Beyond Reason

The Greatness of Wikipedia

Posted in Personal by Abigail on December 10, 2006

Wikipedia is amazingly awesome. I’ve been there reading about Free Will (because I realized that’s where my ideas are going on this Philosophy & Theology idea) and I’m thrilled. (Notice my complete lack of being articulate – I’m abanding it in the dust just to convey my true feelings about Wikipedia – which makes no sense. In my life, excitement often leads to inability to talk.)

Not too long ago I read about a professor or school banning Wikipedia as a source, which made sense to me. But, since then, I’ve used Wikipedia for many topics and it seems so 1) well written, 2) well constructed, and 3) accurate (since natually I know everything that might go in an encyclopedia I can just compare each entry to my own mind).  Supposedly they have a board of people that regularly review content. That makes it somewhat more credible. What I don’t understand is the similarity in style between entries – they are consistent and yet hundreds of people write these things. Does someone rewrite everything? I would love to know how Wikipedia works. In the mean time, it is cool as heck and I am a loyal follower!

Just for the record, I’m on break right now (6 weeks of pure joy) so I have time to blog and read and write. When school starts, in January, this happy endeaver will greatly decrease.


4 Responses to 'The Greatness of Wikipedia'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The Greatness of Wikipedia'.

  1. larry said,

    what break…you’re supposed to be reading ahead for my class next quarter.

  2. amandalaine said,

    So can I call you by your first name now?

    Supposed to be reading for your class…. hmm, I actually find, uhm, everything else more interesting than Operations Management. I mean that in the best possible way.

    You got any opinions on Free Will?

  3. Larry said,

    That’s the movie about the whale, right?, that was Free Willy. …close…anyway, three months from now you’ll be extolling the wonders of operations management….and begging me to forget that you ever besmirched its fine name.

  4. Jai said,

    Wikipedia is awesome… as far as I know the only people that review items are readers themselves (maybe there’s a few volunteers who monitor a few pages), but each one can be submitted for neutrality disputes, style edits, etc. (see: for example). But *anyone* in the world can edit it (and so can place misinformation or disinformation on it), so its not generally considered a credible scholarly source. The style is typically governed by a style guide, and those articles that don’t meet up to the standard are generally submitted for re-writing and sometimes requesting the help of a subject matter expert. Its a great place for me to keep up with a lot of fiction/non-fiction subjects that I’m not dependent on an unbiased, expert view for 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: