The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I say this boldly and I do not think I'm wrong. In our time we have been privileged to be alive to witness the inception of the internet (by the broad public - it is older than most of us). We have also been witness to new technology, such as the widespread use of the PC, and development of internet search, technologies that will have broad impact on social organization and far reaching consequences on humanity. I believe however that of all the things that we have seen in our lifetime, the greatest of all these creations is Wikipedia.

I believe that Wikipedia is greater than Google, and will become more important than it. I believe that Wikipedia will change humanity like nothing else we have seen in our lifetime. I am just in awe of it, at its system, the way it functions, it's depth, it's quality, it's ability to peacefully explain extremely controversial issues such as Israel and abortion in a public forum where everyone has an ability to alter it.

Be in awe of Wikipedia. It is greater than any of us or anything we will ever hope to produce in our lifetime.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

cause nodrog said so (2 years ago afaik)

wikipedia is the best thing the internet delivers.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

add it. :0

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I disagree with the greatness of wikipedia. I find it trite and misinformed at times. However as a basic introductory guide I find it solid.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

it's shit on diana cooper.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I feel there are too many references to references that reference the reference to the initial reference.

More facts, less references plzkthx

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

It isn't that great or it would do Flavius' homework for him.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

so essentially it is as good as flavius himself.

pretty damning truth isn't it.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Wikipedia is a biological database of computing power driven by social networking, in much simpler terms its a thinktank.

"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

wikpedia is is an embodiment of the modern belief that knowledge is a cheap thing.

that knowledge doesn't require effort.

doesn't require effort.

but instead if you get enough people who do not know to agree then that is the same as one person knowing.

it's lazy. it's flawed. oh oh and it doesn't work.

(disclaimer: at least i tried to read djbass's post before i moved on to just reading my own)

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I tried to play with the parts of this sentence to make it less confused, but it just didn't work out. However, I believe I have improved it some: at least now it's not making some crazed concocted assertion based on no evidence whatsoever.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Well I also edited it, and certainly to me at least it's now making more sense. Any unused words were scrapped, no additional words were added, though I did borrow an apostrophe or two since Yahwe's grammer is shocking.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Specifically I find at times that articles are written by people who clearly have not read the source material they are commenting on and yet feel perfectly capable of writing effective encyclopaedia entries on it. This is a general error in method, not a deficiency in knowledge.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

ITT Yahwe shows what happens after spending an hour and a half talking to a welshman in the middle o the night.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

That's ok, because someone who does know the source material can obviously correct and add to the existing information.

Pretty much all the entries start off somewhere, and the information they contain might only be basic or even wrong on several points, but then that base gets added to, changed and refined. It's more of an open draft that never gets finished, gets better as it ages and all the while keeping up with changes to the source material. That last point is something a conventional encylopedia couldn't possibly compete with, they get revised at regular intervals but it's not nearly as convenient as having the most up to date material at hand as it happens.

In addition to this it is a moderated medium and they make sure a minimum standard is adhered to.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

You're not following. The information would be changed back by most people for the simple reason that they're sure the initial comments were accurate because it sounds sensible. However it's actually categorically wrong for fairly precise reasons that most people just wouldn't understand.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

If you just deleted comments then sure, they might be restored. However, if one paragraph of text was replaced with another it's very unlikely it'd be changed back by someone who was merely operating under the premise it "sounds sensible". Edits would only tend to be undone by people who think they know what they're talking about.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Added emphasis on the last line.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Incidentally, here's an interview with the founder of Wikipedia which was featured on Slashdot today

http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1042

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Wikipedia is actually quite shit for most things. The only thing it does seem to excell at is banal stuff. (It's good for researching old games, that kind of thing.) But if it's anything controversial, (History, Politics) you can just about forget it. I prefer to pick up a book.

Oh, and

Someone caught the Blairspeak bug.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Depends what you mean by a book. If you mean a book dedicated (broadly speaking) to the subject you're interested then of course that's going to be superior. There's no way a four thousand word article (on Marxism) can compete with even the shortest book on the subject (or the M&E 40 volume collected works).

But Wiki vs Britannica (say), Wiki doesn't do too badly.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Im sorry but if we are talking about the best creation ever, play dough easily comes higher than Wikipedia.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I don't know. That's brought happiness to many young (and not so young) children, whereas wikipedia brings fairly unbiased (even if slightly innacurate) knowledge to anyone with an internet connection.
Yeah, you're right. Play dough probably does win.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

LEGO ftw

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I don't know if you can call Wikipedia a 'creation' as such - to me it's just the reworking of an old idea into a new format. There's also a sense that given the technology and learning available to the public the creation of something like Wikipedia was to some degree inevitable. I don't mean to detract from Wikipedia, certainly the idea is a good one, but I don't think that it would stand up to other modern inventions if there was some objective way of evaluating the impact of those inventions.

I like Wikipedia for looking up subjects that, while fairly popular, are not standard encyclopaedia
material. Pop culture references for the most part. It's also refreshing to be granted a layman's take on certain subjects; ultimately while a Wikipedia reference isn't going to get you any closer to your PhD, it's good for casual learning. People who don't learn casually (alongside formal education preferably) tend towards being either a. rather ignorant or b. rather boring.

