Slashdot Mirror
Happy 18th Birthday, Wikipedia (washingtonpost.com)
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.
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.
...full of incorrect information and constantly asking for money.
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 ;-)
>> 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)."
18th Birthday? Citation needed.
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.
"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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.