Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Reaches 200,000 Articles
CanadaDave writes "The Wikipedia.org project to create a 'complete and accurate free content encyclopedia' has just surpassed 200,000 articles, an increase from 100,000 just 1 year ago. Join in on the celebrations. Some work has been done on predicting Wikipedia's growth and others are already planning for the 500,000 articles over all languages press release. In related news, the project has recently received $20,000 worth of Linux server equipment (9 machines) in hopes to improve performance of the site, which has been prone to downtime over the past year. The servers are being tested right now and will be up and running soon. The purchase was made possible by the many donations the Wikimedia project received in 2003."
Considering that a Wiki is modifiable by anyone, I don't see how they can advertise that the Wikipedia is accurate with any degree of confidence.
If the section on Biochemistry were as in-depth as its section on Star Trek, that thing would be invaluable indeed. But since it isn't, I'm now forced by curiosity to spend my lunch hours jumping from 7 of 9 to the battle of Kittimur instead of finding the proper axes of a Michaelis-Menton plot..
As the newly anointed Linux Thought Leader, I would like to interject that thoroughly slashdotting a site currently running slow because it has toasted hardware via an article praising same service for lining up currently offline servers to stop such things from happening is indicative of what is wrong with Slashdot today. And, yes, that is a run-on sentence.
Will scholarly publications view this as a valid source of accurate information?
I think that's a bit irrelevant, actually.
Academic publications are all about source-criticism, nothing is (supposed to be) accepted offhand just because it comes from a 'reliable' source. It's what is said that is to be taken into account, not who said it.
Apart from that, encyclopedias and Wikipedia are really about 'general knowledge'. And 'general knowledge' is by definition stuff which isn't in dispute.
And if the information isn't in dispute, there is no reason to question the source, whatever it may be. (and the academic practice is not to give sources for such information, either)
I don't think Wikipedia can really be a top-tier scholarly resource. It's a bit more like a quick reference, with many facts that would have to be re-verified if anyone wanted to use them. Most articles are highly accurate (if a bit thin on the details), and there are discussions on the article "Talk" pages whenever disputes arise.
My only real concern is that people will forget that some bits of Wikipedia can be inaccurate, leading to feedback loops of information. Something might get posted in a Wikipedia article and then get used by a historian or researcher who should know better, and then that validation could lead people to believe the information to be entirely true. We'll have to see how that plays out.
I've heard that Wikipedia is already getting more hits than many online references, and the site has many more articles than most other places. Of course, many of the articles are one-liners, or mere demographic information for tiny towns in the middle of Kansas. I recently saw someone mention that Encyclopdia Britannica has 750,000 items in its index (they have less than 100,000 articles), so Wikipedia getting that many articles would be a good next step.
So, write something useful then. Easy problem to solve, isn't it.
I'm less concerned about the abandoning of infrastructure as I am about the abandoning of the knowledge itself.
The fate of the mp3.com archive serves as an interesting cautionary tale for the 21st century.
What happens if Britannica ceases publication but subsequently goes under and deletes the archives? Even if the essential knowledge remains elsewhere I might point out that the Britannica represents an amazing work of literature as well.
Anything on the web that isn't mirrored to hell and gone with full legal rights to distribute has to be considered volatile. Extrememly volatile.
KFG
Or, more likely, Slashdot users are more suspect of spyware than Wikipedia.org users.
The larger a community grows, the less diciplined and dedicated that community will be to the "core values". If Wikipedia becomes the Next Big Thing, the Wiki folks will have an absolute shitstorm of asinine, counter-productive, uninformed, and outright malicious activity to deal with, and they'll tire of it very quickly.
Consider this hypothetical meatspace analogy:
"Mr. Mayor, how do you plan to deal with crime when LittleTown, USA, becomes the thriving metropolitan center you want it to be?"
"Well, we've been doing pretty well so far with crime, as most of the folks here in LittleTown are peaceful types, and Bill is a really great sheriff. We figure things should remain pretty much the same as we grow..."
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
All your base are belong to us
Crushing by elephant
Extreme ironing
List of people known by one name
List of films by gory death scene
For more, see unusual articles and list of trivia lists.
The problem with Wikipedia is not trolling. It's people who don't know as much as they think they do correcting other people's arguments. It's the majority view winning out over the correct one.
Don't get me wrong - I love wikipedia,it's fun to read and fun to contribute to. But never, ever confuse it being a reliable source, since by its nature it reflects the majority belief. Open sourcing code is one thing: if it works, it works. Open sourcing knowledge is riskier: it's not hard to imagine a world where most wikipedia users were creationists. Would you trust the evolution article then?
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Don't "normal" encyclopedias reflect the majority view though? Comparatively, if we take this for granted, can we really dismiss the reliabilty of an open encyclopedia on these grounds?
