Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.9.97

Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

2 Million Wikipedia Articles in English

     
5:46 pm on Sep 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:23279
votes: 360


Wikipedia published its 2-millionth article in the English language version of the anyone-can-edit encyclopedia, a symbolic milestone for the world's largest user-generated Web publishing site.

2 Million Wikipedia Articles in English [uk.reuters.com]

That's quite a few articles, so, well done contributors!

The thing that gets me is that I always wonder about accuracy of the articles.

5:53 pm on Sept 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Full Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Dec 8, 2006
posts:227
votes: 0


The thing that gets me is that I always wonder about accuracy of the articles.

Some articles are as accurate as my speculative posts ;).

5:55 pm on Sept 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 19, 2004
posts:505
votes: 0


I always wonder about accuracy of the articles

Yeah, me too. The BBC has an interesting article that compares Wikipedia to Britannica [news.bbc.co.uk].

When considering entries about organizations, businesses, or people it's always a wonder of mine how much of the entry was written by the org./business/person in question. Talk about skewed and subjective....

6:46 pm on Sept 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 6, 2005
posts:313
votes: 19


Does Wiki not use loads of older Brittanica content. I am sure I have seen lots of text from one of their out of copyright editions on Wikipedia.

That said it is an amazing project, just take what it says with a pinch of salt.

9:14 pm on Sept 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 31, 2007
posts:85
votes: 0


I never assume any article is accurate or inaccurate simply based on the source, whether it's wikipedia, britannica, or anything else. If the subject isn't that relevant, sure, i'll just read the first source that looks plausible and make a judgement call on its accuracy. But if it's a serious subject, i'll read at least two articles from two separate sources, one of them being non-corporate/non-government, anything less and i'd be cheating myself. Wikipedia is usually one of my stopping points but definitely not the only one.
1:47 pm on Sept 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Mar 20, 2007
posts:160
votes: 0


Wikipedia is not a source you can always count on! Don't forget that you can change content any time you want which does not necessarily mean that it would be true.
2:21 pm on Sept 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 7, 2005
posts:656
votes: 0


"That said it is an amazing project, just take what it says with a pinch of salt."

That is exactly what proper Wikipedians will encourage you to do: A.) Ejoy its information and B.) learn to evaluate information and its sources critically.

All other encyclopedias that I know are constrained to A.

Regarding the Britannica/Wikipedia comparison: That's more than a year old now, Wikipedia has developed a lot since then.

Regarding the old editions of Britannica: True, but this makes only a very small fraction of the total information that is currently part of Wikipedia.

2:53 pm on Sept 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 26, 2003
posts:568
votes: 0


All major categories in wiki have senior/experienced members who regularly check new submissions and edits to make sure they are accurate (as much as possible)