ]
    Well then, (none / 0) (#66)
    by kraant on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:29:04 PM EST

    You're talking on the wrong forum, you need to tell them that, not us.
    --
    "kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
    Never In Our Names...
    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#91)
    by Highlander on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 08:14:39 AM EST

    Well you seemed interested, but maybe I'll tell the wikipedia, too.

    Moderation in moderation is a good thing.
    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#94)
    by kraant on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:26:14 PM EST

    Of course I'm interested, but not doing much on wikipedia except the occasional proof-reading, and not being on the mailing lists, it's not something I can raise with people who can actually make the changes you want.
    --
    "kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
    Never In Our Names...
    [ Parent ]
    We hear you (none / 0) (#95)
    by Eloquence on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 11:01:35 PM EST

    Filtering bot-generated articles from RP has long beeon on the to-do list, it's just that nobody's gotten around to implementing it yet. Shouldn't be too hard as we already flag bot edits as such.
    --
    Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
    spread the word!
    [ Parent ]
    -1 Wikipedia is crap, buy an ad (1.14 / 21) (#26)
    by StephenThompson on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 06:34:59 PM EST

    Because it has no editorial control, the entries in wikipedia end up being written not by the most informed, but by the most obsessive.  While anybody can make edits, what end up happening is people decide they 'own' some topic, and they routinely go through and delete anyone elses edits.  Many entries are just uninformed drivel written by opinionated religious or political advocates.

    Of course, most entries in this "encyclopedia" are ridiculous fan or vanity pages anyway.

    It is hard to imagine a use for the information there except for pushing one's own agenda for entertainment.   Nobody could actually rely on the information there.  

    Google does much better.

    math reference (2.80 / 5) (#30)
    by cronian on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:43:40 PM EST

    The math refence is pretty useful. They have all the major theorems in many areas of mathematics.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    have you used it? (none / 2) (#46)
    by Delirium on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:40:55 AM EST

    I've switched to searching Wikipedia first, then Google, because the information in Wikipedia is far more reliable. You get too many crank sites on Google, and too much plain flat-out wrong stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    Could you link an example ?? (nt) (none / 1) (#55)
    by guigui on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 08:10:46 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    K5 unlike Wiki (2.66 / 9) (#45)
    by samething on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:39:20 AM EST

    In this case, it would be nice if K5 were more like a Wiki.  If K5 were more like a Wiki, I think some of us would go back to this article to change or remove it.  The reason for this is that this is not "an article" in the sense of something written by a user; it is a press release written by an outside entity.  K5 should be providing original content, not reproducing other content.

    Regardless, this press release was well-written.  I would have liked to have found a link to it in the MLP section.  

    That's really fascinating. (1.12 / 24) (#47)
    by kitten on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:46:49 AM EST

    If I wanted to know about Wikipedia's unreliable garbage, I'd go to their site.
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    Was that really needed? (2.75 / 3) (#48)
    by dasunt on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:41:04 AM EST

    If I wanted to know about Wikipedia's unreliable garbage, I'd go to their site.

    Really, was that comment helpful?

    All you did was voice an opinion, without any evidence or backing.

    Would that be signal? Or noise?

    Hate to tell you this, but wikipedia seems to work. Sure, its not the ONE TRUE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE, but nothing really is. Not wikipedia, not dead tree encyclopedias, and not Bob from down the street.

    Sure, anyone can change a node, but anyone can revert the node back. With most wikis, its very easy to track recently changed pages, and to check differences. What's the point of changing the main page to say 'Everyone sucks' when its just going to be changed back?



    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (1.50 / 8) (#51)
    by kitten on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:02:20 AM EST

    My point was not really about whether or not Wikipedia is a worthy website. My point was that everyone already knows what Wikipedia is, and if we were interested in it, we know where to find it. We don't need to be told every time someone's favorite website gets a facelift or adds a new feature, particularly if the website in question is one that everyone already knows about.
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    Last time I checked... (2.83 / 6) (#52)
    by dasunt on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:28:54 AM EST

    None of us were born with the knowledge that wikipedia.com exists.

