[Fyre4ce]

http://www.wikipedia.org

Anyone else seen this (I assume many have)? For those who don't know, it's a free online encyclopedia where anyone on the internet can write or edit articles. I find myself fascinated by it and I'm not exactly sure why. I guess I'm just intrigued by the idea of a community knowledge base that everyone contributes to. I have looked at the articles on subjects I am knowledgeable about, and they are accurate and well-written. I have yet to actually edit or write an article (the encyclopedia is surprisingly well-populated with articles, despite being relatively new) but I'm sure my time will come. The only problem is that one can never be really sure of the accuracy of the information, although most articles site sources. I guess this is a necessary price to pay for the nature of the site.

Your thoughts?

[Face Ache]

Is it on the internets?

[Nebagakid]

communist drivel

[PDX Chris]

"The only problem is that one can never be really sure of the accuracy of the information, although most articles site sources."

I like Wikipedia, but I have to question that aspect of your message... How is Wikipedia different from ANY other source of information? Because an article is written in a printed magazine gives a certain amount of "rep"?

What about that guy from the NYT who fabricated the newspaper articles he wrote? How is Wikipedia different?

I don't know about you, but when I read scientific magazines, I don't have the article's resources in front of me, checking its validity while I read along. People take printed media for-granted and assume the writer has does their research on the subject; why do people flame Wikipedia and hold it to a higher standard?

[Kr0nos]

Hmmmm, yes I've heard of it before...the people in the village have been talking about it a lot lately. Is it evil?

[Volks]

Wikipedia's founder (a porn website builder, ironically) was recently murdered by a woman because of an article on wikipedia that was a supposed to be a joke.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by PDX Chris

"The only problem is that one can never be really sure of the accuracy of the information, although most articles site sources."

I like Wikipedia, but I have to question that aspect of your message... How is Wikipedia different from ANY other source of information? Because an article is written in a printed magazine gives a certain amount of "rep"?

What about that guy from the NYT who fabricated the newspaper articles he wrote? How is Wikipedia different?

I don't know about you, but when I read scientific magazines, I don't have the article's resources in front of me, checking its validity while I read along. People take printed media for-granted and assume the writer has does their research on the subject; why do people flame Wikipedia and hold it to a higher standard?

You make a great point, and I agree with you, almost. If I pick up a journal of Nature and read an article, I am fairly certain that the article has gone through a highly-selective peer review process by scientists who specialize in that field. Are those scientists fallible? Of course. Have even the most reputable publications ever published retractions? Yes. But the fact that anyone on the internet can at any time alter the content of an article, in my mind, puts the "trustworthiness" of the information at a qualitatively lower level than some other publications like scientific journals and formal encyclopedias (eg. Britannica). On the other hand, I would say the "trustworthiness" is at a qualitatively higher level than most random websites, which were common for finding information before Wikipedia.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Volks

Wikipedia's founder (a porn website builder, ironically) was recently murdered by a woman because of an article on wikipedia that was a supposed to be a joke.

This is not accurate. Jimmy Wales is alive and well.

[Chuckit]

Everything has its benefits and problems. Wikipedia is somewhat more prone to develop errors, but for the same reasons, it's often radically faster at correcting them. It also has a somewhat broader range of topics than traditional encyclopedias.

Anyway, I don't recommend using any encyclopedia to decide important matters. That's what actual research is for.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Everything has its benefits and problems. Wikipedia is somewhat more prone to develop errors, but for the same reasons, it's often radically faster at correcting them. It also has a somewhat broader range of topics than traditional encyclopedias.

Agreed, but honestly I feel like the content itself has the potential to have a substantially higher quality than that from commercial encyclopedias. For example, the articles I would be compelled to write or edit would be the subjects I am most knowledgeable about. By being available across the internet, the site opens itself to a far broader and deeper knowledge base than any chief editor for a commercial encyclopedia could hope to bring together. Also, the process of continuous revision can lead to improvements in style and organization. Of course, these are all potential benefits - it all depends on who contributes to the site (scholars or vandals). I guess that's why it's so interesting to me; it's like a big social experiment. Will humanity tap into the incredible potential of the infrastructure and create a community super-center of knowledge, or will it be overrun by vandals and pranksters?

