Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Happy 10th Birthday To Wikipedia

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the capricorn-like-brian dept.

The Internet 137

Greg writes "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, first launched on January 15, 2001. Today, the website is thus 10 years old. To celebrate its 10th anniversary, Wikipedia is hosting some 400 conferences and parties across the globe. In traditional Wikipedia style, the events are being organized by its community of users. After a decade of growth, Wikipedia is an important source of information for millions of topics and remains among the Internet's top 10 most visited sites. It has over 400 million readers each month and has a very small budget for a website its size: just $20 million. Almost all its revenue comes from donations. In its last fundraising push, the organization saw 500,000 users donate $16 million."

cancel ×

137 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy b-day! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891930)

Convincing suckers for the last ten years!

There is no bias on wikipedia, no sir! It's the only truth!

Explanation please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891958)

So did Larry Sanger generally get screwed in this deal or what? I could never figure it out.

Re:Explanation please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34893874)

Well, yesterday (the actual anniversary) Wikipedia's picture of the day was one of Jimbo Wales, no Larry Sanger. At this point I suspect the most Sanger can do is go on and vandalize webpages through sockpuppets.

Re:Happy b-day! (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891986)

[citation-needed] ;)

Re:Happy b-day! (5, Funny)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892478)

Correction,

Feli[citation needed]!

Happy Birthday! (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891972)

Re:Happy Birthday! (1)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892092)

Please pay us a royalty now. Yours truly, Robert A. Iger

We Are Not Amused (3, Funny)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892212)

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
United Kingdom

Is that sufficient royalty payment?

Re:Happy Birthday! (0)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892172)

Nice. But this [youtube.com] is still my favorite birthday song.

Why is this posted here? (2, Funny)

hessian (467078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891974)

Not notable.

Re:Why is this posted here? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892082)

It's wrong and I'll keep reverting the page because I KNOW it can't be Wikipedia's 10th birthday.

Re:Why is this posted here? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892320)

This article is semi-locked for creatively common barnstar abuse.

Re:Why is this posted here? (4, Interesting)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892260)

Because almost every thread eventually has a reference to Wikipedia in one of the comments. I think that counts as notable.

Re:Why is this posted here? (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892548)

I suspect you have citations for that from the print media! Otherwise, Citation Needed!

Important not not authoriative (0, Redundant)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891982)

Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject. I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.

It's a good source of reference just double check important facts elsewhere.

For my next angioplasty.... (1)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892036)

...I'm going to trust whoever might show up and express an interest, because I'm no damned élitist.

Re:Important not not authoriative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34892094)

I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia

Right after seeing these issues, you clicked the Edit button and corrected them, yes?

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892216)

I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia

Right after seeing these issues, you clicked the Edit button and corrected them, yes?

Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.

Re:Important not not authoriative (2)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892276)

Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.

Perhaps it's **you** who have an agenda... Who knows...

Re:Important not not authoriative (5, Insightful)

shadowknot (853491) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892410)

Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.

Perhaps it's **you** who have an agenda... Who knows...

Truth is _everyone_ has an agenda in some way or another. The notion of absolute neutrality is a fallacy and anyone who claims to be 100% neutral is fooling themselves. Striving for neutrality is another issue and with such a large user base contributing there is always likely to be some bias on issues people really care about (which is almost everything) and there's very little you can do about it other than get your information from many sources in an attempt to triangulate the truth.

Re:Important not not authoriative (0)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892414)

Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.

Perhaps it's **you** who have an agenda... Who knows...

Spoken like a Wikipedia administrator.. Strange how WP:no personal attacks never applies to them.

I have no agenda. I tend to do something more productive when my perfectly valid edits get revoked. The people who spend the most time pushing normally get what they want. That creates bias.

Re:Important not not authoriative (0)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892370)

A field of turds neither loses its foul smell nor becomes my fault just because I have neither the time nor the inclination to clean it up.

Re:Important not not authoriative (2)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893912)

After I got into an edit war because some douchebag admin doesn't know the difference between affect and effect, and isn't willing to let anyone change his precious article... yeah, no.

