Quotes About Information

It seems like WikiLeaks has better information on Hillary Clinton than she does herself.

If Wikileaks didn't resolve that question for folks - at the end of the day, there are no secrets. We're living in a glass neighborhood, in a fishbowl, and technology, white hat hackers, the folks that are doing the right thing with hacking.

Regarding Wikileaks, I have profound ambivalent feelings about it. I am a firm believer in a strong intelligence service. There's a need for classified information.

WikiLeaks' disclosures should be protected under the First Amendment.

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.

If you think of the ideas of open source applied to information in an encyclopedia, you get to Wikipedia - lots and lots of small contributions that bubble up to something that's meaningful.

Encyclopedias are finished. All encyclopedias combined, including the redoubtable Britannica, have already been surpassed by the exercise in groupthink known as Wikipedia.

Everything's wrong on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, every day, is tens of thousands of people inputting information, and every day millions of people withdrawing that information. It's a perfect image for the fundamental point that no one of us is as smart as all of us thinking together.

Open-source encyclopedias such as Wikipedia and search engines such as Google and Bing, which people can tap into anytime and anywhere via computers and smart phones, put a world of knowledge at our fingertips at a lower cost than ever before.

Wikipedia is a victory of process over substance.

I think it's important never to look yourself up on Wikipedia. I think the temptation to correct any interesting factual errors would be too much.

If you're reading IMDB, half of it's made up. You can't trust it or Wikipedia, which is just lies, lies!

Wikipedia gets a lot of things wrong.

Wikipedia is so dangerous.

I'm quite good at taking in information so I voraciously inhale Wikipedia - which may have some things wrong in it, but I think is generally more information than we had before. Last tour we didn't have Wikipedia. And then Discovery Channel and History Channel. I can take it in and retain what I think are the most important facts.

I've consciously avoided actually reading anything about Wikipedia.

I do not go on my Wikipedia page. There's just too much weird information on there for me to pick apart.

Think about it. If it's taking pictures, it's not a cellphone. If it has a McDonald's app to tell you where McDonald's is based on your GPS location, that's not a cellphone. If you can get Wikipedia or go to Google, that's not a cellphone.

Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia!

In the world of the Internet, there are many falsehoods. Anyone can write stuff on Wikipedia, and it doesn't have to be true.

The Internet gives you access to a lot of material, and it's fun to sit and read. I go to something like Wikipedia and look at different topics... I find the subject fascinating. I like to read about concepts and mathematicians.

It's things like Wikipedia that help us to advance as a society and help us to accelerate our evolution. If you're a researcher and you need some answer to something, and in today's world you can find it this quickly, it allows you to develop whatever you are doing much faster.

I don't think Silicon Valley understands the power of Wikipedia, how it works, or the opportunities it represents.