    That knowledge comes from somewhere.

    Not everyone knows about Wikipedia, contrary to your claims.

    You are partially right though - we don't need to be told about wikipedia updates. Neither do we need to be told about MLPs, fiction, technical topics.

    Hell, all we do need is a certain temperature range, some oxygen, and a certain mixture of amino acids, minerals, and organic molecules.



    [ Parent ]
    Where does it end, dasunt? (none / 2) (#65)
    by kitten on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:00:25 PM EST

    "Wikipedia today added a new article about an obscure midwestern town."

    "Today Wikipedia announced that they tweaked their search feature."

    While you're busy arguing about ridiculously literal uses of the word "need" as in "We don't need to be told," my point was simply that:

    1. Most people already know what Wikipedia is. Those that care about it will already know this stuff, and those that don't care, well - they don't care.

    2. This story really tells us nothing. So Wikipedia reached some base-ten milestone. Hoo-rah. What, exactly, are we supposed to discuss? "Yes, it certainly did!"

    3. Consumers tend to buy based on utility, not on necessity, and their sense of utility is often so skewed that the supply/demand balance becomes quite useless. You know what I'm on about.
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    The point (none / 0) (#60)
    by kjb on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:55:57 AM EST

    is that kitten wanted to remind everyone how much of a prick it is.

    --
    Now watch this drive.
    [ Parent ]

    Example of wikipedia's unreliable garbage? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jrincayc on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 09:03:12 AM EST

    Can you please link to some examples of unreliable garbage? If nothing else, it is fun to look back in about year and find it all fixed (For example take a look at all the complaints about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? ... and notice how few of them still have the same problems.)

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget wikitravel! (2.71 / 7) (#49)
    by tedoneill on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:46:55 AM EST

    According to the site, "Wikitravel is a project to create a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide. So far we have 1168 destination guides and other articles written and edited by Wikitravellers from around the globe." Not bad for only about six months.

    --Ted

    "Always be wary of any helpful item which weighs less than its operating manual." -- Terry Pratchett

    And don't forget World66 (none / 0) (#81)
    by Awakened One on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 05:39:13 PM EST

    World66 is another good open-content travel wiki.

    [ Parent ]
    Article count/towns/press release (2.71 / 7) (#56)
    by dachshund on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 08:53:37 AM EST

    I've always felt that the article count is an unreliable way to measure Wikipedia's growth. As another poster mentioned, some chunk of this growth is due to robo-generated articles like the US Towns & Cities collection ("Thetford, VT is located on 2,450 acres, 3% of which are covered with water...") What this count leaves out is the collossal improvement in the quality of the existing articles. There have to be better ways to measure this.

    Also, this article does look way too press-releasish. I support the Wikipedia getting its message out there, but I think this is a bad precedent for k5. MLP, people.

    Blech (2.75 / 4) (#58)
    by rusty on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 10:12:47 AM EST

    this article does look way too press-releasish

    That's probably because it's a press release. I can't believe this got posted at all, let alone FP. Sheesh.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Why 'probably' ? (2.00 / 6) (#59)
    by gyan on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:51:32 AM EST


    From the story body itself:


    This press release was created collaboratively by Wikipedians from many different countries.

    rusty, delete this story and ask author to buy an ad.

    ********************************

    [ Parent ]

    It got voted up (2.75 / 4) (#61)
    by rusty on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:37:57 PM EST

    If people want to vote up press releases, that's their business. I'm just kinda disappointed. At least it's for a relatively worthy organization.