Re:Important not not authoriative (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892164)

Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject.

I've seen plenty of articles that contained correct information. That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.

I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.

What's stopping you from fixing it?

Re:Important not not authoriative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34892238)

Nothing expect oh, locked pages, constant reverts by others who disagree just because, the lack of so called citations required, etc.

Re:Important not not authoriative (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892544)

the lack of so called citations required

There's actually a very good reason for this.

Re:Important not not authoriative (1, Flamebait)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892314)

Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject.

I've seen plenty of articles that contained correct information. That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.

Sure. 90% correct would do fine but you can't be sure if any article really is 10% or 100% correct without doing a whole load of research. If I'm doing that kind of research anyway what use is wikipedia? Sure it's great on subjects You know nothing about because any knowledge will be an improvement.

I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.

What's stopping you from fixing it?

Edit wars and editors pushing an agenda. Administrators who go off the deep end at anything they perceive as a 'personal attack'.
And spelling and grammer nazi's who revert entire passages for one misspelling. And a lack of time and frankly interest in dealing with their bureaucracy.

Did I mention administrators who delete new pages without even trying to read or improve them?

And the assumption that if you don't react to something within a few minutes you agree with it.

Updating even small details can become a huge time drain.

Re:Important not not authoriative (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892564)

90% correct would do fine but you can't be sure if any article really is 10% or 100% correct without doing a whole load of research.

It's the same for everything else.

If I'm doing that kind of research anyway what use is wikipedia?

A place where other people can benefit from your research.

As for the rest of your post, I admit that I'm not sure how often such things happen, so I can't really comment on that.

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892962)

90% correct would do fine but you can't be sure if any article really is 10% or 100% correct without doing a whole load of research.

It's the same for everything else.

If I'm doing that kind of research anyway what use is wikipedia?

A place where other people can benefit from your research.

As for the rest of your post, I admit that I'm not sure how often such things happen, so I can't really comment on that.

The problem is that we are not discussing "everything else" but only Wikipedia. And if the poster actually put his/her research on Wikipedia or updated an inaccurate page, it wouldn't matter, there still is no way of knowing if it is accurate or not (although citations help tremendously).

Wikipedia is to legitimate research what blogging is to legitimate journalism. Both provide interesting reads, but where one requires accountability, the other only suggests it.

Re:Important not not authoriative (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892418)

What's stopping you from fixing it?

Have you tried contributing lately? More hoops to jump through than a building permit. Chances are what you write will be removed even if you give good references. I use to contribute but I quickly came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time.

Re:Important not not authoriative (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892626)

What's stopping you from fixing it?

Other people on Wikipedia?

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892792)

What's stopping you from fixing it?

The mods/editors?

I have anonymously edited once or twice some obscure article of wikipedia (articles from Mexico and Spanish based stuff) which get "undone" after a couple of days just because some mod does not agree with the truth ... or "just because".

After doing it several times it gets tyring and you just give up... wikipedia is just the encyclopedia of the hundred few to choose to spend their majority of time working the "politics" of such site.

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

Tim the Gecko (745081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893360)

wikipedia is just the encyclopedia of the hundred few to choose to spend their majority of time working the "politics" of such site.

This seems unfair. If you hang around the articles on hot button issues for Slashdotters, like gun stuff, iPads or climate change, I can imagine you see quite a bit of Wikipedia politics. But a lot of people are making small contributions across a huge number of less contentious articles. Take a look at the article history for J. J. Thomson. From June to December [wikipedia.org] there were 433 edits, and the article got slightly better. Quite a lot of this was unsung work like reverting edits like "wats up peeps u know me" or "Hi im JOohnnnnnn". There is a lot of fixing going on, and I'm sure it is more than a few hundred people doing it.

But, (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892940)

I've seen plenty of articles that contained correct information. That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.

Yes, but even Star Trek contains correct information on plenty of things. That doesn't make it authoritative.

Historically, encyclopaedias relied on experts for their information (yes, I know, they were put together by editors, not the experts themself). With Wikipedia, just about anybody can contribute and the information stays there and incorrect information stays there until somebody who knows the correct information a) stumbles upon the incorrect information, b) cares enough to correct the incorrect information, and c) actually takes the time to correct it.

