Wikipedia

[anonymous-user]

I’m a big fan of Wikipedia. It’s my go to site for quick facts on pretty much anything. A fantastic resource and if I had to choose to only ever access one site ever again then Wikipedia would probably be it.

I’ve donated in the past and will again in the future.

Just curious if anyone else loves or hates it?

[Baldchap]

Great example of what can be achieved by mankind when we work together. Accuracy is also the highest of the online encyclopedias, contrary to popular belief.

[thebraketester]

It is a fantastic resource. I use it a lot.

[singlecoil]

I bung them a tenner every year or so.

[ZOLLAR]

singlecoil said:

I bung them a tenner every year or so.

I've thought about doing this, I was using it the other day and the pop up for donations appeared.
I've never really donated to online sites etc however I did stop and think I've used it a lot either for a genuine need for information or to burn a moment of boredom.

[LordGrover]

Funny you should mention this; I made a small donation during their recent campaign.

[C&C]

I also use it a often, both for things I need to find out about, and sometimes to just follow random links to discover "interesting" stuff.

I've sent them a donation the last couple of years, and consider that it is a bargain for having such a resource available.

[singlecoil]

[quote=C&C]
and sometimes to just follow random links to discover "interesting" stuff...

[/quote]

I do the same, have spent many an interesting hour learning all sorts of arcane stuff.

Sometimes I play a game with myself to find my way to a particular subject starting from a random page by only clicking links.

[alorotom]

Have to say it’s it’s not a site I’ve really ever used. Maybe 3 or 4 times tops since it’s existed. The last time was recently and I was surprised to see all the guff at the top of the page about donations.

I get that if you use it a lot then fair enough and that the site has no way of differentiating between frequent and infrequent visitors though

[Mound Dawg]

Big fan here. Quite often I'll use it to look something up then click on one of the "links to" at the bottom of the page.

Suddenly it's three hours later and I know how an MK108 autocannon works.

[bucksmanuk]

As others have said, amazing resource.
The "chemistry" pages, info on elements and compounds are fantastic.
Even if it doesn’t have the information pages I want, there's usually a very good clue as to where to go next.
I contribute £20 per annum.

[lufbramatt]

I saw a comment somewhere that if you keep clicking on the first link in the body text of a wiki page you'll nearly always end up on the philosophy page.

[Xtriple129]

As above, my 'go to' site for anything. I do use it a lot and only very rarely check what I have read on there. I also bunged them a few quid recently, they had a campaign and I thought they really deserved the odd shilling seeing as I wear the site out!

[Shakermaker]

lufbramatt said:

I saw a comment somewhere that if you keep clicking on the first link in the body text of a wiki page you'll nearly always end up on the philosophy page.

Yup, pretty much

That's because of the way the pages are structured; the pattern they follow etc to maintain the "look" of the site and make it easy to navigate

[PistonBroker]

I reckon I'm on it multiple times most days.

You're all now making me feel guilty because I've never donated. I'll resolve to do so before the year's out.

[Cold]

The idea is ok but it all depends on those looking after the information being published.

I've had experience of this with regards to a specific, specialist sportscar page. There were a handful of incorrect facts that kept being repeated despite numerous attempts to edit them with the correct info but to no avail. It got so bad that even the retired CEO of the manufacturer tried to help.
It turns out that the main caretaker of the page was a self-important little nobody who proclaimed themselves to be an expert and wouldn't accept that their knowledge was wrong so kept re-editing the corrections.

It's not a source I would ever cite or rely on for accuracy.

[singlecoil]

Cold said:

The idea is ok but it all depends on those looking after the information being published.

I've had experience of this with regards to a specific, specialist sportscar page. There were a handful of incorrect facts that kept being repeated despite numerous attempts to edit them with the correct info but to no avail. It got so bad that even the retired CEO of the manufacturer tried to help.
It turns out that the main caretaker of the page was a self-important little nobody who proclaimed themselves to be an expert and wouldn't accept that their knowledge was wrong so kept re-editing the corrections.

It's not a source I would ever cite or rely on for accuracy.

I think it's as reliabe as any other source of info on the web, and probably in any library.

[StevieBee]

It's a rare gem on the internet. Care is needed on some of the info but is generally pretty much spot on.

I would be interested to know anyone's experience of contributing a page to the site. I've had a look and seems a bit complex!

[LordGrover]

Did you know there's a Scotch version for them lot North of the Border?
Wikipaedia.

[magooagain]

I enjoy the site and its info but I am wary about how easy it is to contribute to the info.

A kit car chap told me how he put false info into a page about exporting kit cars. And then he told me he used the site as proof to authorities to enable kit car exports in France.