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."

Comments

Re:open and accurate?

[frodo from middle ea]

Yes but who watches the watchers ?
e.g. Geography (Social and political views.. )

• An arab's/Jew's writting on gazza strip
• An Indians/Paki's article on kashmir
• A tamil's/sinhali's views on Jaffna Jungles in Shri lanka
• A catholic's/protestant's view on Ireland

• • Socio Political historical events
    No brainer here , History is always written by victors, so any other version would be deemed inaccurate and propoganda.

    How about a non-christian writing about christ , bible ? or a non muslim writing about koran ? Can they be un-biased ? Or for that matter a christian writing about christ and a muslim wring about koran ?Can they be unbiased.

    Let's face it, as long as there is a human element involved, there will be difference of opinion , no matter what the topic is about. And editing out parts which you don't necessaryly agree to is censorship.

Re:Hmm..

[misterpies]

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?