What does Wikipedia mean to you?

[Wonderer]

I was looking at a Wikipedia article in connection to another thread, and I noticed that the banner at the top wasn't a fundraiser banner.

It's Wikipedia's 15th birthday!
Tell us what Wikipedia means to you.

The banner links to linkhttps://15.wikipedia.org/?pk_campaign=s ... yword=anon[/link]. I feel so sorry for poor Rudi from Indonesia:

I rely so much on the neutrality point of view that wikipedia offers. I'm 17 now, and Wikipedia has been my friend since I was 10 years old

Or poor Jiwantha from Sri Lanka:

I make sure to check out the front page of Wikipedia at least once a day. Wikipedia symbolizes everything a free world should be.

Like, barf.

For a more knowing and honest appraisal of Wikipedia, I turn to you, Wikipediocracy forum commenters.

[Textnyymi]

First, it means that the product looks good because of marketing reasons, and if it were to look for what it really is, then it wouldn't be considered much at all and would be like Wannaspell.

Then, we can go on and say that it means how people with a variety of interests, aligned or not aligned with the current morality and ethics in this particular Anglo-Protestant frame of reference, can get together and punch the keyboards to produce pages of text of varying levels of usefulness or uselessness to people who read such pages!

It also means that theatricality and deception are powerful agents to the uninitiated... but we are initiated, aren't we Robert? Members of the Wikipediocracy!

[thekohser]

[Poetlister]

We do have to remember that although we obviously concentrate here on what is bad about the site, it has its good points. The articles I write are uniformly superb, for example, and they rarely get badly corrupted.

[Textnyymi]

We do have to remember that although we obviously concentrate here on what is bad about the site, it has its good points. The articles I write are uniformly superb, for example, and they rarely get badly corrupted.

That depends on the chance for them to attract people with a beef who feel the need to edit them in certain ways, of course!

[Stan Dixon]

The Curate's Egg.

Some of it may be good, it's still a rotten egg!

[Kumioko]

Yeah some of those tweets are clearly just pandering. I recognize quit a few names of editors, admins, arbs and employees of the WMF in the tweets being sent out.

[The Joy]

We do have to remember that although we obviously concentrate here on what is bad about the site, it has its good points. The articles I write are uniformly superb, for example, and they rarely get badly corrupted.

And if they ever find said articles, they will be deleted per WP:DENY since you are Super Banned from the site.

[The Joy]

I found Wikipedia in late 2004, I think. Some article came up on a Google search. I thought of the place as just another website. In 2006, I decided to do a college report on Scientology and Wikipedia was really only place online to find anything about Scientology that wasn't sanitized by the church. Even the Scientology website at the time was obscure on the details about even the basics of the faith and basically said you have to join before we tell you anything. I considered actually calling a representative from the church, but my Spidey senses said "no." I didn't realize until a year later when I joined Wikipedia Review that many in Wikipedia's founding community came from an anti-Scientology Usenet group. I could have read some of Hubbard's books from the library, but I was lazy in the class. I also didn't realize the research was going to be so hard. Most faiths want to share and encourage people to learn more about them, but not the CoS, apparently.

So, I have to begrudgingly thank Wikipedia and Cirt (T-C-L) for dumping those primary CoS documents (long gone or merged into other content) for the information I needed for my report. Then and now, Wikipedia wasn't supposed to host such things, but it worked out for me.

Tl;dr, Wikipedia is just another website and if everyone treated it that way, Wikipedia criticism sites would likely not be needed.

[Earthy Astringent]

Human knowledge is
Serious important stuff
Neckbeards on parade

[eagle]

Wikipedia is like Lake Wobegon (T-H-L), the articles I write are excellent and the parents of the administrator corps all believe their children are "above average." Yet, most of those admin kids have failed to move out of their parental homes. Many of the ones who have achieved financial independence from their parents have found employment with the WMF, the chapters, PR firms who need paid-editors or as Wikipedians-in-residence. Illusory superiority (T-H-L)

By the way, can the target audience ("the little girl in Africa" or "Randy from Boise") who is accessing knowledge through a 300 baud modem or on a primitive smart phone even read the 15.wikipedia.org "soft look - big pictures" website?

[greyed.out.fields]

Human knowledge is
Serious important stuff
Neckbeards on parade

"Wikipedia"
Has too many syllables
For this poem form.

