I want to support the call for donations from the Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales as emphatically as possible. Although Wikipedia is not optimal in every respect is, yet it is for me now to become häufigstgenutzten source of knowledge. In no time you will find the meaning of terms, looks up a formula or makes connections between different fields of knowledge. I previously had little access to historical data and background, as I only have a few history books at home and the five-volume Brockhaus but more for decoration than for use in the living room was. It was too cumbersome to turn over thick books, where it was present but only very limited knowledge and had the work above all not be available.
Wikipedia has expanded my knowledge so hard on all areas as it would have been absolutely impossible for me otherwise. Because I would much before the PC (both professionally and personally), I almost always have the option to look up in Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be no more, so I'd really leave something. Therefore, we should not be left to finance the "other". I have this year already two or three times a donation in the amount paid by some € via PayPal (PayPal is incredibly convenient for all buyers who it has not yet, may think about it). Otherwise you are, too fast a few euros for a magazine, book, and even completely unnecessary things. In the case of Wikipedia the money in my opinion but very well laid out (so that I can refer to them tomorrow - the emphasis here is on "I" in the event that you do not do it!).
Besides the many advantages Wikipedia has some weaknesses. The (longer in particular) are sometimes a hodgepodge, in which all the authors involved, all would be accommodated. Then what is going on the solid line, the uniform style. Precisely for this reason, Wikipedia a good textbook (eg physics) is not replaced. In a good textbook is the author of a certain style, a solid opinion and raises the important things is more prevalent. These things go down, because if tens of authors and work against each other in the importance of the contributions to offer - and must not forget that - certainly the most prolific authors write out of an ambition, which also includes the important making.
also seem to me the English article - except that they are usually detailed - also much clearer than the German contributions. I think it depends entirely on a country-specific character. The Americans have the tendency to express everything as simple as possible. This may be because the country is a melting pot of immigrants and spoke with one voice and long complicated sentences nested probably not very far comes. The German language and culture on the other hand tends to everything as complicated as possible and perhaps even more comprehensively to formulate in one sentence (or a figure or a formula). This is I noticed it in many Wikipedia articles.
The Swiss historian Peter Haber studied the shortcomings of Wikipedia articles about historical events. He pointed out that the real experts had enough time to their knowledge even further reproduced in Wikipedia, the already in the publishing journals and books. Therefore, Wikipedia is written primarily by interested and committed lay people who have a lot of time. By setting will in Wikipedia, the author the more time to change his disposal. But this was no reason to abandon Wikipedia. see Wikipedia: Between Knowledge and Besserwisserei_derstandard.at
goes partly in this direction also an older article in the newspaper the Standard, entitled "Wikipedia is in the first crisis," where the "War of the editors", "resistance to new content "and" will be spoken instead of new discussions ". As this article is no longer available, I hang it on the bottom.
is sometimes doubted the quality of Wikipedia content. But here, a comparison that the error rate is equal to or even lower than in well-known encyclopaedias such as "Encyclopaedia Britannica". See Wikipedia almost as accurate as Encyclopaedia Britannica_www.spiegel.de .
PS: Wikipedia is entirely by donations and not funded by advertising. Ca. 30 employees are employed by Wikipedia, for which absorbed 40% of the available budget. More details can be found at Wikipedia_de.wikipedia.org .
PS: When dealing with Wikipedia is to review the risk is relatively inefficient, because it is very easy to lose in the variety of information and drifting into other areas. A very nice over-subscription of this danger and the fact that the information can change quite quickly is shown in a video that I like very much: Professor Wikipedia_youtube
Annex
The following standard items of 5 8. 2009 is online is not available and therefore is reproduced here:
Wikipedia is in the first crisis
change of strategy, entry barriers and lack of content providers
The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has become within a very short time
most cited source in the world. Classic reference works, such as
Brockhaus had a hope. But after the
meteoric rise, it seems the height of flight stopped for now.
The question is: Is Wikipedia in the crisis or is it just a little
sagging?
newcomers no longer welcome?
"It's easy to say that Wikipedia will be there forever, but scientific studies show
that this is not nearly as
must be," said Ed Chi of the Palo Alto Research Center compared to New Scientist
. The shape change of strategy of late, the result, it is made more difficult
newcomers to the online encyclopedia
could adversely affect the quality of the offer
so Chi.
PR paradise and censorship
One of the biggest problems for Wikipedia, the content supplier
inside. Who makes quality safe? As can be prevented
romp that is exclusively public relations firms and lobbyists on pages
and thus be more talk of a balanced, objective approach can not
? What content should be deleted and
begins where the censorship? Why user also should continue to invest time in Wikipedia
if the internal structures more
be restrictive and there is no financial compensation? The
online encyclopedia can thus be quite typical of the challenges of user-generated
Content
used. Quality costs money - even on the internet and also offers free
.
Wikipedia started in 2001 and created some very fast million articles.
In 2006, approximately 60,000 articles published each month, since it was
sometimes steeply downhill. Presently, only one-third of this
record value achieved, reports New Scientist. In addition, the scientists found
of Palo Alto Research Center
out their investigations, that both the number of edits and
number of active editors has dropped significantly.
The War of the editors
The distribution of forces within the Wikipedia structure has changed dramatically in the last few years
and not to the benefit, says Chi.
Of the "usual" content supplier inside the irregular
participated clearly indicates the most active and regular participants in
. It locates Chi
a trend of newcomers, but also "temporarily participating, with only a
, an edit of the month, to the edge and pushing more and more excluded.
resistance to new content
A quarter of all entries this "occasional Editors' moored,
were canceled or changed significantly. In 2003 this figure stood at around 10 percent
. "This is a testament to the growing resistance against
new content within the Wikipedia community," said Chi.
long term, would, with this strategy, no new editors
can be obtained that are missing but when there is an urgent
necessary corrections or vandalism
fought. "This will bring a significant loss of quality over time
with it," warns Chi.
discussions take innovations
To the researchers expected to lead the sheer size of Wikipedia
to the fact that not so much about new content and improvements to existing
the article discussed, but to lose
community in discussions about individual edits.
The main interest
The pre-announced results of the studies of Chi
and his colleagues led to some excitement and some violent
discussions. Chis his arguments only one possible view of
developments, however, could also be an advantage and direction for
interpret the future. The large number of remote
contributions could very well be explained by the increasing "spamming" by
companies with PR texts or links to company websites
. Further investigation and further results will be announced by
pages of numerous experts. Even if the interest of the user inside
should be lower, science has now
Wikipedia as a research object for be recognized. (Greg Kucera
derStandard.at, from 5.8.2009)
0 comments:
Post a Comment