Wikipedia, eh? Must be accurate then!
I know Wikipedia is very cool. A lot of people do not think so, but of course they are wrong.larry sanger
Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist (which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated).larry sanger
Citizendium is based on the failings and unreliability of Wikipedia.larry sanger
Wikipedia will be small, disreputable, and unimportant compared to CZ in a few more years. Uh, ;-)larry sanger
I thought that the evidence against your claims about me would shame you into changing your behavior. But, five years since you started misrepresenting my role in the founding of Wikipedia, you’re still at it.larry sanger
I like and admire Larry very much. I actually think his role in the early days of Wikipedia is under-appreciated.larry sanger
Wikipedia is a non-profit. It was either the dumbest thing I ever did or the smartest thing I ever did.jimmy wales
We are going to change the [GNU] Free Documentation License in such a way that Wikipedia will be able to become licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. And so this is not, as some people speculated on Facebook my 50th birthday party. This is a party to celebrate the liberation of Wikipedia.jimmy wales
I'm on it pretty much all the time. I edit Wikipedia every day, I'm on Facebook, I'm on Twitter, I'm reading the news. During one of the US elections, I actually went through my computer and I blocked myself from looking at the major newspaper sites and Google News because I wasn't getting any work done.jimmy wales
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
For a discussion of the epigram and more of its numerous translations, see the Wikipedia article: Battle of Thermoplyae.
The original context is that a husband might lock his wife in the house to prevent her adulteries, but she is cunning and will start with the guards; hence, who guards the guards? The phrase has come to be applied broadly to people or organisations acting against dishonesty or corruption, esp. in public life. See Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? at Wikipedia.
Wales was criticized in 2005 for editing his own biography in Wikipedia, downplaying the pornographic nature of Bomis and minimizing Sanger's role as cofounder of Wikipedia.
Despite the extreme success of Wikipedia, as a nonprofit it was no longer making money for Bomis, which was then forced to lay off most of its staff.
Wikipedia would have never gotten off the ground without the support of Wales and Bomis.
Until 2003, Bomis, in effect, owned Wikipedia, but in June of that year, all the assets were transferred to the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation.
The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
Shoppin' online for deals on some writable media. I edit Wikipedia.
In the media age, everybody was famous for 15 minutes. In the Wikipedia age, everybody can be an expert in five minutes. Special bonus: You can edit your own entry to make yourself seem even smarter.
Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.
As the popular joke goes, "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work."
You just can't put something with commercial motive into Wikipedia. Admitting it is hardly better; it is still a crime. The Wikipedians and bloggers will attack hard and they will deserve what they get.
The Tsunami article is well researched and extensive, only at two places a little inaccurate. The scientific Wikipedia articles are, according to my judgement, almost always good.
Wikipedia is, for many users, the primary site for information on the Web (...) At present, Wikipedia hosts more than 2.9 million English-language articles, with a total of 13 million articles available in more than 250 different languages (...) Wikipedia is the second-most searched site on the Internet, behind only Google.
The kind of social production that Wikipedia represents has turned from a laughable utopia to a practical reality. That's the biggest gift that Wikipedia has given to us – a vision of practical utopia that allows us to harness the more sociable, human aspects of who we are to effective collective action.
Wikipedia underscores an evolutionary lesson: We've always gotten farther as a species collaborating than going it alone. [...] In the past, the groups that cooperated best lived longer and had more kids – and we inherited those tendencies. Groups would correct cheaters (people who didn't share info or goods) through social pressure. So Wikipedia is like humanity's social nature writ large electronically, complete with ongoing disputes and corrections.
An authority isn't a person or institution who is always right – ain't no such animal. An authority is a person or institution who has a process for lowering the likelihood that they are wrong to acceptably low levels. [...] And this is what I think is really worth celebrating as Wikipedia begins its second decade. It took one of the best ideas of the last 500 years – peer review – and expanded its field of operation so dramatically that it changed the way authority is configured.
Every single day for the last 10 years Wikipedia has got better because someone – several million someones in all – decided to make it better. [...] Wikipedia is best understood not as a product with an organisation behind it, but as an activity that happens to leave an encyclopedia in its wake.