Quotes About Wikipedia

We always talk about how the first several seasons were faithful to the books, and anybody who wanted to could go onto Wikipedia and learn Ned Stark gets beheaded or about The Red Wedding, and most people don't want to know - because why ruin a story?

Consider this: alms aside, Wikipedia is fueled by competitive pedantry and emo-ness. How great is that?

The accuracy of Wikipedia can be dodgy in some places, but in maths, it's really quite good.

Wikipedia's funny. Some of the stuff on there - I go there occasionally - it's unbelievable the amount of stuff that people will write on there.

The one exception, intriguingly, was Wikipedia, where the level of attention on topics has held steady.)

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.

You can't retrieve you life (unless you're on Wikipedia, in which case you can retrieve an inaccurate version of it).

No one can define and execute exactly how Wikipedia is run by rules, tools, consensus, votes, or hegemony since a duffer defeats the best lawyer of the world on its platforms. Thus, one cannot pass notability even it qualifies that; whereas, Jimmy Wales enjoys and profits such twenty-four hours of each day and night Wiki warfare of fools and idiots.

The scholarly world rejects Wikipedia as a reliable website that most of the world's silly clowns contribute their ignorance, within the garbage of Wiki-Rules, which also, indeed, contradict each other.

Whatever subject stays in the process of editing and copy editing by unqualified contributors every day and every time can never be reliable and notable; even one cites authentic sources. Wikipedia falls under such quality of context without a doubt.

We get our facts from Wiki-something or the other, which at the best of times, is generalised information gathered and submitted by anyone who wishes to!

Oh, Wikipedia, with your tension between those who would share knowledge and those who would destroy it.

For years the physicist Donna Strickland was not deemed notable enough for an entry. She finally got her place in Wikipedia on the day she won the Nobel Prize. Surely that cannot be what it takes to be remembered? No man is held to such a standard.

In October 2015 Emily Temple-Wood, one of the site's long-standing editors, told the Atlantic magazine that she had identified almost 4400 female scientists who met Wikipedia's inclusion standards but did not have a page. For years the physicist Donna Strickland was not deemed notable enough for an entry. She finally got her place in Wikipedia on the day she won the Nobel Prize. Surely that cannot be what it takes to be remembered? No man is held to such a standard.

the "compendium of learning" set in motion by the Ming Emperor Yongle (1360–1424), which drew on the talents of more than two thousand scholars and filled more than eleven thousand volumes—and remained the largest encyclopedia in the world until Wikipedia surpassed it in 2007.

If we were allowed to go online here, I'd tell you to search Wikipedia for chickens plus cannibals so that you could verify." "Wikipedia's your source?" That was laughable. "Oh, please. The poultry industry probably paid big money to get chicken cannibals on there. It's an urban myth." ... "Why would the poultry industry spread a myth that chickens were cannibals?

Internet users, that blue screen of death you were looking at this morning? That's the sky. If you're still confused, look it up on Wikipedia tomorrow.

People take issue with individual aspects of Wikipedia all the time. But it's kind of hard to hate the general idea of a free encyclopedia. It's like hating kittens.

Given enough time humans will screw up Wikipedia just as they have screwed up everything else, but so far it's not too bad.

As a psycholinguist who once wrote an entire book on the past tense, I can single out my favorite example in the history of the English language. It comes from the first sentence of a Wikipedia entry: Smallpox was an infectious disease caused by either of two virus variants, Variola major and Variola minor. Yes, smallpox was.

Real history is far more complex and interesting than the simplistic summaries presented in Wikipedia articles. Knowing this allows you to question received wisdom, to challenge 'facts' 'everybody' knows to be true, and to imagine worlds and characters worthy of our rich historical heritage and our complex selves.

We have lived in this world where little things are done for love and big things for money. Now we have Wikipedia. Suddenly big things can be done for love.

Yeah, but look, who really provided the world's information to everybody on Earth? That was Wikipedia, right? And if you're asking what could we do to make the digital world work for people, the Wikipedia model is great. It's a donation model.

Wikipedia works because those who know the truth are usually more numerous and committed than those who believe in a falsehood.