Anyway, I don't recommend using any encyclopedia to decide important matters. That's what actual research is for.

Agreed 100%.

[freudling]

When you go to www.wikipedia.org and run a search, there is a bar on top that is currently at $150,000 US fiscal year 05 only 3 quarters!. That is the money they have be given through donations thus far. That, to me, is insane. They are looking for $250,000 plus as a goal. I emailed the founder and told him to go eat lunch. That is ridiculous. I can't believe people give to this crap. How on earth can people justify making a website with nothing but basic developer costs that much money? You can't. I looked at the quick and dirty business plan Wiki used to justify their goal. It was full of holes.

I am not saying don't donate, but this pot is puffing up way too much for such an operation. Hey, I have a few websites, and I could put up my business plan and ask for donations. Maybe I should. But my point is that, I can't believe people give to this thing.

/2004; US$136,473.90 was donated in 2004

STOP giving to this prick.

[freudling]

Oh and, I love this:

"Help empower the world with free knowledge!"

Ya, we give you hundreds of thousands of dollars, write and edit all the material on the site, and you have the balls to push that catch phrase. Hey, there are other games in town. Worldbook is free with some Apple comuters, and you don't need an internet connection for that. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is as good as it gets for an online resource. They are looking for subscribers now, but still free.

Now, they are asking for some thick cash too, too much in fact. But they have literally over 1000 professors/scholars in their respective fields working on it (writing, editing and reviewing). So they have a bit more of a right to ask for money, but Wikipedia is our gig, and we don't get paid to contribute.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by freudling

When you go to www.wikipedia.org and run a search, there is a bar on top that is currently at $150,000 US fiscal year 05 only 3 quarters!. That is the money they have be given through donations thus far. That, to me, is insane. They are looking for $250,000 plus as a goal. I emailed the founder and told him to go eat lunch. That is ridiculous. I can't believe people give to this crap. How on earth can people justify making a website with nothing but basic developer costs that much money?.

Ummm... Bandwidth costs? Huge servers? They gotta be getting a lot of load, since everyone and his dog uses it.

(yes Fyre4ce, everyone else has known about it for a while. )

[Doofy]

BTW, here's the subversive version...

http://www.everything2.com/

...do yourselves a favour and leave a week or two free before you explore - those links at the bottoms of each page suck time like nothing else.

[Xeo]

Re: freudling's rant about money...

I understand where you're coming from but come on, popular websites ARE expensive to run. Maybe they don't need $250K to run it successfully but it would be annoying if the software was buggy, servers crashed, slow to access, etc.

They do need some money from somewhere.*

*unless their hosting is donated too

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by freudling

Oh and, I love this:

"Help empower the world with free knowledge!"

Ya, we give you hundreds of thousands of dollars

Do you even know anything about computers and servers. They cost a lot of money even using open source because of the support contracts that are needed to make sure the systems are up 24x7. They just don't have a single Mac G5 running the whole thing. It takes alot of equipment, service contracts for the software and hardware. Also where do you store these servers, how do you bring power to them. Do yo have a backup source of power to keep those servers running? What about disaster recover, do you have a hot point ready to go off site. These are not free.

Others do it also but they also have other streams of revenue, such as CD sales (world book) universities etc and if you dig deep enough there's links for contributions too.

you should really investigate a problem before firing off an ignorant post.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

http://www.wikipedia.org

Anyone else seen this (I assume many have)? For those who don't know, it's a free online encyclopedia where anyone on the internet can write or edit articles. I find myself fascinated by it and I'm not exactly sure why. I guess I'm just intrigued by the idea of a community knowledge base that everyone contributes to. I have looked at the articles on subjects I am knowledgeable about, and they are accurate and well-written. I have yet to actually edit or write an article (the encyclopedia is surprisingly well-populated with articles, despite being relatively new) but I'm sure my time will come. The only problem is that one can never be really sure of the accuracy of the information, although most articles site sources. I guess this is a necessary price to pay for the nature of the site.