[greyed.out.fields]

Human knowledge is
Serious important stuff
Neckbeards on parade

"Wikipedia"
Has too many syllables
For this poem form.

A doctor awakes
Seeks transparent "satori"
WMUK sacks.

[Ross McPherson]

I have led a sheltered life: Wikipedia is my only personal experience of corruption and ineptitude on a large scale. It is the developed world masquerading as a developing world, the English speaking nation reconfigured as The Democratic Republic of Mumbo Jumbo. There are a lot of genuinely good people there, sucked in by the rhetoric of altruism. I wish they would get into the lifeboats so we can torpedo the place with a clear conscience.

It is quite good as a general encyclopaedia because it is easy for everyone to monitor general knowledge. However, it is seriously bloated with trite and repetitive content and would-be expertise. It is the encyclopaedia of westerners so fat they can’t lift their own weight off the toilet. Perhaps it is the encyclopaedia we deserve.

Apparently it works well for Google.

[Poetlister]

Yet, most of those admin kids have failed to move out of their parental homes.

Do we know that it is "most"? We know of plenty of mature admins, some with good jobs.

[Kumioko]

Yet, most of those admin kids have failed to move out of their parental homes.

Do we know that it is "most"? We know of plenty of mature admins, some with good jobs.

I also agree that the majority of the current active admins are children, many of which are still in college or less. Certainly there are exceptions, but I would wager that most of the adults who have families and jobs are probably either not admins or not very active on the project.

[Ross McPherson]

@ Kumioko and Poetlister

The only Wikipedians I ever had trouble with, including admins, were certainly adults. Kids can only operate in that environment successfully if they say little. I am not sure people can cause much trouble that way, though they can certainly help it along by shouting with the mob.

We could say all Wikipedians are children by definition. Who else works for nothing and with a high tolerance for a confused environment?

[eagle]

If the purpose of this thread was to cover the 15th anniversary website and observance, we should note two things:

The PR campaign drew mixed results. Website 538 and WMF tried to spin it by playing up the "most edited articles" list.linkhttp://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... -15-years/[/link] This was picked up by NPR and other outlets. However, it also a subtle reminder of Wikipedia's edit war problems on articles like George W. Bush (T-H-L).The New York Daily News made fun of its content. linkhttp://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/1 ... -1.2498231[/link] Time traced the history of the wiki concept, much to the detriment of the myth that somehow Jimbo Wales played a large role.linkhttp://time.com/4177280/wiki-history-wikipedia/[/link]

WMF decided to use the 15th anniversary to roll out the new WMF Endowment. ("We managed to last 15 years, so cough up dough to assure our perpetual existence.") It drew some critical coverage:

* William Buetler's The Wikipedian acknowledged mixed media reception.linkhttp://thewikipedian.net/2016/01/15/wik ... -coverage/[/link]
* The AP's technical writer, Michael Liedkte hit a home run on the tension between the new endowment and the annual pleading of poverty banner ads.linkhttp://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt ... y-36287333[/link]
* The BBC noted the WMF's wealth:

The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, used the site's birthday to announce an endowment scheme to ensure a permanent source of funding for it and says it hopes to raise $100m (£69m) in the next 10 years. The Foundation regularly asks for voluntary donations from readers and in 2014 raised $75.5m from 4.9m donors around the world, according to its own report. On 3 December 2014 it received a record $29 (£20) per second, raising more than $2.5m (£1.7m) in one day.

linkhttp://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35324997[/link]

So, although the WMF managed to capture the public's attention with the 15th anniversary, it was not a positive message.

The 15th Anniversary Site Was A COPYVIO
Apparently, the pictures were not properly credited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ipedia.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =700257275
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ta ... ipedia.org

@Lila could you please tell me if there is any procedure that ensures WMF staff and contractors get educated in the Wikipedians' core principles prior to any content publishing contributions they will have to perform?

So, the 15th Anniversary website got a black eye from the press and from the Community's copyright warriors as well.

[Vigilant]

Wikipedia: Failing everyone!

[Ross McPherson]

@ eagle

Thanks for the background material. I liked the summary in the Washington Post.

...technology is not enough to keep the Wikimedia movement moving forward. Ultimately, Wikipedia was started by and still relies on the efforts of human volunteers. It will only thrive for another 15 years if that community can work cooperatively with the Wikimedia Foundation — and infighting doesn’t splinter the movement.

The economy of knowledge, the economy of egos, all made possible by donations from the ill informed.

Great encyclopaedia.