I am amazed to read the development of Wiki. The short article of Wikipedia : perspectivesPar Marc Foglia et Chang Wa Huynh aroused my interest to such a wonderful story. I have been an ardent user of wikipedia without really appreciating the fantastic history behind it. Wikipedia today covers more pages than the Britannica. It is free, with a high degree of exactitude and is continously being updated. More over, it is off my laptop, so accessible and practical. I do not consult my old edition of the encyclopedia, I bought years ago.The series of 15 or so heavy books sit lazily and nicely on a bookshelf today.
Last Saturday, a friend came home and she was very keen in wanting to know more of a flower she was offered. Sure enough within a few seconds she had the information she wanted. The world of Magnificat Medinilla opened up to her.
Welcome to the world of Wikipedia.
3 comments ↓
I think wikipedia is a very nice place to refer to. It is usually my first choice destination when I’m looking for something, as it contains extensive information about a variety of topics.
The only problem with wikipedia and the reason why wikipedia definitions cannot be used as a reference in university is that there is no guarantee on the veracity of the descriptions. So what I do is to read the entry, and maybe skim over a more “official” paper somewhere else. If something seems sketchy, I certainly won’t take it seriously, although that has yet to happen. So far the admins have been better than the vandals.
related interesting read: http://techdirt.com/articles/20060801/0128222.shtml
I hold the same view as Olivier about Wikipedia. For the more serious subjects, I refer to a more authoritative source. For everything else (information about a movie, a computer problem, etc.), Wikipedia is more than suitable.
I recently enjoyed reading about Lee Kuan Yew on Wikipedia, which motivated me to read his biography offline.
Thanks Guys for the comments which enhance my blog
Leave a Comment