Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Happy 18th Birthday, Wikipedia (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by msmash on from the thank-you-for-everything dept.

This week, Wikipedia celebrates its 18th birthday. If the massive crowdsourced encyclopedia project were human, then in most countries, it would just now be considered a legal adult. But in truth, the free online encyclopedia has long played the role of the Internet's good grown-up. From a story: Wikipedia has grown enormously since its inception: It now boasts 5.7 million articles in English and pulled in 92 billion page views last year. The site has also undergone a major reputation change. If you ask Siri, Alexa or Google Home a general-knowledge question, it will likely pull the response from Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia has been cited in more than 400 judicial opinions, according to a 2010 paper in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology.

Many professors are ditching the traditional writing assignment and instead asking students to expand or create a Wikipedia article on the topic. And YouTube Chief Executive Susan Wojcicki announced a plan last March to pair misleading conspiracy videos with links to corresponding articles from Wikipedia. Facebook has also released a feature using Wikipedia's content to provide users more information about the publication source for articles in their feed.

46 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Like all "open" institutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It too will be subverted.

    1. Re:Like all "open" institutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It already has been from what I've heard. There's a lot of complaints out there about the administrative clique and this isn't anything new. It seems that hands already steer the content beyond the calls of decency. This has turned off a lot of would-be contributors but that's the intent of heavy handed censorship in the first place so it's all good. Double plus good, in fact.

  2. Reminds me of an 18 year old by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...full of incorrect information and constantly asking for money.

    1. Re:Reminds me of an 18 year old by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Also thinks they know everything and keep complaining that certain people are "not notable".

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:Reminds me of an 18 year old by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The "begging banner" is indeed quite annoying. I don't mind a relatively small banner, but theirs is often large, orange, and obnoxious*.

      Are they really as desperate as the loud banner suggests, or are they just inflicted with artificial drama as some rants on the Interwebs claim? The common theory is that they want to expand their operations, and use alleged desperation to get donations for growth.

      * Not intended to reference certain celebrities. The color may be red, not orange. I don't fully remember; it's not up the last I checked.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Reminds me of an 18 year old by Falos · · Score: 1

      I thought I remembered seeing somewhere (an article) that wikipedia is not in any financial dire straits at all and they're just rattling a cup under your face, but don't quote me on that.

    4. Re:Reminds me of an 18 year old by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

      ...full of incorrect information and constantly asking for money.

      What he said. The site is good for hard science & factual stuff, but very poor in other areas

    5. Re:Reminds me of an 18 year old by f3rret · · Score: 1

      uBlock's element zapper takes care of the banner no problem,

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  3. congratulations WP by AlwinBarni · · Score: 3, Funny

    Congratulations.

    If I found myself in a parallel universe, the first thing to check would be the Internet and WP, if none then moving on would be the right choice - unless, of course, it's raining donuts ;-)

    1. Re:congratulations WP by sinij · · Score: 2

      Be right back, writing a wiki article on raining donuts.

    2. Re:congratulations WP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Congratulations.

      If I found myself in a parallel universe, the first thing to check would be the Internet and WP, if none then moving on would be the right choice - unless, of course, it's raining donuts ;-)

      In a similar situation I would check https://xkcd.com/566/

  4. You mean the reference web site by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    That is not to be used in any school/college report as a reference? That site's birthday?

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    1. Re:You mean the reference web site by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      That is not to be used in any school/college report as a reference?

      It should not be used as a reference because it is an encyclopedia. References should always be to primary sources.

      You can find links to the primary sources at the bottom of the Wiki page.

    2. Re:You mean the reference web site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yah, that one. The one that all students use as their first point of reference anyway, because it's so much faster and clearer than looking at reliable sources. Of course, having done that, there's no substitute for getting reliable information from reliable sources -- same thing is true whether you start with Wikipedia, or the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, or Fox news or CNN or Time magazine. All are useful, all are biased, all make mistakes -- sometimes glaring ones.