I'm not saying that Wikipedia is bad or unusable, but most research papers exclude it from being a valid source, at least directly. Where it really shines, though is if the article has real footnotes (not just links to other Wikipedia pages). Then the actual sources can be reviewed.

Wikipedia needs two types of articles. The current "it may be accurate, it may not, so use at your own risk" and one that has some sort of impramtur authenticating its accuracy.

Re:But, (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893792)

Historically, encyclopaedias relied on experts for their information (yes, I know, they were put together by editors, not the experts themself).

While this is true, that is what citations are for. Really, you shouldn't assume anything to be 100% correct, and no matter where you got your information from, you should double check it. This applies not only to Wikipedia, but to everything (when possible).

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

trifish (826353) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892972)

What's stopping you from fixing it?

Primarily, lack of persistence to "fight" the trolls who have nothing better to do with their lives than to squat their pet articles to "preserve and protect" their versions of the articles forever.

Re:Important not not authoriative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34894600)

That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.

Sweet fucking jesus, just hit the 510 section of your local library and pick a book at random. I'd say the odds are better than 10% that the text in said book is 100% correct in every way.

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34894718)

How do you know this? Did you double check the information (something you should always do no matter where you get your information from)? My point is that you should always question the source of the information and verify its correctness. Although you can likely assume that information written by an expert is more likely to be correct, it is by no means infallible.

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892250)

I've encountered plenty of bias and inaccuracies over the years, but it's often a good starting point along with Google.

What makes it a real pain in the ass is the ridiculous bureaucracy that has developed over the years. It's treated as a god-given truth, to be enforced by a swarm of rabid followers with a need to prove something to the world.

Re:Useful not not authoriative (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892308)

FTFY.

Wikipedia isn't important. Without it, Google would get you the data

In fact, without Wikipedia, Google would probably be even more useful than it is, as people link to things themselves from their pages instead of just letting Wikipedia do it. That would push up Google pagerank for real informational pages, making them show up sooner above all the linkspam.

Re:Useful not not authoriative (2)

Tideflat (1858480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34894026)

Wikipedia has the nofollow attribute on all of its external links * [wikimedia.org] , so the Google's pagerank would not be affected. ** [blogspot.com]

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892340)

Man, the way you talk about it, it almost sounds like it lives up to the standards of our national media.

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892354)

My main gripe with the site is that tends to be content weighted towards hero worship of currently popular entertainers, athletes and other celebrities. Some articles read like they were written by a publicist's or agent's office and others by obsessed fans.

Re:Important not not authoriative (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892668)

My main gripe with the site is that tends to be content weighted towards hero worship of currently popular entertainers, athletes and other celebrities. Some articles read like they were written by a publicist's or agent's office and others by obsessed fans.

Maybe that is because they were written by a publicist's or agent's office, or by obsessed fans.
Remember, everyone can write an article, and most articles are written by people who particularly care about the subject, i.e. in this case the celebrity. Now who cares about celebrities? Well, usually either those who live from them (publicists, agents) or those who are fans of them.

Re:Important not not authoriative (1)

he-sk (103163) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892470)

You just described encyclopedias in general.

Where can I sign up for your newsletter?

may it die soon (2, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891990)

Wikipedia's done a lot to damage the 'net. It used to be that autonomous entities acting under often well-known editorial control would be first ports of call for various subjects, but now everyone wastes their time in the edit war game that is Wikipedia. It's the worst example of centralisation of Internet control - Facebook may be larger, but it is primarily an entertainment service. Google's flawed popularity ranking algorithm (does anyone remember when nerds used to point out that popular does not imply best?) always leads people to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia won't die, but we are at least progressively seeing fewer people take it seriously. May the next decade see it turn into something perceived as valuable to humanity as Facebook.

Re:may it die soon (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892040)

May the next decade see it turn into something perceived as valuable to humanity as Facebook.