Further wouldn't an open collaboration where each article can reflect late-breaking information be more likely to reflect reality than a monolithic tome that changes only as a whole and only every few years?
LOL indeed. Keep believing your jokes.
Not into feeding trolls, so suffice it to say I voted Republican in the last 3 elections (& midterms) and I used to admire and listen to Limbaugh daily. Even donated money to Alan Keyes. Poly Sci. major etc etc...
Still hardcore conservative on abortion and gun control. But then my friend I read some Chomsky cause I wanted to know how the top minds on the left thought... all I can say is don't read Chomsky if you want to stay conservative on fiscal and social issues. Learning how power structures actually function will leave you distaining BOTH the Democratic and Republican machines. Don't read Deterring Democracy. Don't read Understanding Power. Don't read any of his latest stuff either.
[End Friendly Warning]
I think it is great that Wikipedia exists, that it is free and will forever be free. It is also great that /anyone/ can contribute. This is, IMO, a revolution in how information is presented, controlled and distributed and is in-line with the true intended nature of the World Wide Web.
/any/ error instantly is as easy as clicking "edit this page" and "Save".
Combining the wiki concept with free content also creates something that is far more radical than even free software; truly anybody can contribute. That idea is astounding - especially given the fact that Wikipedia is such a shocking success.
Wikipedia is absolute proof that, left alone, groups of people tend to work together to build magnificent things instead of tearing them down. Locking things down, on-the-other-hand, leads to stagnation and, if anything, temps people to break-in and make a mess of the place. Since it is trivial to vandalize Wikipedia, there is very little reward for the vandal; especially since repairing damage by vandals is easier than creating the vandalism in the first place.
All this tends to ensure that Wikipedia will, on average, improve over time and self-heal. Wikipedia is Linus' Law on steroids; given enough eyeballs reading Wikipedia, all bugs are shallow since fixing
What a wonderful concept!
-- mav
With a thousand eyes, all bugs/errors/vandalism/junk is shallow
This is, of course, why McDonalds has the best food and ClearChannel the best music. If you manage not to offend enough people, you've arrived at the truth.
Scholarly publications do not view any encyclopedia as a valid source of accurate information.
Traditional print encyclopedias do not cite their sources adequately, and are not peer-reviewed.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Perhaps that is the case for abortion, but other more important discussions are censored. In particular, compare the article on Democracy to the article on Fascism or the article on Monarchism.
Despite many valid criticisms of democracy throughout the ages, most notably Socrates and Plato in his book Republic, any attempt to express those views in Wikipedia are removed. Fascism as it existed in the 20th century was basically the modern manifestation of the ideas put forth in Plato's Republic, as well as those of Sparta. The Athens versus Sparta debate has captured the imagination of leaders and intellectuals for over 2500 years now, yet on Wikipedia it is forbidden. Athens good. Sparta bad.
Further, the criticism of egalitarianism specifically as it involves the destruction of culture is also not allowed, even though Plato himself makes that very prediction. This is particularly outrageous when people are well aware that local culture is disappearing all over the world.
Unfortunately, the issue here is as you say "use politically correct language". This, in a way highlights how twisted the modern man can be, after being indoctrinated his entire life. Who determines what is politically correct? What are those standards? It is what you see on television and read in newspapers. It is not like your peers and fellow citizens came up with that nonsense. The elite promote those views through popular culture because it serves their purposes. Consumerism does not work unless you instill in the masses an extreme desire to be different and unique. The freedom to be an individual must be exalted because ultimately it is a desire that can only be satisfied through the acquisition of material goods. Egalitarianism must be promoted because everyone must feel like they have a real chance to better than everyone else, or to be a leader otherwise their desire to be an individual will be crushed.
The principles Egalitarianism and Democracy make up the foundation of the new religion of the ruling class. Both are required for them to maintain the illusion of freedom and self determination in our society. The moment those false constructions collapse, our entire society will crumble.
In the grand scheme of human history, the abortion debate is practically irrelevent. In fact, it is more a symptom of the egalitarian mindset. Only in a world where people believe all humans are equal and deserving of life can a fetus have any value. It is a debate that MUST be allowed, for to silence it would expose the fraud that is egalitarianim. Yet at the same time, the ruling class is very much aware that there are too many people on this planet and that abortion is the best solution to that problem. So the false dichotomy is allowed. Both goals are achieved. Egalitarianism is maintained amongst the masses, and some measure of population control is put in place.
The only issues which allow a diversity of viewpoints are those which result as a conflict between the unnatural egalitarian vision of existence and the very real pressures of life itself.
Someday, politics will follow. But not today.
When considering which debates allow for a diversity of viewpoints, you should consider what the result of that argument will be. Could it change the world? Will it really be something that is remembered a millenia from now?
I don't read or respond to AC posts