      Only one out of all these that I've mentioned lets you see how the text evolved over time, or lets you correct obvious errors, or produces the thing you want ("tell me about Quercus Suber!") without launching any popups or playing any videos. Wikipedia, as unreliable as it is, does all three and is remarkably useful. It's worth commemorating.

    3. Re:You mean the reference web site by pgmrdlm · · Score: 2

      I completely agree. But that is the same for reading the news. Always find other or original sources. And use them as your reference in any discussions.

      One of my favorite set of documents on most in-depth subjects is CRS reports prepared by the Library of Congress for Congress. There are always links to their original sources. Dry as hell to read, but well documented all the way. Wish everything(news especially) would be this well researched and reported on.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  5. Re:Stupid paternalism by psergiu · · Score: 1

    Not a nice thing to say about Wikipedia-Chan

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  6. ftpwwp by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Pay walled Washington Post. How did this get past /.? https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/...

  7. so is Drupal by cobbaut · · Score: 1

    Ha Wikipedia is the same age as Drupal.
    https://dri.es/happy-eighteent...

    --
    European Linux user, living in Antwerp
    1. Re:so is Drupal by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Thanks, now I really feel old.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. Awesome way to troll your students by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    >> Many professors are ditching the traditional writing assignment and instead asking students to expand or create a Wikipedia article on the topic

    This is probably the funniest way to troll students that I've heard in a long time.

    "Yeah, can you please find an article on which you are knowledgable and for which you can cite sources, or even one which has typos or grammar problems. Go ahead and (snickers) make the appropriate edit, and then I'll check your work next week and give you a grade on what I saw (chuckles)."

    1. Re:Awesome way to troll your students by sinij · · Score: 3, Funny

      This explains why Pokemon is so thoroughly documented on Wiki.

  9. Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    18th Birthday? Citation needed.

    1. Re:Are you sure? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Launch_and_early_growth</ref>

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  10. the traditional writing assignment by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    Many professors are ditching the traditional writing assignment and instead asking students to expand or create a Wikipedia article on the topic.

    Wow, have college professors decided not to do their jobs any more? In how many jobs will an employer ask an employee to "expand or create a Wikipedia article?" Worse, the correct use of the written word is rapidly becoming a lost art. Why would a professor help trundle the written word into the graveyard?

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    1. Re:the traditional writing assignment by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you kidding? This is a better use of everyone's time. Do you honestly think asking students to write a paper they know that you're going to skim and then bin is a better use of time?

      At least here there's a chance what they write about will be read by more than one hurried, not-so-interested professor or TA. The traditional way is a ridiculous waste. We're not talking in lieu of published research here. This is instead of an essay.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:the traditional writing assignment by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      apoc.famine: a better use of everyone's time. You can't be serious! If you have intimate knowledge of a subject gained in years or decades of work, you'll notice errors in Wikipedia writings. Why would I trust a college student to make fewer mistakes than someone with an intimate knowledge of a subject? Answer: I wouldn't trust their infantile, cell phone damaged minds as far as I could throw them.

      kamapuaa: I was going to mention that the local newspaper says only about 8% of local high school graduates have been prepared for college and ask whether you want these losers polluting and diluting Wikipedia. And to give as a further example, what would happen to Wikipedia content if the undereducated dopes on /. began, en mass, to contribute to Wikipedia? But then I read your sig. Enough said, you proved my point.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  11. How old in dog years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia in the last couple of years has deteriorated dramatically. Many, many articles are locked and not accessible for edits. I use if frequently, but I estimate that 99 times out of 100 the article has either obvious omissions or misleading statements. Worse, they've automated the system which erases comments on the talk pages. This leaves the articles hostage to the "official" (i.e. registered) editors. (In most cases, they are well intentioned, but how many editors have closed minds? way too many. (many of the most closed minded are not knowledgeable in the subject area - see Dunning-Kruger Effect)

  12. Re:18 Years of Pumping Jimmy Wales' Stocks by mike.mondy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The Internet doesn't need an encyclopaedia, it is an encyclopaedia. What it needs, is a decent index."

    WP is a shit idea done shittily.