    And I meant "probably" like "it probably sounds like a press release because it is one." Not that it probably is one.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    try wikinfo (2.25 / 4) (#64)
    by teichos on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:33:00 PM EST

    I much prefer Wikinfo, where missing articles are are automatically imported from Wikipedia by the user, using XML and GetWiki software, and the hopeless cause of NPOV is abandoned. On Wikinfo, you can post just about anything you want, and the sysops aren't going to come around to delete it and call you a troll, which happens daily on Wikipedia. Sure, it's smaller in article count, but since when do K5'ers blindly support the artificially large, market dominant, bug-heavy offerings??

    flames and modbombs are the most pathetic forms of flattery
    Has this been a problem witrh Wikipedia? (none / 1) (#69)
    by NeantHumain on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 12:48:10 AM EST

    I was unaware Wikipedia had any significant disputes about whether something constituted trolling or not. Last time I really looked into it, they took a pretty liberal, laissez-faire approach to article editing. But then again, I last looked into it about two years ago when I made a few major contributions and the project was still pretty young.


    I hate my sig.


    [ Parent ]
    that was then (none / 2) (#73)
    by teichos on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 12:49:12 PM EST

    Nowadays, you had better be careful what and how you edit, and you'd better toe the NPOV line when any dispute arises (and they WILL), or else the sysops will come around and revert/delete everything you do, brand you a troll, and eventually banish you from the site. If you come back under a different name, or even seem to do so, they research you out and call you a sock puppet. What's happening is a turf war, both in each section of the site, and on the site as a whole, which is extending to other wiki's, like Wikinfo, which are not affiliated with Wikipedia, where the meta-wikipedians have the audacity to try to demand what should be done on other sites than their own! (That would be like Slashdotters trying to demand what K5'ers do on K5) All the while, they assume their website holds as high and consistent a literary standard as the major published encyclopedias, when it doesn't come close, and they seem to deny they are running a WikiWikiWebsite, when that fact is obvious. So, things are different now.

    flames and modbombs are the most pathetic forms of flattery
    [ Parent ]
    Prove it. (none / 1) (#75)
    by jrincayc on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 01:31:28 PM EST

    Give links to articles where this has happened.

    [ Parent ]
    you already have... (none / 3) (#76)
    by teichos on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 01:58:15 PM EST

    ...with spin, anyway. But this is a Wikipedian's argument. Somebody offers an opinion against the Wiki-gospel and you challenge them to go out and research every link they can so you can argue about each case. It's a great tactic, but my points are still valid opinions. Indeed, your reaction is proving my point for me :)

    flames and modbombs are the most pathetic forms of flattery
    [ Parent ]
    Thoughts (none / 2) (#77)
    by jrincayc on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 03:37:41 PM EST

    I have been watching about 30 some articles for over a year and I have reviewed hundreds of edits. Of all the reverts and the edits, I have found one that I thought was incorrectly reverted ( Economics Edit). This edit was done by a person who was considered a troll (with good cause ). I unreverted it and had a heated discussion with the admin who did it (and I am not proud of this). I have looked at a several cases where people have claimed that they are having edits unfairly reverted. Almost always one or both of the parties are being stubborn and childish.

    I don't think that this is a serious problem in general. I do think that this is a difficult problem to actually solve to everyone's satisfaction. NPOV is a partial solution to the problem of trying to write articles on contraversal subjects. Wikinfo's sympathetic viewpoint is a different attempt to solve the problem. Think about how you would write articles with either NPOV or SPV about say, the fall of the Incan Empire, Israel, Abortion, and Kuro5hin. I am actually not sure which is ultimately better, but I certainly am willing to go along with NPOV when I edit Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has not collapsed under the collective weight of flamewars is rather amazing and at least a small piece of evidence that NPOV works. I wish the same for Wikinfo.

    Every month there are proposals for various ways to solve the problem of contraversal edits. Some propose creating editors for individual articles and only allowing those editors to change the article. Others propose reverting the controversal edit and letting the edit be discussed in the talk page. Some propose always modifying the edit and never reverting. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages. Editing instead of reverting takes time from people who could be doing something else. Always reverting takes the least time, but can annoy the person that created the original edit. Having editors for articles would make it much harder to fix problems in the articles. Wikipedia by no means has solved to everyone's satisfaction this problem. I invite you to write eloquent and well researched essays on the problem and people will listen to you. Or, if you choose not to explain yourself in detail, then go on your way. Wikipedia may have lost a potentially valuable contributer, but unfortunately Wikipedia does have to compromise, lest it commit suicide.

