, the blithe watchwords of the mid-2000s, without making a mental list of the internet's more concrete negative externalities.
There was another seldom remembered limitation to these gospel tomes: They were, in a way, shrinking. The total length of paper encyclopedias remained relatively finite, but the number of facts in the universe kept growing, leading to attrition and abbreviation. It was a zero-sum game in which adding new articles meant deleting or curtailing incumbent information.
Wikipedia, in other words, isn't raised up wholesale, like a barn; it's assembled grain by grain, like a termite mound. The smallness of the grains, and of the workers carrying them, makes the project's scale seem impossible. But it is exactly this incrementalism that puts immensity within reach.Wikipedia are not giants in their fields but so-called WikiGnomes—editors who sweep up typos, arrange articles in neatly categorized piles, and scrub away vandalism.
Pedants have a reputation for humorlessness, but for Wikipedians a sense of humor is at the core of the good-faith collaboration that defines the project. There is probably no need for an exhaustive history of a giant straw goat erected in a Swedish town each Christmas, but the article on the Gävle Goat chronicles its annual fate fastidiously.
Wikipedia is a good reference tool despite what the weird naysayers are tweeting in this thread.
Check out KiwixOffline to have a pocket copy if you have the storage!
Pirate Bay
Lol🤣😅😂 yeah who
agreed. OUR underrated Wikipedia.
Er, no.
was created to help exploring Wikipedia in an enhanced way..
Wikipedia is a yellow journalism laundering site.
MeMerricks annreynolds988 👀
Craigslist too
😂
Strike that, reverse it.
Another puffpiece about wikipedia from Wired. Clearly the author doesn't know anything about the site & is just basing this article on their own opinion. Wikipedia is a disgrace to the opensource movement. Its biased, unreliable and the community is hostile! wikipediasucks
It’s full of misinformation.
metik
No, it's not.
Try to edit the 'GamerGate' related articles. You can't. Your edits will be reverted instantly. Even if they are reliably sourced properly. Better yet, look at the edit history. Why are there editors still editing it years later?
En fait wikipedia a enterré encarta !
Ain't that the was Jesus started? Mohammed? Stalin? Hitler? Biden?
It's still pretty bad. Particularly if you disagree with the admins and challenge their 'facts'
It’s getting worse though. Way too easy to prune good info. Way too easy to invent information by quickly writing articles that reference a fake page, then have the fake page reference those articles.
Excellent Article 👍
No it's not anymore. Wikipedia is just a den of left liberals who try to obfuscate facts to suit their philosophy. Many hv stopped using it.
I like your graphic, Michael Haddad.
Most of the wikipedia’s content are still a joke.