Your thoughts?

Welcome to the internet, Fyre4ce.

[residentEvil]

hmmm, search?

a quick search of the forums here shows over 300 topics that have wikipedia links/discussions; the oldest being in 2002. i guess it has been around for awhile.

nice of you to join the intraweb.

oh, be sure to check out google and ebay; i think they are new too and have been getting a lot of press on them.

[andreas_g4]

I can't belive this thread is alive…

/exclude the ironic replies…

[besson3c]

holy cow, you didn't know about Wikipedia, so that makes you a not knowing BASTARD, and we should all yell at you and complain to everybody. You JERK! Why couldn't you just know, back in 2002 when it was freakin' invented on the internets? Welcome to 2005, I mean 2006, jerk face, how about paying attention? My head is about to explode, no thanks to you.

If I had kids, they would probably be dead now, thanks to you. Old people would be without their pills, and I think lava would start erupting from the Earth's surface - all because of you. So, am I mad? Damn right. Do I have the right to be mean to you? What would you know about it? You don't even know about the Wikipedia! Yeah, if you do the math, I DO have the right to be mean to you. Grrrrr.....

Sit your ass down in front of your computer, and don't leave until you have learned about everything that is new, and make it snappy!

[freudling]

To all those not agreeing or somewhat agreeing with my posts about giving money to Wikipedia. Like I said, I am not saying do not donate money, but the amount being given is too much. In his business plan, he does not mention money to cover servers, contracts, etc. (although that is obviously an assumed expense). He mentions plane trips, office stuff, etc. I cannot argue the cost of bandwidth and hardware costs as well. BUT, you are giving it too much credit. I have administered networks for the Military, in charge of many computers and 2 big ass servers with a 23 GHZ microwave beam that wirelessly communicates with a router across the ocean. I have a good idea of what goes into maintaining these things.

And the costs are not what you are making them. Bandwidth will not cost as much as you think, and his site has virtually NO video, just text. Sure, there are many, many articles, but nothing a modern 1 TB server can't handle. And servers are not that expensive. Moreover, he could store the server in his house if he wanted. As for his staff, he has a total of 3 on board.

Sorry, but until someone lays down bit for bit where this money is going, I am not buying it.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by besson3c

holy cow, you didn't know about Wikipedia, so that makes you a not knowing BASTARD, and we should all yell at you and complain to everybody. You JERK! Why couldn't you just know, back in 2002 when it was freakin' invented on the internets? Welcome to 2005, I mean 2006, jerk face, how about paying attention? My head is about to explode, no thanks to you.

Jeeze dude,
one word decaf.
We all cannot spend all of our waking time on the net and the OP just came across wikipedia, no harm there. You should take a deep breath relax and just admit that not everyone knows everything about the internet.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Jeeze dude,
one word decaf.
We all cannot spend all of our waking time on the net and the OP just came across wikipedia, no harm there. You should take a deep breath relax and just admit that not everyone knows everything about the internet.

Could you not see that my post was 100% facetious and actually in defense of him? I thought I succeeded in making it ridiculously so. I guess not.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Jeeze dude,
one word decaf.
We all cannot spend all of our waking time on the net and the OP just came across wikipedia, no harm there. You should take a deep breath relax and just admit that not everyone knows everything about the internet.

I'm pretty sure he was just kidding.

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Could you not see that my post was 100% facetious and actually in defense of him? I thought I succeeded in making it ridiculously so. I guess not.

Your post was not there when I said that. Well, I defended you anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by euchomai

I'm pretty sure he was just kidding.

I guess I should have placed more emphasis around the old people and lava eruptions

[Maflynn]

You have an odd way of defending him by calling him a bastard, a jerk, not paying attention etc.

If you feel so inclined to defend one of my threads, please don't

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by euchomai

Your post was not there when I said that. Well, I defended you anyway.

