Has Wikipedia Reached the End of the Internet?

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
It may sound strange, but reaching a saturation point in information might just be the case with Wikipedia topics in general. With more readers contributing pertinent facts and many volunteer editors, Wikipedia has just about filled up the knowledge base on major topics. At long last, we have reached the end of the Internet. :D

Obviously, the completion (or near-completion) of so monumental a task is an achievement to be celebrated.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Finally, the sum total of the human knowledge base is at one's finger tips. This is why I made internet services my career.
 
Either way, I love Wikipedia :)

Wikipedia is what the Aliens need to find 10,000 years from now.
 
There's no Wikipedia article about me yet, so it's obviously not finished.
 
TechLarry said:
Wikipedia is what the Aliens need to find 10,000 years from now.
Click to expand...

Uff, no, too many wrong facts on that site, not to mention direct lies, which is why they had to implement that "is this article trustworthy" thingie.
 
MindBuster said:
Uff, no, too many wrong facts on that site, not to mention direct lies, which is why they had to implement that "is this article trustworthy" thingie.
Click to expand...

And the solution is what? Relying on personal accounts and textbooks which are often just as inaccurate? Wikipedia is a source of information that should be taken with a grain of salt and where references should be read... just like any other source of information.

:rolleyes:
 
melteye said:
And the solution is what? Relying on personal accounts and textbooks which are often just as inaccurate? Wikipedia is a source of information that should be taken with a grain of salt and where references should be read... just like any other source of information.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Very true, I'm a scientist and I often read Wikipedia to get my bearings on a new topic. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia but that's not because I think it's data is incorrect. It's because when someone hours back to read my citation then article may have changed with new moire moern info which would result in my citation making no sense. Wikipedia is quite good for what it is, a constantly revised reference text. Is it perfect? No. It's it just as good as most print encyclopedias, I'd say yes.
 
Wikipedia is done? Nothing more to add?

To quote Lord Kelvin
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
 
That's it folks, nothing more to see here, thanks for coming
 
First sign of the digital Apocalypse?

officer_barbrady_move_along_sm.jpg
 
The math sections, while somewhat useful are very lacking compared to other articles / topics / books, but I guess that's what an encyclopedia always was, a starting point.
 
Can't believe the info I get off that site. Who has the time to do all that writing about such esoterica? Man I wish that existed when I was in college.
 
Wikipedia is probably the single best thing to happen to the internet. Besides porn ofcourse. Whenever there is a conflict though, the talk pages of articles that happen behind the scenes though is rough enough to make any seasoned lawyer's head spin, it's that crazy. All in all though, it's pretty amazing.
 
What I really like about Wikipedia is when we read up on a certain topic, the page usually includes additional stuff like history leading to a certain events or something, and any additional topics linked to it. Not all the details are in one page, but it gives a brief summary of the relating topic and include a link for further reading.

For example, if you look up black hole, an astronomy phenomena, most site will probably explain what a black hole is. But in Wiki's article, it include the history leading to its discover, all the details, as well as additional topics linked to black hole like Hawking radiation and information loss paradox, among others. Its good for anyone who's looking for a lot of information relating to a topic.

Of course the downside is its not always beginner friendly, at least for scientific topics. Laymen may be put off by such amount of technical information.
 
Ehren8879 said:
Finally, the sum total of the human knowledge base is at one's finger tips. This is why I made internet services my career.
Click to expand...
Not sure if serious? Wikipedia is a long way from the sum total of human knowledge. It was probably good enough to get me to 3rd year in Engineering, certainly not 4th year and certainly not without some good text books to actually explain things that were either covered too briefly or in terms that didn't make sense. Still plenty of topics that are very in depth but are only covered by a sentence or two or not at all. It's probably more just getting to the point where people who actually know the topics have no great desire to explain them on wikipedia.
PornoSatan said:
Wikipedia is probably the single best thing to happen to the internet. Besides porn ofcourse.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is it's really not much at all :p
 
melteye said:
And the solution is what? Relying on personal accounts and textbooks which are often just as inaccurate? Wikipedia is a source of information that should be taken with a grain of salt and where references should be read... just like any other source of information.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Agree. I've seen many issues with it as well, stemming from basic nuclear process mis-information to misleading errors caused by simple symantics. It's no better and no worse than a lot of older encyclopedias and closed minded professors. I still use it though, it's not even close to being complete.

What would be a cool progression: Creating a massive fuzzy logic AI computer system that teaches itself from wikipedia.
 
I think we will have reached the saturation point when wikipedia becomes self aware and tries to kill us ... isn't that always the ultimate measure of success ... the point that we create something so powerful that it destroys us :D
 
BS, 90% of recorded human knowledge is quoted, referred to or, even mentioned. Those missing nooks and crannies are the size of the grand canyon.
 
kbrickley said:
I think we will have reached the saturation point when wikipedia becomes self aware and tries to kill us ... isn't that always the ultimate measure of success ... the point that we create something so powerful that it destroys us :D
Click to expand...

There are probably a lot of things we could create with the power to destroy us though, so we'd need to create another measure of success beyond that for Wikipedia to really distinguish itself from the pack. Deus from Xenogears might be a good reference point: Created as an interplanetary invasion system, it proved too dangerous to use...so dangerous that even AFTER it was dismantled and wrecked on an unknown planet, it created humanity anew just for slave labor and raw organic parts to fix itself. ;)
 
I use wiki to get a general understanding of a concept. Then I use other sources if I need to cite something.

It really is a fantastic achievement.
 
Ehren8879 said:
Finally, the sum total of the human knowledge base is at one's finger tips. This is why I made internet services my career.
Click to expand...

And most of it is edited by random strangers! Call all the colleges in the world , we've got an incredibly accurate library for everyone! :D
 
xIronCrossx said:
I use wiki to get a general understanding of a concept. Then I use other sources if I need to cite something.

It really is a fantastic achievement.
Click to expand...
When it comes to politics, I use Wikipedia to understand what the fanatical topic campers are thinking on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top