The best thing wikipedia could do is list subjects and the people or organizations that are considered useful sources of information on them. This would go some way to getting rid of the most-popular-is-correct bias of the thing.

Re:may it die soon (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892098)

Yahoo had its directory back in '94. Lists of lists would be good, where the source of each list is very clear and can be filtered on. Then I don't get an ever-increasing list of biased sources, but can stick to lists prepared by academics, professional organisations, recognised hobbyist groups, etc.

Re:may it die soon (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892190)

The best thing wikipedia could do is list subjects and the people or organizations that are considered useful sources of information on them.

Go to any article rated B or better. Scroll down to "References". You'll find a list of reliable sources that are useful enough to use for an article.

Re:may it die soon (3, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892232)

You'll find a list of resources used to support the article, which is nowhere near the same as finding an unbiased, exhaustive list of resources recommended by known individuals with a reputation to maintain.

Re:may it die soon (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892678)

May the next decade see it turn into something perceived as valuable to humanity as Facebook.

The best thing wikipedia could do is list subjects and the people or organizations that are considered useful sources of information on them. This would go some way to getting rid of the most-popular-is-correct bias of the thing.

So what would keep Wikipedia from listing "Wall Builders" as a "useful" source for information on The Constitution and U.S. History? I don't see how turning it into a link farm is any improvement. What am I missing?

Re:may it die soon (1)

fleeped (1945926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892076)

Competition usually leads to improvement. If the edit war game leads to more neutral and unbiased results, because of wars among biased opinions, I'm all for it. If I want opinions, I'll search elsewhere. Granted, I won't take seriously articles for companies, some people and generally heated subjects, but really if you find worthless the fact that you can type almost any word followed by "wiki" and find information conforming to a standardized format, I think you're hopeles..

Re:may it die soon (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892218)

Erm, competition can only work if the incentive is provided on achievement of part of the goal.

There is no incentive for Wikipedia editors to produce an encyclopedia. Ssimilar applies to any Wikipedia-style project (though not necessarily any project using a Wiki: it's quite possible to have editorial oversight).

Re:may it die soon (2)

fleeped (1945926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892474)

If there was no incentive at all, the site wouldn't grow to be as large as it is now. Comparatively, we've also seen how well Google's Knol has worked anyway.

Re:may it die soon (2)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892520)

You're missing the point entirely. The incentive in Wikipedia isn't to produce an encyclopedic information resource. Just because it's popular and large it doesn't mean it's achieved any of its stated goals.

Imagine me setting up a large room and filling it with cans of beer. I then declare the purpose of the room is for scientists to gather and find a cure for cancer. It's likely that room will be very popular for a while while everyone rushes in to drink beer and have a laugh. But at the end of the day all I'll have is a trashed room full of empty beer cans and piss, and no cure for cancer.

The alternative to Wikipedia is not Knol, it's the web as a whole, administered and edited by autonomous but (in the best cases) well-known individuals and orgsanisations with professional or hobbyist standing and reputations to maintain. And this wider web is still doing better than Wikipedia and would do even better without Wikipedia to distract well-meaning contributors and readers.

Re:may it die soon (2)

fleeped (1945926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892804)

I see your point, but still disagree. When I'm writing scientific papers, where fact accuracy REALLY matters, I WON'T cite wikipedia.
If I want to know a few bits of information about a plant that I saw with a friend while trekking, I'll look it on wikipedia.
If I want to know the origin of some food recipes, I'll look it on wikipedia.
If I want to learn approximately what happened regarding a historical fact, I'll go to wikipedia.
If I want find about the discography of a band, without loading useless flashy flash pages, I'll look it on wikipedia.
If I want to read a few things about a well-known guy, living or not, I'll look it on wikipedia.
Hell, if I want to read a bit about something random from my mobile in the crapper, I'll fire up wikipedia. In fact I just did before I saw your post :)
You can keep a list of bookmarks about all thousands of subjects that you might be interested in at any point in your life, I find that tiresome, especially with the ever-evolving nature of the web and its content. I've been searching stuff on search engines for 15 years now, and I think wikipedia is BRILLIANT.