    --

    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

    The Internet is nothing like an encyclopedia!

    The Internet is indexed - that's the function that search engines provide. Personally, I'd say they're "decent" but not great. (I want searches with parentheses and more operators.)

    Wikipedia is a great idea. With less than perfect implementation. A lot of people get a lot of value from it. If it were really that bad, we'd see stronger competitors.

  13. Wikipedia is still shit by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was a massive opportunity for Wikipedia to actually disrupt teaching and self-learning and they COMPLETELY squandered it.

    An article could be written for the layman, with advanced details/explanations for the novice/expert, a tutorial, examples to make sure you understand the concepts, videos, audio pronunciation, tips from professionals, a forum, along with verification/authenticity from professors for accuracy.

    Wikipedia COULD have been basically an interactive textbook, reference, dictionary, encyclopedia, forum, fan site, library, and StackOverflow all rolled in one.

    INSTEAD we get some circle jerk admins whining about citations, revert wars, idiotic politics and policies such as no trivia sections, no original research, and pages deleted because they aren't "notable" enough (as if popularity was _ever_ a good way to decide that a 1 KB database entry was worth keeping LOL). Why the fuck do I have to go to Project Gutenberg to read a public domain book or YouTube to see a video about the topic? At least put a fucking link so I can see it on YouTube or a link to a store where I can buy the TV/movie/music asset, etc.

    And then these smegheads have the gall to constantly beg for money??

    Hey dumbass wikipedia admins: one man's trivia is another man's junk. Information is MULTI-Valued. Just because it has NO value to YOU, doesn't imply it has no value. You had ONE job: Categorize information. WE, the readers, determine what is USEFUL.

    Wikipedia has been shit for years; a pale shadow of what could have been -- a bastion of all knowledge, a digital library.

    So who is going to take up the mantle?

    1. Re:Wikipedia is still shit by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that all bold end text. Missed a bold close tag. :-/

    2. Re:Wikipedia is still shit by kencurry · · Score: 1

      It takes time and money. I donate to wiki because I think they have the best offering and they deserve more resources to keep it up - no it isn't perfect.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    3. Re:Wikipedia is still shit by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You realize Wikipedia is only one part of the larger Wikimedia network? If you want to read a public domain book, WikiSource is for that. If you want a textbook, WikiText is for that. Videos, images, audio, etc, can all be hosted on the Wikimedia back end, if they are useful for one of the front end projects like Wikipedia or WikiText.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    4. Re:Wikipedia is still shit by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      It's flawed. Deeply flawed. But I don't have a more realistically workable idea and I still use it fairly often when I want to know a bit more on a general topic.

      I tend to think of Wikipedia a bit like Churchill's paraphrased Democracy quote: it's the worst idea of its kind except for all those other forms that have been tried.

    5. Re:Wikipedia is still shit by MpVpRb · · Score: 1

      As much as they claim to be futurists, they are still constrained by the past
      The quality of the post is irrelevant. All that matters is that there is a reference to other work, which is often of poor quality

    6. Re:Wikipedia is still shit by epine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Notability and popularity are mildly correlated, but functionally orthogonal.

      What you are proposing is Wankerpedia, where all knowledge amounts to having no knowledge at all.

      The Library of Babel

      "The Library of Babel" is a short story by Argentine author and librarian Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986), conceiving of a universe in the form of a vast library containing all possible 410-page books of a certain format and character set.

      The notability and citation guidelines are the only reasons the entire project hasn't degenerated into a giant emporium of fake news.

      What else do you propose? Ten different primary articles on every subject under the sun, because ten different editorial camps exist for every possible subject? I don't know what that project would be, but it certainly wouldn't contain the suffix "-pedia", not even a little bit.

      Let's descend one more level in the High-Rise of Five Whys: the reason why Wikipedia didn't go in your proposed direction in the first place is that kind of people who want to be all things to all people tend to sit around blowing smoke out their ass (after trying to be anything to anybody, they'd soon discover this mission is not nearly so easy as it first appears, and promptly change their asinine stripes).