    In a way, it is almost inevitable that old articles will become more likely to be reverted. They are higher quality, so bringing them back up to the previous quality requires more work, so edits that do half the work are less tolerated.

    The reason that there is a Wikipedia gospel is that it works more or less. I and others have watched Wikipedia gradually improve over time by it following the Wikipedia Gospel. It is hard to argue with the successfulness of Wikipedia. Removing NPOV is one of the more radical proposals (but not the most) that Wikipedia regularly recieves. To change from it would require enormous evidence to go against the preceived success of Wikipedia. This will probably become more of problem as wikipedia becomes more and more sucessful.

    I wish you luck, Alvin of Diaspar, but not too much.



    [ Parent ]
    One more request (none / 1) (#78)
    by jrincayc on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 04:04:57 PM EST

    I hope that you can see fit to at least provide one link to a change that illustrates your assertions? I have provided links to illustrate some of my points and I request that you extend me the courtesy. You have complained that K5 seems like a trolling contest. I assume that you are not trolling, otherwise I would not have responded, however the continued lack of evidence is making me wonder. Wikipedia provides complete history of all non-deleted articles (including the Votes for Deletion Page), so you should be able to give some link to what you are refering to. If I argue with you about it, then it should quickly become clear to K5 observers if I am wrong.



    [ Parent ]
    look, this is not wikipedia (none / 2) (#79)
    by teichos on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 04:46:16 PM EST

    You can't control dissent here. Anyone who's been reading Wikipedia for the last few months can see what I'm talking about for themselves. I'll throw you a bone, though. Just look at "Votes For Deletion" and the "Village Pump" for plentiful examples, among other pages, and look at recent discussions on Wikinfo for examples of Wikipedian insiders trying to control that site. Now, I only offered an opinion based in experience, the evidence of which is too vast for me to enumerate here. If you don't like that opinion, that's too bad for you, but you'll be hard pressed to prove that opinion is mistaken.

    flames and modbombs are the most pathetic forms of flattery
    [ Parent ]
    Some background (none / 3) (#80)
    by Eloquence on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 05:36:27 PM EST

    "Teichos" is Proteus on Wikinfo and M.R.M. Parrott in real life. On Wikipedia he created a page about himself that was widely regarded as self-promotional and deleted; he also added quite a few links to his page on other pages, including a "List of ethicists" which explicitly states that it lists "figures recognized by those outside their tradition as having made major contributions to ideas about ethics, or raised major controversies by taking strong positions on previously unexplored problems."

    In the discussion, a requirement for deletion which we keep around to refer to cases like this as precedents, he accused others who explained in detail why they thought the page should be removed of trolling ("Nice troll", "Textbook troll and grandstanding") and "cruelty".

    Self-promotional entries are generally not accepted on Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, verifiability and neutrality of the added information being the key ones.

    What happened next is that MRM created a fork of our GPL'd software, MediaWiki, called "GetWiki", and participated in a fork of our content, called Wikinfo. He made improvements to GetWiki, including an interface to quickly import Wikipedia entries. Wikinfo has since then imported thousands of Wikipedia articles using this interface.

    Because a couple of productive users have left Wikipedia for Wikinfo, I have written a small Perl script to import Wikinfo entries to Wikipedia. I contacted Fred Bauder, who runs Wikinfo, to request help to make it easier to locate new articles on Wikinfo which were not imported from Wikipdia.

    Fred was happy to help, but being a non-techie, delegated the task to MRM, who accused me of trying to build a "trojan horse" to infiltrate Wikinfo. Now here we have a project which gets 99% of its content and 95% of its code from Wikipedia, but when it comes to making it easier to copy content the other way, we are the bad guys trying to take over the project. Of course Fred doesn't feel this way and has reassured me that he would try to talk to MRM, but I think that's an exercise in futility.