Re:may it die soon (0)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893808)

"Want to learn, Want to know, Want to find, Want to read"

These are things that WP's detractors don't want, when confronted with information that does not fit their worldview their head explodes and they start projecting their own personality faults onto WP's contributors.

Disclaimer: I am not a regular contribitor to WP.

Re:may it die soon (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34894030)

Yeah I can understand your hate for Wikipedia. It's better than the pofessionally-written Brittanica Encyclopedia! Can't have that nonsense. These uppity commoners with their editing should not be able to outclass the upper Shits of society. No siree bob.

WIKILOOK:

An addon that lets you highlight a phrase and a small preview window shows the wikipedia entry. Only works for Firefox, and I love it.

>>>May the next decade see it turn into something perceived as valuable to humanity as Facebook.

What the fuck.
You're a loony bird.

Re:may it die soon (4, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34894196)

Naw, you're completely wrong. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's very much a positive.

In areas where it "works" -- science, engineering, other technical subjects, reference information (e.g. documenting the stations of a country's rail networks) -- Wikipedia has vastly increased the consistency, coverage, and quality of easily-available information on a huge number of subjects. Prior to Wikipedia, even with a good search engine it was much less likely you'd find information on a particular subject, and if you found something, it was often very incomplete and of lower quality, or if high-quality, was often behind a paywall. What's on Wikipedia now is often a little less well-written than a professional reference would be, because of the multiple authors -- but that's in fact often not really a bad thing, because many wikipedia articles end up covering subjects in a way that's approachable to multiple levels of ability (e.g. they'll have sections targeted at experts, and easy examples for novices)

There are other references on technical subjects that are occasionally of higher quality than Wikipedia., but they're balkanized, often less complete even within their specialty simply because of the effort required to be complete, and far, far, more difficult to find in the first place (often the best way is through the references at the bottom of a corresponding Wikipedia page!). Of course these are useful as a sanity check or different of view for the corresponding information in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's role, of binding together multiple subjects, and covering all the gritty details, is very valuable, and increases the usability and accessibility of these other sources (much as a traditional encyclopedia or survey might for more specialized sources).

Wikipedia is so useful for these technical subjects that I'm not sure what to think about people whining that "Wikipedia is crap!1!", other than they've never actually used it for anything other than looking up "George W Bush" and "abortion"...

Or at least that's what the Wikipedia article says (1)

ewg (158266) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891996)

What's their source on the age of Wikipedia? A Wikipedia article?!

Re:Or at least that's what the Wikipedia article s (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892246)

What's their source on the age of Wikipedia? A Wikipedia article?!

I read that, in the last six months, the Wikipedia's age has tripled.

Re:Or at least that's what the Wikipedia article s (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892708)

What's their source on the age of Wikipedia? A Wikipedia article?!

I read that, in the last six months, the Wikipedia's age has tripled.

In that case, Wikipedia must be nine months now.

Wikipedia Version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34892038)

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, first launched on September 2nd, 1815. Today, the website is thus 195 years 4 months and 13.89 days
  old. To celebrate its 195.37th anniversary, Wikipedia is hosting 19 slumber parties, a buffet, four charity cricket matches and an over-50s lesbian orgy. In traditional Wikipedia style, the events are being organized by its community of users. After a decade of ceaseless, annoying pleas for funding, Wikipedia is now somehow an important source of information for millions of topics and remains among the Internet's top 10 most sites. It has over 6.9 billion readers each month and has a very small budget for a website its size: just three times that Google or AltaVista. Almost all its revenue comes from sperm donations. In its last fundraising 'jerk', the organization saw its users donate more than 125 million gallons of the stuff.

TRIVIA - Useful Addon: WIKILOOK (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892064)

Let's you highlight a phrase and a small preview window shows the wikipedia entry. Only works for Firefox.

"a very small budget for a website" (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892074)

just $20 million

Uh. Yeah. That's a really small budget . . . ?

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (5, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892128)

For one of the most-used websites on the Internet, that budget is tiny.

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892278)

That revenue stream is tiny.

Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?

Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (4, Insightful)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892330)

That revenue stream is tiny.

Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?

Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.

Better yet, imagine if advertisers were allowed to buy space in the articles itself, and to buy removal of links to their competitors? Yearly bidding, highest bidder gets ownership of an article for a year (to improve it and make it more accurate, of course)

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892574)

That revenue stream is tiny.

Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?

Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.

Better yet, imagine if advertisers were allowed to buy space in the articles itself, and to buy removal of links to their competitors? Yearly bidding, highest bidder gets ownership of an article for a year (to improve it and make it more accurate, of course)

Then it would be worth almost nothing.

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892834)

Just like FB.

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34892856)

Whoooooooooosh.

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892554)

That revenue stream is tiny.

Can you imagine how much it'd be worth if it was ad-supported?

Zuck would be Jimbo's bitch.

I'm sure that was in a recent movie? But they broke up didn't they?

Jimmy Whales: I think we should just be friends.
Mark Zuckerberg: I don't want friends.
Jimmy Whales: I was being polite, I had no intention of being friends with you. As if every thought that tumbles through your head was so clever it would be a crime for it not to be shared. You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole.

What was the movie called again? The Anti-Social Not-Work?

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892422)

Yeah? All the grunt work is free and they don't use $20m worth of hardware and bandwidth.

Re:"a very small budget for a website" (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34894444)

Having seen and toured Wikipedia's cage in Tampa I was impressed with the actual quality of the equipment and Internet feeds. $20M worth, no. But I would say at least half that. Lawyers, staff and office get the rest.

(In Tampa look for the building with the big gecko on the side.)

We Are Not Amused (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892158)

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
United Kingdom

Is that sufficient payment?

Re:We Are Really Not Amused Now (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892170)

Grumpalopes. Hit reply on the wrong post.

Wow! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892176)

Two tenth birthdays in one week - that's impressive!

NPOV ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34892242)

The submission (and link) feels like astroturfing to me. "Look how great we are!" Can I please revert this as not being NPOV? ;-)

Well at least (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892248)

I don't have to puke everytime I visit wikipedia anymore, Mr HappyFace is gone and I hope he won't make another appearance.

10? Acts more like a 2-year-old. (4, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892258)

Shouting nonsense, throwing tantrums when you try to make it do the right thing, always trying to get more out of you.

Re:10? Acts more like a 2-year-old. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34893220)

Earn Money Online software
http://depositfiles.com/files/bw1kkxygp

Already working on the article (1)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892352)

The 10th Birthday of Wikipedia

- Introduction
- History of Wikipedia
- In Animé
- In Manga
- In Graphic Novels
- In Western Animation
- External Links

Anybody have a blurry, grainy cell phone camera to take a shot of the main page?

Wanted to contribute to this thread... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34892356)

... but sadly the thread it was already deleted by some moron with admin rights.

I probably should not have tried to write in the german version wikislashdotpedia...

I realised... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892380)

I saw the giant banner at the top of the page. Good thing people donated - thereby ensuring that they don't need to move to an ad-supported model - adding giant banners at the top.

The irony.

Re:I realised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34893500)

The banner's just there to make us grateful. Every time I see it, I think "oh thank God they don't have Jimbo's face there any more".

I assume the next fundraising campaign will be "moar money or the face comes back!".

free edits (2)

Chaseshaw (1486811) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892386)

Due to recent edits on wikipedia, wikipedia is today, in fact, having it's 250th anniversary.

Re:free edits (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892444)

Due to recent edits on wikipedia, wikipedia is today, in fact, having it's 250th anniversary.

That was ten minutes ago. It's on its 8 billionth birthday now.

Wikipedia, Google, Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34892452)

Most productive data-mines ever made. Congratulations to the UK/US governments. Welcome to the New World Century. Let's not forget to celebrate ten years of the Patriot Act when it comes around... sure as the sunrise.

PLEASE READ: a personal appeal (4, Funny)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892456)

Sir,

My name is Jimmy Wales. Ten years ago not a lot of people believed a second-rate day trader turned pornographer would be able to follow the Rand dream by exploiting thousands of people across the Internet into wasting their time writing a successful web site for him, the only purpose of which was to further his fame and bank account.

