|
| |
Things you never knew about Wikipedia
Monday 2nd July 2007, 10:17
Digg.com - You probably know Wikipedia as the world’s largest encyclopedia, suitable for research on most any topic. You know you can look up terms, but what you may not know is that Wikipedia features a ton of other information that can do a lot more than help you with that research paper. Wikipedia can also be a:
- TV Episode Guide. Just search for “list of ____ episodes” with the name of the show, and you will see every episode catalogued and summarized, often with trivia and other factoids.
- Cliffs Notes Replacement. Don’t want to read that weighty tome for your literature class? Don’t worry, Wikipedia is on your side. Just type in the name of the book, and you will be presented with a plot summary, themes, symbols, and other in-depth analysis.
- Learning Activities. This is from Wikiversity, a Wikipedia sister site. Whether you are a student wanting extra practice for a difficult subject or a teacher looking for homework assignments or handouts for your students, Wikiversity provides tutorials and worksheets on subjects ranging from AJAX programming to Philosophy. Wikiversity is currently woefully incomplete, but many subject have lengthy, well-written tutorials.
- Stock Images Collection. Need royalty-free stock images for your next web design or desktop publishing project? Turn to Wikimedia Commons, where you can browse images by subject, licence, or author. So if you need, for example, a radioactive Diderot for that big presentation to the investors, you’re all set.
- Music Database. Want to discover new music? Wikipedia has extensive cataloguing of music by genre, making it easy to find similar bands to those you already like.
- Time Capsule. Want to know what people thought of a topic years ago? Wikipedia archives all changes, so simply by clicking on the “history” tab on top of the page and then “Earliest” on the very bottom you can see an article as it was written years ago. Aside from demonstrating the fluid and ever-changing nature of Wikipedia, but also offers a glimpse into how people thought years ago. The value of this technique will increase over the years as Wikipedia gets older.
- Future Planner. Just as it can go backward in time, Wikipedia can also go
backward forward. Wikipedia has articles stretching far into the next millennium. Want to see what you need to schedule for 2008? How about the World Cup in 2038? And be sure(assuming you’ve reached immortality) to pencil in the unsealing of that time capsule in 8113 AD.
- Trend Tracker. Perhaps even more important than what people are searching for on Google or other search engines is what people are researching. This page show the most popular Wikipedia articles. For example, following the Super Bowl, a lot of people went to research Prince,whose search numbers spiked recently. A list of sexual positions, however, remains an all-time favorite. Which brings us to our next and final topic:
- Teacher of Sex Positions. The list is more comprehensive than most books on the topic, complete with pictures. Hell, you can even use Wikipedia to look for porn.
And there you have it. I’ve only scratched the surface of the myriad uses of Wikipedia. It is truly an incredible resource I turn to time and time again. I conclude with this cartoon from xkcd, which pretty much sums everything up:
| Comments |
Exactly why I *like* Wikipedia
For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case. While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity, Wikipedia's neutrality and impartiality is very important.
I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted was because we didn't believe that the organisation was notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This was done through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation - I will let the reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a deletion review process.
Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Though it isn't prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.
Personally, I don't believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with organisations and individuals.
Chris Sherlock
User:Ta bu shi da yu
English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)
dr
Posted
by david hill
on Wednesday 4.07.2007, 10:10 PM “Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time.”
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland
|
|
|
Sites Linked To This Article
|
|
|