    7. Re:Wikipedia is still shit by zijus · · Score: 1

      Hello poor little pink unicorn. You feel hurt ?

      I bet this user got one of his own little-pet-point-of-view-blabla removed from WP. And - obviously - it cannot be. It necessarily was "his self-esteem was personally attacked by very very not nice WP admins". Ha ha ! After 18 years some users still consider WP is a play-ground. What a surprise when they realise : no. What a rage when they realise there are some non-negotiable rules. Poor thing ! Childishness is hilarious when smeared over forums. Those users would tell you they do "what they want", including driving on the wrong side of the road because "who are you to tell me otherwise ?!". What a surprise when they realise they crashed. Haaaa ha ha. 'tis so gross.

      WE, the readers, determine what is USEFUL.

      Lol: What a round of utter crap. Just read WP history, inception goals, and rules before commenting further. Or go on FB, YT and the likes where you can happily do "what you want". (Well btw... did you notice it is changing ? Yes ! More and more... rules on FB and the like, to tame the truck loads of rubbish content generated by users who do "what they want". Poor thing.)

  14. Happy birthday Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And I mean it. It's easy to criticize. If any of you can do better, I'll be happy to contribute. Meanwhile, this is still one of the most useful websites out there.

  15. Maybe they'll stop begging for money by burningcpu · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'll stop acting like the kid that begs all his friends for a cigarette, despite having a full pack. Basically, grubby.

  16. It's a love/hate thing by MpVpRb · · Score: 2

    I love wikipedia!

    Some of the mathematical sections are written at a graduate level. I wish they also provided a bit of help for those of us who are mathematically literate at a lower level

    Their guidelines for acceptable posts are outdated

    Yes, I know that lots of cranks want to get their "original research" on wikipedia. I agree that they should be banned
    But, there is a lot of really useful information that gets removed because it doesn't meet their strict guidelines

    They claim to be an encyclopedia of the future, yet they continue to use rules from the past

    1. Re:It's a love/hate thing by NickDngr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some of the mathematical sections are written at a graduate level. I wish they also provided a bit of help for those of us who are mathematically literate at a lower level

      That's what Khan Academy is for.

      --
      Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?
  17. Re: Adult section? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    You're the only guy on the planet who can finish 1st and 3rd in a circle jerk!

  18. Now is the time we ask by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dear Wikipedia. Today we ask you to help us, the Wikipedia readers. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads if you link to our sites. We're sustained by shitty tech jobs paying barely more than a living wage. Only a tiny portion of the websites we view give us anything in return. If Wikipedia gave every reader $10, we could keep ourselves full of Taco Bell dollar menu foods for days to come. The price of a fucking expensive cup of coffee is all we need. If having readers is useful to you, please take one minute to dip into that $75 million cash reserve that you never mention when you're fundraising and help keep our waistlines growing. Thank you.

  19. Don't trust them as much as I used to by AbRASiON · · Score: 2

    Seen several articles now over the years where the narrative has been hijacked politically in one way or another, skewing the information.

    If there's an article sticking to basic facts "this is how combustion works" no issue, but anything explaining how an event went down, the motivations of people doing it, how people were impacted? Yeah no thanks. PROBABLY correct but totally definitely not certain.

  20. Re:Wikipedia is the worst thing happened to knowle by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    Wow, you're trying to promote one of the most insanely censored, extreme EXTREME far left, circle jerk "our way or the highway" sites on the internet.

    ResetERA will ban anyone who doesn't agree effectively.

    A case of a site that "eats its own" whereas NeoGAF has regained a small amount of it's reputation having now started allowig people to actually discuss things again.

    The most surprising thing is that Wikipedia aren't taking the ResetERA angle

  21. Finally! by sabbede · · Score: 1

    I'm sick of Wikipedia always bugging me to buy it cigarettes.

  22. Re:18 Years of Pumping Jimmy Wales' Stocks by nagora · · Score: 1

    You're a fucking moron. Wales has a business called Wikia which he uses WP as advertising for.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"