Wikimedia Foundation - Wikipedia

[helena nilo]

"Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge..."
"That's what we're doing.Wikipedia is a project to build free encyclopedias in all languages of the world"
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

I would like to know your opinion about WIKIPEDIA.org

What do you think about the articles written in your own countries, or articles and links about issues related to your own countries ...
i'm not able to read in Balkan languages. I can read the versions or translations in portuguese, english, french spanis or even italian; but tha's not enough to evaluate the quality of the articles referring to your countries.

I've notice that some of you read it too ... in relation to Portuguese articles I can say that even so many are good, others need being reviewed.

About this:
old posts,but quite interesting one's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...and_Britannica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._December_2005
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0512...l/438900a.html

[albgene]

"Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge..."
"That's what we're doing.Wikipedia is a project to build free encyclopedias in all languages of the world"
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

I would like to know your opinion about WIKIPEDIA.org

What do you think about the articles written in your own countries, or articles and links about issues related to your own countries ...
i'm not able to read in Balkan languages. I can read the versions or translations in portuguese, english, french spanis or even italian; but tha's not enough to evaluate the quality of the articles referring to your countries.

I've notice that some of you read it too ... in relation to Portuguese articles I can say that even so many are good, others need being reviewed.

About this:
old posts,but quite interesting one's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...and_Britannica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._December_2005
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0512...l/438900a.html

I certainly applaud the concept but as anything else has the pros and cons. The obvious pro is that it has quiet a lot of info and it's free of charge and the evident con would be the fact that anyone can edit it.

[Balozi]

wikipedia is a good project. the only point where there are arguments about it is in historical issues. some people may try to distort history by editing the articles. however, if you have monitored wikipedia a bit, you should know that there are professional editors who dont let anything be written in there. furthermore, there are many users who monitor every article, and so propaganda is hard to go through. you will see most wikipedia articles being moderate

what i really hate however is that many people (for example in this forum) condemn wikipedia whenever it doesn't suit them, and whenever it suits them, they present as "source" articles from wikipedia clone sites such as answers.com (and they say it's not wikipedia, it's answers.com)

because of such cases, i think wikipedia should be read and studied, but not presented as a "source" (not it, nor clone sites). after all, it's easy to find the information that lies in its articles, simply by searching the net, or checking wikipedia's source links for each article

[helena nilo]

anyone else has an opinion on this matter ?

:type:

[helena nilo]

New WikiProjects and Collaborations -Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulgaria

"Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to Bulgaria. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there.
For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices."

for more information see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...oject_Bulgaria

[Balozi]

i think there are such projects for all countries (or not?)

[helena nilo]

i think there are such projects for all countries (or not?)

It´s in Their news...

and it's a project to: "better organize information in articles related to Bulgaria"

it seems they are looking for new/more partcipants.

[Balozi]

possibly

[helena nilo]

"Larry Sanger, first editor-in-chief of Wikipedia, plans to fork the project. In Berlin he announced the start of Citizendium — the citizen's compendium. Main differences: no anonymous editing, and experts will rule the project. Members of Wikipedia were not amused."
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...21226&from=rss


http://citizendium.org/
The Citizendium Project

The Citizendium (sit-ih-ZEN-dee-um), a "citizens' compendium of everything," will be an experimental new wiki project that combines public participation with gentle expert guidance. It will begin life as a "progressive fork" of Wikipedia. But we expect it to take on a life of its own and, perhaps, to become the flagship of a new set of responsibly-managed free knowledge projects. We will avoid calling it an "encyclopedia," because there will probably always be articles in the resource that have not been vouched for in any sense.
continue...

and

in: http://www.citizendium.org/#editors

"The Role of Editors

Who will be able to become an editor, and how?

Please consult this discussion, but in short, it will work like this. We want the wiki project to be as self-managing as possible. We do not want editors to be selected by a committee, which process is too open to abuse and politics in a radically open and global project like this one is. Instead, we will be posting a list of credentials suitable for editorship. (We have not constructed this list yet, but we will post a draft in the next few weeks. A Ph.D. will be neither necessary nor sufficient for editorship.) Contributors may then look at the list and make the judgment themselves whether, essentially, their CVs qualify them as editors. They may then go to the wiki, place a link to their CV on their user page, and declare themselves to be editors. Since this declaration must be made publicly on the wiki, and credentials must be verifiable online via links on user pages, it will be very easy for the community to spot false claims to editorship."

[Mytilinios]

wikipedia is a good project. the only point where there are arguments about it is in historical issues. some people may try to distort history by editing the articles. however, if you have monitored wikipedia a bit, you should know that there are professional editors who dont let anything be written in there. furthermore, there are many users who monitor every article, and so propaganda is hard to go through. you will see most wikipedia articles being moderate

what i really hate however is that many people (for example in this forum) condemn wikipedia whenever it doesn't suit them, and whenever it suits them, they present as "source" articles from wikipedia clone sites such as answers.com (and they say it's not wikipedia, it's answers.com)

because of such cases, i think wikipedia should be read and studied, but not presented as a "source" (not it, nor clone sites). after all, it's easy to find the information that lies in its articles, simply by searching the net, or checking wikipedia's source links for each article

Well I think you said everything that I was planning on saying.

[Balozi]

this citizendium sounds promising but so did wikipedia :P
in history matters i still stick to britannica :P

ps: 1911 britannica also got for itself a wiki style edit system :O omg. a great source ruined

[Kula]

Wikipedia is fairly neutral or at least the articles that are monitored by several users or the English ones. Of course Wikipedia doesn't suit people who support some kind of revisionists views and alternative theories. For example the Holocaust issue, they claim it never happened and Wikipedia's articles states the opposite, same thing with every other topic.

[Mytilinios]

^ Yeah, I think thats why the Fyromians hate it so much... :whistling


Balozi, I noticed that to about the 1911 Encyclopedia. But they seem to be 100x more strict than every Wikipedia, because they have an original text they are following and when something changes they have something to base it on to revert it. And they don't tolerate even a word change, I tried it just to test them out, and they didn't let it fly. :common051 I have some scanned pages saved on my computer from the Encyclopedia anyway which I use, but those are mainly pages which are of interest to me, certainly not the whole thing.