Comments on: Wikipedia reaches impressive milestone

By: JOSE PICHARDO

JOSE PICHARDO — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:31:59 +0000

it is expected that an online encyclopedia commemorative reach those levels this and much more

By: Mediumi

Mediumi — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:28 +0000

Less expensive than the massive Britanica books of the past and no sales people to harrass. Most of the masses of hardnocks individuals who are too simple and are not willing to pay for a expensive education for at best a maybe. Why do the well to do seem to know how to credit card as badly as the masses?
I’m degressing from the bigger focus on things in the moment and now. Wikipedia is having trouble making itself relevant economically and intellectually at the same time.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:00:54 +0000

Being a world renowned concert photographer I used to contribute with hard to get photographs of musicians but quit immediately after I had been targeted by power tripping admin. Since then I’ve dedicated my time and effort to my own projects and benefited from it myself, instead of donating it to a thankless bunch that doesn’t appreciate your work. I’m glad I cut my ties sooner than later. I’ve been reaping benefits of working for myself ever since.

By: Gordonrox24

Gordonrox24 — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:49:23 +0000

I am a WP contributor under this username. WP is a great resource when trying to find quick info about a topic. There are little communities dedicated to fixing the problems described above. Come on in and help us write the ‘pedia!

By: Christoph Michael

Christoph Michael — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:58:16 +0000

wikipedia indeed another milestone for human kind may the heavens bless this most wonderous creation of intellect.

By: Kelsey

Kelsey — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:42:59 +0000

I remember once I looked at what caused athlete’s foot and it said that getting a** raped in prison did it… Other than that, it’s pretty helpful.

By: Anthony Maw

Anthony Maw — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:17:38 +0000

Wikipedia is a wonderful information resource but like anything else on the Internet that is publicly authored and is a brilliant idea to engage the public at large to spread their factual knowledge. However one must be careful to assess the accuracy and relevancy of the information being published and I’ve seen some glaring conceptual errors that got published (although I don’t know if they’ve been corrected presently). Also it is entirely possible for one author to edit another author’s contributions although the system does keep track of who changed what.

By: zahid iqbal

zahid iqbal — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:00:49 +0000

I have always seen this encyclopedia to be on forefront to my any queiry.
Above all its free without any conditions. It portrays a different image of American “CORPORATE CULTURE” where without money nothing can be thought of. God may bless those who have done this marvelous gigantic work. I keep on thinking how such a work was possible to be achieved and that too in a world where every thing is for sale.
Keep it up , these are the achievements to be proud of.

By: Chad

Chad — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:21:55 +0000

There are many cons and pros to wikipedia, it’s easily accessible to all, it’s free (with regards to the cost of using it), and is normally a great reference to quench your curiosity. However, many of the articles are not written quite well, have a predominant North American world view, and tend to favor the “wisdom of the masses” as opposed to the “wisdom of the knowledgeable”. Still, as said, it’s an excellent resource to use to answer some of your more simple questions, and to pique your curiosity on others. Just don’t attempt to contribute to it, as often you’ll be navigating a bureaucratic minefield =).