Thanks! Let's call ourselves "Team Defense", how does that sound?

All for one and one for all!! *puts hand down in front of euchomai*

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

You have an odd way of defending him by calling him a bastard, a jerk, not paying attention etc.

If you feel so inclined to defend one of my threads, please don't

Sorry for inadvertently sending the wrong message!

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Thanks! Let's call ourselves "Team Defense", how does that sound?

All for one and one for all!! *puts hand down in front of euchomai*

Works for me. Now, let's tear up this place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by euchomai

Works for me. Now, let's tear up this place.

I think we need to work on a special twirl, or some other sort of special Team Defense move, perhaps temporarily disabling the senses of our enemies? I do have this awesome twirl move I've been working on....

[m a d r a]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

You have an odd way of defending him by calling him a bastard, a jerk, not paying attention etc.

If you feel so inclined to defend one of my threads, please don't

maybe you should visit this wikipedia thingie and look up the word "irony"

[36days]

I find Wikipedia incredibly resourceful. I tried my best to go through many random subjects to look for errors but so far it's pretty up to scratch. Moderating it must be hell if people screw around with pages.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by 36days

I find Wikipedia incredibly resourceful. I tried my best to go through many random subjects to look for errors but so far it's pretty up to scratch. Moderating it must be hell if people screw around with pages.

It's really not that hard. If somebody messes up the page, just hit Revert. I've done it.

[36days]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's really not that hard. If somebody messes up the page, just hit Revert. I've done it.

Oh right, so they have save states? That's sorted then.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by 36days

Oh right, so they have save states? That's sorted then.

Wikipedia keeps extensive page histories. So Vandalism is usually countered within a few hours.

[Synotic]

Originally Posted by freudling

Sorry, but until someone lays down bit for bit where this money is going, I am not buying it.

Originally Posted by Budget/2005 — Wikimedia Foundation

Quarter 4 (1 October to 31 December)

• Hosting related [66.78%]
• • Hardware: $190,000 (59.15%)
  • Hosting charges: $24,000 (7.47%)
  • Domain names: $500 (0.16%)
• Personnel (2 full time & 2 part time): $33,100 (10.31%)
• Travel: $7,500 (2.33%)
• Legal expens, insur, and trademarks: $10,000 (3.11%)
• Office expenses: $5,900 (1.84%)
• Chapter startup money: $2,000 (0.62%)
• Promotional: $3,000 (0.93%)
• Financial costs (fundraising/bank fees): $10,000 (3.11%)
• Miscellaneous expens (~2%): $6,000 (1.87%)
• Reserve (~10%): $29,200 (9.09%)
• TOTAL: $321,200
• * includes cost of benefits (full time personnel), taxes and other overhead costs

This is taken from the budget page here.

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Jeeze dude,
one word decaf.
We all cannot spend all of our waking time on the net and the OP just came across wikipedia, no harm there. You should take a deep breath relax and just admit that not everyone knows everything about the internet.

This isn't condescending, just honest curiosity: where are you from?

[Fyre4ce]

Jeez...

For those of you who claim I'm not a true techie for not knowing about Wikipedia until recently (I heard it mentioned for the first time in a class this past Spring, but didn't look at it in earnest until a month or two ago), you're right. I've had other priorities in my life. Sorry if that presents a problem for you.

Originally Posted by Budget/2005 — Wikimedia Foundation

Quarter 4 (1 October to 31 December)

• Hosting related [66.78%]
• • Hardware: $190,000 (59.15%)
  • Hosting charges: $24,000 (7.47%)
  • Domain names: $500 (0.16%)
• Personnel (2 full time & 2 part time): $33,100 (10.31%)
• Travel: $7,500 (2.33%)
• Legal expens, insur, and trademarks: $10,000 (3.11%)
• Office expenses: $5,900 (1.84%)
• Chapter startup money: $2,000 (0.62%)
• Promotional: $3,000 (0.93%)
• Financial costs (fundraising/bank fees): $10,000 (3.11%)
• Miscellaneous expens (~2%): $6,000 (1.87%)
• Reserve (~10%): $29,200 (9.09%)
• TOTAL: $321,200
• * includes cost of benefits (full time personnel), taxes and other overhead costs

LOL! If they need $190,000 in servers, then they must have a LOT of traffic. Meaning they could easily pay this with ads. The whole non-profit .org thing really makes no sense.

I just checked their Alexa ranking and they are number 34. Drudge Report is number 271, and he serves about 10 million pages a day. It's widely known that he makes at very LEAST $1 million a year from that site. Wikipedia has a LOT more traffic than Drudge, and could make way more even with relatively subtle advertising. Asking for donations and creating a sob story is misleading. Probably most of the people who donate don't understand the internet economy. I'd also bet most of those people would be willing to see ads if they knew that was all that was needed to support the site. I'm not sure why they have chosen this approach. Doesn't seem to benifit the readers or the owners.

[freudling]

Totally agree with the last post. Like I said, I am not saying don't donate, but if his expenses are really close to $350 grand for fiscal year 05, and they have received 1/3 of that in donations, perhaps they should start looking elsewhere. And that is it, sob story.

The three things I have major problems with on his expense list are:
Hardware: $190,000 (59.15%)
Reserve (~10%): $29,200 (9.09%)
Hosting charges: $24,000 (7.47%)

No way with an operation of 3-4 people with a text-only site, albeit large, should hardware cost that much for this fiscal year. You can get a high-end IBM xseries without a hard drive for $6000 US. For under $10 grand, you could have a huge amount of storage space with a very capable, fast server (2 GB ram; 2 GHz...). Then you have a few computers for staff (peanuts). Then you have to maintain the server. Well, since you have your staff, you pay them for just that. And yes, servers take time, but if the people know what is going on, it is gravy. So hardware, just not seeing it. Under $50 grand I would be more willing to accept it. More like $30 grand at most. And this is just for this year alone! What is this guy thinking.

Which leads me to $24 grand for hosting. Sorry, shop around, that is too high, but I know someone will argue. Then we have the reserve. Ya, hi, can I have an extra $30 grand just in case? Whatever. His budget could be half that. But here, he really hasn't broken down what he is buying exactly. In this form, no way would I advocate such funds being allocated to this. Vague...

[ledzeppelin]

....

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by freudling

No way with an operation of 3-4 people with a text-only site

*cough*
You've never seen pictures on Wiki? Are you using Lynx or what?

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by m a d r a

maybe you should visit this wikipedia thingie and look up the word "irony"

The last time checked the definition of irony didn't include insults and meant you could be degrading

Sounds like you need a little trip to wikipedia yourself or at least using a dictionary.

hint: Tiger comes with a dictionary

[turtle777]

Wikipedia thread 242,353,528,984,456.

Who gives...

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

The last time checked the definition of irony didn't include insults and meant you could be degrading

"The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite." If you feel positively about something, yes, this would require you to use insults and other degrading vocabulary.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Jeez...

For those of you who claim I'm not a true techie for not knowing about Wikipedia until recently (I heard it mentioned for the first time in a class this past Spring, but didn't look at it in earnest until a month or two ago), you're right. I've had other priorities in my life. Sorry if that presents a problem for you.

I think your priorities are just fine.

Some people simply put too much weight into pointing out how much they know in comparison to others. It's a severe insecurity issue with them.

However, I will point out that a simple search for "wikipedia" might have been a good idea before posting.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

http://www.wikipedia.org

Anyone else seen this (I assume many have)? For those who don't know, it's a free online encyclopedia where anyone on the internet can write or edit articles.

[Synotic]

freudling: I'm no network technician, so I can't analyze the costs, but here's just some more information that might be helpful.

• Hardware ordered November 15, 2005
• This page isn't up to date, but it also gives an idea how the individual systems are used
• A general overview of the Wikimedia server setup. It also has a nice picture

Did they ever run ads? I could have sworn they did at one point.