An appeal from Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales (Barf)

Wikipedia ^ | 12-27-08 | Jimmy Wales

[Red_Devil 232]

Dear Reader,

Today I am going to ask you to support Wikipedia with a donation. This might sound unusual: Why does one of the world's five most popular web properties ask for financial support from its users?

Wikipedia is built differently from almost every other top 50 website. We have a small number of paid staff, just twenty-three. Wikipedia content is free to use by anyone for any purpose. Our annual expenses are less than six million dollars. Wikipedia is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, which I founded in 2003.

(snip)

[Dan Middleton]

"and on any topic with political overtones, the bias is light years away from scattered; it's real< it's overwhelming, and it's in your face."

There are three possible responses to this:

1. Get as organized and dedicated as the left-wingers editing the pages are and fight back.
2. Shrug it off and pick other battles to fight.
3. Piss, moan, and generally take your ball and go home, resulting in embarrassments like Conservapedia.

[Madame Dufarge]

It’s very low on my list of “pissing contests to get into before I die.”

[Dan Middleton]

Isn’t it funny how complaining about a problem is always higher on one’s priority list than trying to fix it?

[Philo1962]

Another guy who likes to edit the FR article is Ben Burch, a DUmmie (and well-known Internet perv) from Elgin, Illinois who recruits other DUmmies to become WP editors, further skewing the site to the left.

[Philo1962]

1. That would be hard. There are a lot of them, they’re well organized and fanatical, and they have a lot of time on their hands.

2. That would be self-defeating. Like surrendering Hawaii to the Japanese in World War II. WP is the premier info source on the Internet. Every Google search turns up a WP article as the first or second hit.

3. That would be both stupid and self-defeating.

[Dan Middleton]

Agreed on all counts. But those remain the three options.

[ETL]

Read Wikepedia's entry about Free Republic. No bias there, huh?

Daily Kos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos#Controversy ______________________________________________________

Democratic Underground:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground#Criticism

[Madame Dufarge]

Have we met?

Are you my drill sergeant?

Here's a clue.

I'll pick my priorities and you pick yours.

And I won't even presume to tell you what yours should be.

Though I would suggest that backing off the sanctimony pedal would be in your best interest.

Just saying.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Wikipedia is great for any non-political issues (period)

[Dan Middleton]

I didn’t tell you what your priorities should be, I just made an observation on the human condition. But by all means, don’t let me disturb you, recline back in your easy chair and continue purposeless complaining, like half the other people in this thread.

[beckett]

The errors are not piddling and on any topic with political overtones, the bias is light years away from scattered; it's real< it"s overwhelming, and it's in your face.

I really don't get this whole complaint. What are you folks expecting? All entries edited by Kristinn or Jim Robinson?

I bring my own personal critical thinking skills to every word I read, including every word on this thread, every word on the net, and every word in every book, including ones written by FA Hayek or Russell Kirk.

Each one of us brings a unique perspective to every issue, and rather than expecting agreement most of the time, I expect that I need to work hard to get my own voice heard in the jostle of competing perspectives. That's life!

Wikipedia brings me a tremendous wealth of information on a range of topics that far outstrip anything I can find on Free Republic. I've learned an enormous amount of uncontestable facts from hundreds, if not thousands (by now), entries I've read there. It's a fabulous resource.

And if I see BS at Wikipedia, I simply call BS, just as I do when I apply my unique flavor of critical thinking skills to any other word I might read at any other location.

[Madame Dufarge]

I just made an observation on the human condition.

Ah, I see.

Great philosopher that you are, you were just making grand observations about the human condition and so forth, blah, blah.

purposeless complaining...

Your complaining is heavy with the intellectual weight, refutations are meaningless.

OK, I get it now.

[Philo1962]

There are millions of high school and college kids who do not bring your personal critical thinking skills to every word they read. They’re lazy. They accept information that is available at their fingertips.

Here, read this.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/13/212015.shtml?s=lh

[beckett]

The Newsmax article tells me stuff I already know. I know Wikipedia is subject to manipulation by agenda driven contributors. It's a flaw in the concept, but the flaw goes hand in hand with a strength, i.e., broad input from multiple sources facilitating an exponential explosion of knowledge dissemination. The antidote to manipulation is awareness. Take what Wikipedia offers -- an enormous wealth of knowledge supported by hard facts -- and disregard the hinky stuff. In other words, don't be anybody's patsy. Simple.

As for the chillun, the poor dears, they'll either learn not to be anybody's patsy or they won't. There's not a lot that can be done to control that process. People usually learn. That's part of life and growing up.

Bottom line, Wikipedia provides instant access to lots and lots of reliable facts. Overall its impact on the state of knowledge in the world is abundantly positive.

If you hope to impose an ideological litmus test on its operators, that's your prerogative, but you stand no chance of succeeding. If you think the project is hopelessly ideologically contaminated, you can avoid the site. But you'll be denying yourself a very useful and handy resource.

[radiohead]

Is the information generally correct out side of a few politically charged issues?

It's a great site, I don't know why FReepers get so worked up over it. If you don't like what an entry says, you can try to change it.

Meanwhile, on non-politically charged entries, you can find out about popular culture, literature, music, just about everything because it is open to everyone to be an author.

I use Wikipedia as a starting point for many topics that are unknown to me. I also allow my students (grad level) to use entries that give a good overview of an issue. Should they look at other sources? Of course, but as I said, Wikipedia is a great starting place.

And word to the old fogeys out there - all the young people use it. Forget Britannica or World Book, for better or worse, they are going to Wikipedia first. The trick is to teach them also to use authoritative sources so that they aren't taken in by inaccurate or biased Wikipedia entries.

[Xenophon450]

Wikipedia is a great launch pad to formulate a basic idea of what something (non controversial) is. For instance, when I wanted to gain a very cursory summary of Hermetics before I ordered other books that delved deeper into the subject.

Also when I simply want to know a basic outline of a person's life. Such as René Girard, Paracelsus, Johannes Trithemius, Ludwig von Mises, or Carl Menger before I read much more in depth information pertaining to these characters. I wouldn't use any Wikipedia articles as source citations but it has its uses.