At that time it would have been silly to suggest that antisocial twenty-somethings would spend months - sometimes years - warring over some irrelevant fact to establish their bias in an atrociously written article covering some topic related to their political belief or esoteric interest. I would have been laughed at if I'd have suggested that people across the world wouldn't consider me bordering on racially exploitative if I suggested that people should donate toward this project to help the "child in Africa".

But it's 2011, guys, and, fuck me! I did it.

So, if you learnt just a little bit about how a lack of scruples and a solid cult of personality can earn a creepy middle aged man world-wide fame while diminishing the usefulness the world's most important information medium, why not donate at least £5/$5/€5? After all, if I can do it, maybe you can. Let me sell you a drop of the most pathological corruption of the capitalist dream. And that's why you're really donating, isn't it?

Sincerely,

Jimmy Wales
Sole Founder
Wikipedia.org

Re:PLEASE READ: a personal appeal (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892778)

Ouch. Harsh.

Despite the fact that I agree with your assessment of the situation, I've contributed a bit to Wikipedia here and there, to clear up some obvious issues in the articles that bothered me. For that, I've been accused of many things, including being someone's publicist, because I removed a clear personal attack on a living person from their biography. It's pretty clear to me that the vast majority of people editing Wikipedia are not interested in following the guidelines, and they're merely interested in filling it with fancruft (how many articles on anime and Buffy the Vampire Slayer do we really need?! Hint: zero.), using biographical articles to slander celebrities they dislike, and starting articles on corporations just so that they have a place to put stuff that should realistically be on the BBB, not a encyclopedia. I really don't give a shit if some corporation sued a bunch of pirates, but God help you if you try to remove that from an article. You'll be accused of being a member of RIAA/MPAA/BSA.

Wikipedia is essentially a scam by Jimbo Wales, and it's nearly worthless outside of certain areas that don't attract teenagers and Aspies, but... I suppose it's better than nothing.

Re:PLEASE READ: a personal appeal (2)

peter318200 (812109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893674)

As someone who has witnessed the removal of an article on a mens rights activist and author by a radical feminist and lesbian moderator without a trace of irony or concern about conflict of interest or the evils of censorship I would state that Wikipedia is the finest example of group think and social conformity available in the western world outside of Face book of course!
Fuck Wikipedia

To paraphrase Jimmy Fallon: (0)

Smashe01 (1486933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34892486)

"It's Wikipedia's 10th birthday, but coming from their site who knows if that's true or not..." :)

Re:To paraphrase Jimmy Fallon: (1)

gbl08ma (1904378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893054)

[ This article does not cite any references or sources ]
[ Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed (January 2011) ]

[ This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions (January 2011) ]

Wikipedia is 10 years old [citation needed]. 10 years helping students to do copy&paste thinking they would get good marks at school [1]. 10 years of Creative Commons content [citation needed].

So, happy [citation needed] birthday Wikipedia!

References
____________
[1] Common sense. At least in Portugal.

[ This article is a stub. Please help Wikipedia by improving it ]

Re:To paraphrase Jimmy Fallon: (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893196)

10 years of Creative Commons content [citation needed].

Actually Wikipedia started out with GFDL content. RMS even made a special exception in the new version of the GFDL to allow Wikipedia to switch to CC.

ad free? pharmaceutical shill (-1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893060)

Wikipedia is an ad, for "our" monumental, failing medical industrial complex.

WP tows AMA-pharmaceutically friendly lines on drugs and medicine. Wikipedia routinely disses (super)nutrition and functional medicine, science and clinically based parts of "alternative medicine." Wikipedia is strongly biased by conventional medical quackery and pseudoscepticism, that studiously avoid acknowledgement of important conflicting facts and cheaper, safer, more effective methods.

If you think Wikipedia is a reliable source of information about nutrition and medicine, alternative or conventional, remember, there was man named Charles Darwin. He's got an award waiting for you.

