10 Years of Wikipedia

Friday, January 14, 2011


Wikipedia, the free, web-based, crowd-sourced, multi-lingual encyclopedia, turns 10 years old this month. Brooke talks to Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, about the challenges of maintaining an online democracy that doesn't descend into chaos, and also about what it's like to be targeted by Stephen Colbert's horde of vandals.

    Music Playlist
  • Barcarola
    Artist: Sufjan Stevens

Comments [10]

Brandon " The GREATEST" Burroughs from IN DA BOOKS

TEN YEARS of Wiki!!!!! the overly assitant all knowing and refering website of the web has reached it ten year mark and seems to be going strong. wikipedia has been used for many things in my life such as school work project and information i woulds actually go as far as saying it is one of the most used internet tools in the world. As lonng as wiki satnds i think the user of it and people in need of information shall be happy but if it fails there will most likely be a huge contreversy

Mar. 11 2011 01:56 PM
Will Hernan

Wikipedia is awesome. Any time that I have used Wikipedia I go to the work cited and go directly to the credited source rather than read directly off of the Wiki page.

Feb. 17 2011 12:01 PM
Zachary Hinton from Raleigh

Yes wikipedia is great. But it does scare me sometimes to know that can be edited so easily. I mean how true is the information the infrequent editors are putting out. I now understand why teachers do not want us to use wikipedia as a cite/source. Wikipedia is very easy to use and very easy to read which is why I think so many teenagers use it. But should we take easy route that would maybe be false or the hard route that is probably true?

Feb. 16 2011 11:46 AM
Chubbz Cutts from Your Grandma's House :)

Well personally i LOVE wikipedia and i can honestly say i use it on a daily basis. Ever time i have a school project and i often find myself searching with wiki instead of googlei. Im happy to hear of there 10th birthday and wish their website 10 more years of success.

Jan. 19 2011 12:36 PM
Glen from Longmont, CO

Need I remind all that Nature did a head to head comparison of Britannica and Wikipedia. On accuracy, both sources were shown to be equal (though Wikipedia did loose points for style).

You can see the Nature article here, but you'll have to pay: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Or just read a good synopsis for free by looking on Wikipedia.

Jan. 17 2011 04:42 PM
Gerald Fnord from Palos Verdes, Ca.

The next time _I_ go for angioplasty, I'm getting it done by whoever shows up, is interested, and believes themselves competent...because _I_'m no goddamned √ČLITIST.

Jan. 16 2011 02:35 PM
Olivia Parr-Rud from Philadelphia

You only have to look to New Science to understand why Wikipedia works. It is a perfect example of order emerging from chaos as defined in systems theory (based on quantum physics). Wikipedia will never reach perfection because strange attractors will continue to enter the system. But these strange attractors add energy and allow the system to continually adapt and reflect the overall accuracy of the system. With the speed of change these days, a stagnant system can't do better. And as always, we have to gather information and then look for the truth within ourselves.

Jan. 16 2011 11:53 AM

What a puff piece! You completely failed to point out the key issues with Wikipedia. Those failings are abundantly available on conservapedia.org which cites over 160 examples of bias at http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_bias_in_Wikipedia . There are also examples of Islamic domination of wikipedia here - http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/13/wikipedias-jewish-problem/ - and here - http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660 . The mere existence of conservapedia demonstrates that there are serious issues with the whole methodology of Wikipedia given that it fails to present multiple sides of an issue through its editing process. Your questions were just softballs at this apologist for Wikipedia (Sue Gardner, exec director of Wikimedia). This really shows the liberal bias of this show and National Public Radio at large.

Jan. 15 2011 11:17 PM
Chris from Pomona, Ca

Shawn, a person uses heroin to get high. Why? Because it works. I found Wikipedia very useful in finding out something basic and fast. What is the composition of brass, etc. It was good for me.

Jan. 15 2011 06:44 PM
Shawn Kosior

Sue Gardner said of Wikipedia "...the proof is that people use it."

What a stupid, illogical thing to say. People use heroine too; that doesn't prove that it's good for you. Indeed, the popularity of something is no proof it's quality.

Jan. 15 2011 12:11 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.