I'm not convinced this interview is anything more than an attempt to make the reader subconsciously link Wales with Lamb. :p

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Well, this is why I don't really like encyclopedias full stop. And I don't really see Wikipedia as anything but a fairly bad example of them. I don't really see why you would favour Wikipedia over any other encyclopedia in terms of 'serious' subjects.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Well, they are very poor as sources of academic reference of course, if you were trying to write a thesis based purely on encyclopaedia articles then you would never get very far. That doesn't mean they're not useful, just not a substitute for a dedicated book on a subject.
It's free (as in speech and beer), it updates much faster and it isn't cluttered with annoying adverts, doesn't force me to subscribe for "Limited Trials" and doesn't attempt to sell me things.

And perhaps most important it accepts contributions/edits in an open fashion. I remember spotting a mistake in Microsoft's Encarta some years ago, and there was no easy way of getting it corrected. Wiki is different. The non-heirarchical model of editing also means there is (in the long term) more hope of a open and free account of many important subjects.

Besides, you cannot underestimate how important a copyright free encyclopaedia is - especially to those countries where complete sets of encylopaedia's are way out of the reach of the populace. For those not particularly bothered about free software / copyright issues I can imagine it's of considerably less value.

I'd argue that pretty much apply to any invention I can think of.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I agree, but find the invention of Wikipedia adds less to the sum of its parts than that of, for example, radio.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I think the main advantage that Wikipedia has over conventional encyclopaedias is that the format gives more exposure to fringe viewpoints because of the "discussion" link featured on each page. While most articles do tend to be as one-sided as those on (say) Britannica, and just repeat the current academic consensus while ignoring marginalised viewpoints, the arguments which take place on Wikipedia allow the interested reader to see various points of controversy, allowing followup research. I see this inherant scepticism towards authority and expertise as Wikipedia's primary virtue, and the fact that it normally takes place outwith the actual articles means that it doesnt often get in the way of the standard 'summary of academic views' that most people look for in encylopedias. This applies doubly so to topics which, by their very nature, cant really be given a value-neutral presentation (such as the various entries on Scientology which I was reading a few days ago)

Perhaps its just a personal thing, but I'd much rather read a perpetual 'work in progress' emerging out of the arguments of people who disagree, with all debates and intermediate stages open to public viewing, than just see the 'finished version' written by the pen of one Official Expert.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

you've not done any academic research have you ...

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Most of the entries on subjects related to (eg) physics or mathematics tend to be written by people who have a postgraduate level of education, or equivalent. WIth less scientific subjects (philosophy, sociology etc), the validity of distingusing sharply between 'professionals' and 'educated laymen' is debateable. Obviously if some random loon is excreting ignorance over the page of a subject he doesnt understand this is a bad thing, but in these cases those that have the relevant knowledge will normally edit out his ravings.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

look gordon.

you said

what the hell do you really think academics do?

do you imagine that they just sip tea and occaissionally dust 'THE BIG BOOK OF THE TRUTH'?

the problem with wikipedia is obvious when you compare it to the academic world (a world that you seem to be entirely ignorant of). all knowledge all learning is a work in progress. the academic souces are. wikipedia is. the difference is that wikipedia is done by amatures and second rate nerds with chips on their shoulders.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Clearly yahwe has not received his new copy of the "big book of the truth" and is now just lashing out :(

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

We're not talking about the actual development of theories, we're talking about their presentation in encylopaedias. Peer review obviously leads to a combatative environment, but this isnt always reflected in field overviews, which tend to overstate consensus and marginalise fringe viewpoints. In my experience even undergraduate level textbooks are bad for this kind of thing, let alone encylopedia entries.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

What did second rate nerds ever do to you?

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

That wasn't made in our generation was it. Otherwise I would have picked it. Bitch. ;)

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

Wasn't made in our generation either. Hah.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

i'm talking about the supposed 'value' of wikipedia.

if you want to argue that wikipedia is better than encyclopedia britanica then by all means do so.

but the obvious point you will be choosing to ignore is that the encyclopedia britanica is only used to teach children the absolute basics.

i doubt that you want to just say "wikipedia is a far better introductory reference service for 5 year olds than britanica"

If you do then fine.
I expect you might be right. (personally i don't have to worry about the challenges involved in educating children)

all encyclopedias simplify. simplification is always useless in the long run. it is only a beginners tool. wikipedia uses amatures to simplify knowledge. i wouldn't choose to subject my children to the simplified ideas of complete amatures. so i would probably still buy my children britanica because i would rather they were reading a book with me than sitting staring at a computer screen.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

All encyclopedias simplify. As do all books which propose to give a summary/introduction to a field. As do most textbooks outside of those intended for advanced graduate level classes. However all of these are intended for a different audience - I don't want to have to slog my way through a 400 page book when all I want is a quick summary of scientology or current trends in the philosophy of action There's too much information in the world to read a series of books everytime you have a passing interest in something, although obviously youre going to need to do this if you want to have anything that even approaches knowledge of the field.

I'm not sure what your point is. Encylopedias arent intended to be a replacement for peer reviewed journals, and noone is claiming that they perform this function.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I said that. (see above)

if you are unsure why don't you read what i typed and if there a bits you can't understand then highlight them and ask questions or ask me on irc.

Re: The Greatest Creation of our Time
 

I suppose I meant 'a layman's take' to mean a generalised summary of a subject.