    Wikinfo is exceptionally useful in that it is quickly becoming a place where we can send problem users from Wikipedia. Thanks to the GFDL, used by both projects, we can copy content around (lack of cooperation notwithstanding), so we don't lose much, and Wikipedia becomes a happier, more peaceful place.
    --
    Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
    spread the word!
    [ Parent ]

    who is MRM Parrott? (none / 3) (#83)
    by teichos on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 08:14:22 PM EST

    ...and who are you?? Sounds like you're another Wikipedian proving my points for me. Thanks, asshat.

    flames and modbombs are the most pathetic forms of flattery
    [ Parent ]
    Some links and comments on them (none / 1) (#82)
    by jrincayc on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 06:12:47 PM EST

    Talk for M.R.M. Parrot on Wikipedia This page seems to illustrate all the accusations that you have made about Wikipedia. The page was deleted in Wikipedia, but not in Wikinfo: M.R.M. Parrot

    Wikinfo Village Pump There seems to be a case of someone trolling saying "[Wikinfo] is shit compared to Wikipedia" in an archived version. Also, there is a discussion about Wikipedia user pages being automatically displayed in Wikinfo. That discussion becomes heated, largely do to a misunderstanding between some of the participants. Appearently some of the people on wikipedia are unhappy about their user pages showing up on wikinfo. Other than those two incedents, I don't see any other issues with Wikipedian's on the Wikinfo Village Pump page or past versions of it.

    Wikipedia Votes for Deletion There certainly seems to be some evidence for a shoot first and ask questions later here, but there is at least a fair amount of discussion over what is the correct thing to do. I would like to biasedly note that only about 1% or less of new articles or so end up here, and not all are deleted.

    Wikipedia Village Pump

    Thank you for giving me more to go on, teichos. It at least gives me a better chance to try and see your perspective. I hope that my reviews are fair.



    [ Parent ]
    yup (none / 1) (#84)
    by teichos on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 08:24:41 PM EST

    I recall reading about those issues, but there have been many others.

    flames and modbombs are the most pathetic forms of flattery
    [ Parent ]
    One more comment. (none / 1) (#87)
    by jrincayc on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:35:41 PM EST

    1. I trust Eloquence more that I trust you.
    2. There is considerable independent circumstantial evidence that you are MRM Parrot
      1. Time stamps of your k5 comments match up with Proteus of Wikinfo contribution times.
      2. Proteus of Wikinfo states he is MRM Parrot
      3. The MRM Parrot Talk page on wikipedia (above message) and your complains about wikipedia match in several ways including the Sockpuppet comment, the general complaints about votes for deletion (which decided to delete MRM Parrot's wikipedia page) and complaints about wikipedia policies in general.
      4. On the Wikinfo Village pump page the complaints by Proteus of Wikinfo about wikipedians sound oddly familar.
    3. Teichos of Kuro5hin reacted very rudely to the suggestion that he might be MRM Parrot, in fact much more rudely than he had been in previous comments.

    Therefore I consider it highly likely that you, teichos of kuro5hin, are Proteus of Wikinfo and further that it is likely that you are also MRM Parrot of Earth. I am not entirely sure however.



    [ Parent ]
    this is funny, so I'll run with it (none / 1) (#88)
    by teichos on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 06:56:30 PM EST

    On a site like K5, with well over 50,000 users in many countries, many of whom are literate and articulate, could it be possible that the circumstantial evidence is nothing more than that? This "proteus" on Wikinfo doesn't even pretend to hide who he is, yet you act like you've discovered a wormhole, and he also says he doesn't frequent Wikipedia, where as I just told you I was a regular reader - I might even be a regular editor - but I'm sure not going to tell you what my username is there - maybe I have several, all sock puppets, of course!! Oh, check this out, there is also a proteus on right here on K5, on Plastic and Slashdot, does that mean "teichos" is those users too? Hey, it's circumstantial, right? I guess those are just more of my sock puppet accounts?