Happy birthday indeed. truly. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893098)

i have history as my hobby and i do a lot of reading. before, it was quite burdensome. finding the right subject article, finding it in right detail. then, needing to get more detail on a sub-section and having to go all through that over and over again with horrible half assed results from google, altavista, yahoo searches etc, enthusiast forums this that.

wikipedia changed it for me. sufficient detail on each article, sufficient detail in each of the relevant topics you can go into from in-site links, at whatever level of depth you want, and, if you need much more, i could just check the references and do lengthy, in-concise, academic reading from those references.

i had had devoured much more topics and subjects on world history in just 2-3 years than i did in the preceding 15 years, even using my university's library back then. (to the extent of reading francis drake's journals from his own book).

yeah, so i thank wikipedia. i thank everyone who had contributed to it. from heart. thank you.

note : on biases, trolling, this that - if one does not have the mental prowess to discern biases, s/he shouldnt be reading anything that is publicized in the first place. EVERYthing has biases, including encyclopedia britannica, and larousse. criticizing wikipedia for biased articles, is bullshit of the first order.

Time to change the Wiki Slogan (2)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893400)

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Really, when was the last time you edited a Wikipedia article via Tor or an anonymous proxy server? So, no, the "anyone" part needs to be changed since Wikipedia discriminates against users of those services, who can only edit when their proxy is fresh enough not to be included in the list of banned IPs. Yeah, I know, there's a reason behind the anti-open-proxy policy but, still, not everybody (who wishes to maintain their anonymity) can edit Wikipedia.

How to use Wikipedia (3, Insightful)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893412)

  1. Look up an article on Wikipedia
  2. Find the facts you were looking for
  3. Check the sources for given facts, or Google for them if not present
  4. Profit!!!!

Honestly, so many slashdotters crying about the suckiness of Wikipedia are just using it wrong. Wikipedia is not the source of all truth. (protip: neither is Britannica)

Debate about Wikipedia is too consumer-oriented (4, Insightful)

blubadger (988507) | more than 3 years ago | (#34893452)

You think that article X is [wrong] [incomprehensible] [incomplete]? So fix it yourself.

There's too much on X and not enough on Y? Go on then, write the Y article.

The editors are [self-serving] [elitist] [evil]? Come back and complain after you've done a thankless stint reverting vandalism.

Wikipedia is crazy not to take ads? Would you work for free in order for someone else to get paid?

The Wikipedia criticism industry is a pure product of the me-me-me consumer age. The marvel of Wikipedia is precisely that it is not a consumer product. It is about the producers and their astounding feat of working together, unremunerated, while sorting out their differences, to create an incredible body of written knowledge that didn't exist before.

Stop those d#@n banners, please! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34893774)

Wikipedia, all knowledge of the world at your fingertips, without advertising, ADs or banners....

Nohing more absolutely UNTRUE!

Each and every article of wikipedia visited (without storing the cookies) always has that one or another banner, most with the face of Jimmy Wales

- We need money
- Please donate
- We need more money
[here the average Joe gives up and goes to donate something, it's for a good cause]
- We still need money
- Thanks for the money
[at this point our friend Joe might think it's over with the banners..]
- More Thanks for the money
- Some other initiative of ourselves!
- Happy birthday to ourselves!
- Wikipedia 10 years!
- Wikipedia 10 years and one month!
- A personal message of Jimmy Wales: I have a new dog!
[ and so forth to the infinite, not to mention how the text of the banners is in a different language every time, based on the page visited]

The ironic part is that things are structured in a way that not even Adblock hides such banners, no filter seems to contain them.

Now, Jimmy, mate,

THANKS for Wikipedia, REALLY it is a GREAT thing you gave to the world, but...

1. It's ok, your beardy friendly face has been shown enough to the all world in all possible languages. You are a star!
2. You reached the financing target for 2010. New years new chances, but please give donors a bit fresh air without the banners.
3. "Wikipedia has no Advertisement": don't you think that's just a bit contradictory? Wikipedia itself is the most annoying advertiser I had on my browser in the past 10 years!
4. I give you 10 dollars if you take away all Wikipedia banners about Wikipedia for an entire Wikipedia month.

Wikithanks.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>