    But, also, you might try and stretch your brain and consider that it really doesn't matter who we are behind these usernames, and I don't give a frick what you guys think, because it doesn't matter what you think, and there is nothing you can do. You are both, whoever you are, hiding behind usernames, too. Eloquence says he is Erik, and this Erik seems to have made quite a fool of himself on proteus' talk page on Wikinfo. What a dipshit. Maybe you, "jrincayc", are also Erik, since you are making a fool of yourself now! - I mean, there is circumstantial evidence to support that, so we might as well trust it, right? And boy, our postings are strangely close together, within like hours, so we must all be in the same time zone - whoa, that's just freakay! Also, this very thing is what I was talking about near the top of this thread. Many wikipedians are extraordinarily concerned with potential sock puppets, and you will push the point, even violate someone's privacy, in order to behave as though you have won something.

    Anyway, all fun at your expense aside, I'm not going to help you out in your oh-so-important quest, but I do find it pathetic and sad that the "two" of you find it so important - but maybe you were behind some of these irrational deletions on Wikipedia over the last few months? I'll tell you what: why don't you go ahead and believe whatever you will, that I'm this Parrot guy, or whoever you wish me to be. While you're at it, do believe that I'm the one in that black helicopter over your bald head, I'm the "deep throat" from the Watergate days, I'm the Haliburton contact at the US White House. Maybe now you can get back to your wikiwank, now that you have proof and all??

    flames and modbombs are the most pathetic forms of flattery
    [ Parent ]
    In a Network of lines that Intersect (none / 0) (#93)
    by jrincayc on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 10:09:59 AM EST

    Ack, the secret is out. You have discovered the dark secret that Eloquence and Jrincayc are the same person. And after I/We/Eloquence/Jrincayc went to so much effort to create plausible seemingly seperate entities. I/We created seperate webpages (Erik Möller (Eloquence) and Josh Cogliati (Jrincayc)) and in a truely diabolical way even went as far as to create fake arguments and discussions. But now, due to teichos of kuro5hin's sharp eye the secret is out and now I/We/Eloquence/Jrincayc's secret plan to obtain the Hegemon will surely fail.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes it happens but not as often as you might think (none / 0) (#74)
    by jrincayc on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 01:15:12 PM EST

    It does happen, usually every day. This is probably to be expected since the English wikipedia alone has something on the order of 60,000 edits a week. Some of those are bound to be debatable as to wether or not they are trolling or vandalism (for an example article with debatable edits see: James Randi and its associated history .) In general if at least one of the parties is polite and willing to discuss it then it gets resolved (as long as the other party will at least listen). Most of the time, disputes get resolved. Probably once or twice a week some dispute goes overboard and ends up on the Requests for mediation page or gets a user blocked or banned. It is still pretty rare for the average user to encounter a significant problem, especially if they are polite and willing to discuss potential problems.



    [ Parent ]
    No! No! NO! (2.25 / 4) (#70)
    by rtmyers on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 03:11:45 AM EST

    We already know about Wikipedia. We don't need them to borrow K5 webspace to advertise themselves. They are great. But they're up to something totally different. Whatever else, *don;t* let them use K5 as an advertising medium.

    Is Wikipedia Unreliable and Biased? (2.75 / 4) (#72)
    by jrincayc on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 12:38:27 PM EST

    There are a few comments in this discussion stating that Wikipedia is unreliable or biased. This has also been a common theme for discussion in past articles about Wikipedia such as Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense? and Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias. However, the thing that I notice that is different this time is not one of the posts stating that Wikipedia is unreliable has listed an example. I would like to propose the following challenges to those who say Wikipedia is unreliable or biased:

    • Find either a significant bias (including non-existent articles) or false fact in wikipedia that has been there at least a week (Difficulty level 5)
    • Find either a significant bias (missing mainstream point of view) or false fact in a wikipedia article that has been there at least a week and the article has had either of the following occur: 1) been linked by a widely read external site, or 2) had at least 10 authors in the history of the article. (There are over 10,000 articles with at least 10 authors, so you have plenty of articles to look through) (Difficulty level 8)
    • Find a vandalism that has not been corrected after 10 minutes. (Difficultly level 3)
    • Find a vandalism that has not been corrected within 24 hours. (Difficultly level 6)
    • Find a vandalism that has not been corrected within 1 week and had at least 10 authors in it's history. (Difficultly level 9)
    • Find a correct edit that included a Summary and was removed and not restored within a week. (Difficultly level 7)
    • Find a correct edit that included a Summary and a statement in talk explaining the change that was deleted without useful summary or reply and not restored within a week. (Difficulty level 9)

    Here is your big chance. If you think Wikipedia is unreliable or biased or likes deleting facts, then prove it. Since Wikipedia tends to change over time, give the time and the date of the change for the article that you dislike. I will be quite impressed if you succeed in any thing with a difficulty rating of 8 or higher. If no-one succeeds in any of the challenges, then my private conclusion is that people who say Wikipedia is unreliable or biased do not know what they are talking about. Good luck.

    My experience with Wikipedia makes me think that all of these are possible to find, but that they are all rare, and the 8+ difficultly ones are very rare.



    How about the pro-Israeli bias (none / 3) (#85)
    by steve h on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 08:52:55 AM EST

    that pervades Wikipedia?

    [ Parent ]
    Bias? (none / 2) (#86)
    by wmspringer on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 01:19:13 PM EST

    Sorry, you didn't provide any concrete examples / article links. No points for you..

    [ Parent ]
    Israel Bias? (none / 0) (#92)
    by jrincayc on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 09:37:07 AM EST

    I didn't see anything that stood out as biased in the Israel page. Could you be more specific as to what you saw and where? Thanks.



    [ Parent ]
    lightweighted pages! (none / 3) (#89)
    by VasyaPoup on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 06:10:50 AM EST

    One thing, wasn't mentioned in the article, but very important for people in the developing world, with bad or expensive connection. Small pages, no banners or ads!

    Free encyclopedias aren't uncommon, but download a 100kb frontpage just to be able to search is sometimes maddening.

    Define Bias (none / 2) (#96)
    by axonrg on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 04:28:07 PM EST

    I actually found Wikipedia to be quite biased in some cases. The main part of Wikipedia is largely unbiased and fair, but as you move towards the 'outer rim' of less popular articles you reach an area of strange essays and some extreme opinions that people are either to busy or not bothered to 'fix'.

    I used to be quite a regular contributor to Wikipedia until I ran across such bias. Certain individuals like to take 'ownership' of certain articles, particularly political ones, sitting on top of them and ruthlessly deleting any edits or modifications they disagree with. There is an article actually entitled Gay Disease, if you can believe it or not. And the less said about Homosexuality and Morality the better.

    The much vaunted freedom to write, like so many freedoms, can actually be quite an illusion. When you find yourself arguing tooth and nail over a single word because the original author's (and pseudo-owner's) particular interpretation of 'neutral point of view' varies considerably from your own, you wonder why you're wasting your time and move on. Or, at least I did.

    My take: Wikipedia is fine for anything that has nothing to do with politics, but ignore the rest of the screed.

    Articles have been deleted (none / 0) (#97)
    by jrincayc on Tue Mar 09, 2004 at 09:40:20 PM EST

    The two articles that you have mentioned, Gay Disease and Homosexuality and Morality have been deleted from wikipedia.

    [ Parent ]
    oops, wrong links (none / 1) (#98)
    by axonrg on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 03:53:10 PM EST

    Sorry, the pages are up and the correct links are here and here.

    [ Parent ]
    I am a 'editor' too. (none / 0) (#101)
    by computao on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 10:51:53 AM EST

    I registered 3 days before. Multilanguage is easy to edit and more accurate when explain something. I used to be a good editor in Chinese but English. :) I added a word of "år*u(Bengbu)" It is my hometown.
    BBE8 DOTCOM
    Wikipedia publishes 500,000 articles in 50 languages | 101 comments (89 topical, 12 editorial, 7 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!