Wikipedia appreciation thread

Lets be honest, wikipedia is one of the greatest resources in human history. Does Veeky Forums agree?

Yeah but there's a problem with wikipedia scholars and also people who don't even read the wiki of an easily researched topic when posting

>can be edited by anyone
>heavily politicized
I'm afraid not, user.

>read any article in area of expertise or interest
>experience the same sensation as when hearing 2000s journalists talk about Veeky Forums

yeah, wikipedia is great. to me it represents what the internet should always have been: a crowdsourced tool for learning. i know it's not always perfect, but wow is it better than social media or any of the other "new era" websites. publicly editable information on every topic imaginable is exactly what i want.

i sincerely wish that the internet was just Veeky Forums and wikipedia.

youtube is not bad but you definitely have to wade through shit nowadays

this is something i have noticed several times I had to heavily dive into a certain topic. Either the wiki is a stub/nonexistant or the information is useless and in some cases even harmful to understanding the subject.

A few times I edited articles only to see it deleted shortly after.

yeah but the footnotes and category lists are pretty useful if anything

don't get me wrong, wikipedia is insanely useful but these two criticisms in particular are very concerning:

fuck off

brilliantly put

in response to OP, I'd say you're more speaking about the internet than wikipedia, which is becoming less and less reliable as time goes on and people turn it into an ideological battleground

what I do now is a little more neutral but can be improved. I JEWGLE "best books on ..." and wade through a bunch of blogs' (quora and stack exchange included) lists to get started. after that I can use the bibliographies in those books and am free from the internet and only under the influence of JEWISH ACADEMIA.

I'm kidding about the jew stuff ofc, but I am aware there are always biases with this stuff. Research is fraught, so keep a clear head and try NOT to use wikipedia for the reasons mentioned.

Wiki is either hit or miss as an idea. The very first time you hear of Wikipedia, you'll say, "It can be edited by anyone? Pssh, it must be low quality!" After you use it a bit more and see some great, featured articles, you'll likely say, "Huh, well, I guess it's not too bad."

The problem comes the second you say, "I want to seriously contribute to Wikipedia." Then you'll learn that the only way Wikipedia works is by being bureaucratic as fuck (some of the most powerful users on the various Wikimedia sites are called "bureaucrats").

As a resource that you just use, Wikipedia and similar resources are great. As a resource that you might contribute to, Wikipedia is better than nothing but far from great.

A so called "regress" into "analogue" life would be ideal for me

To once again imbue knowledge with some character

You learn the title of a book relevant to your interests not through a google search but by a human face with similar knowing

Or, if you don't encounter that face, it remains hidden

Analogue Life > Digital

I'm going to write a book about this, hold on to your butts

The progressive (that is to say daily infiltrating virus) infiltration of the shit principles, the programs by which we, collectively, operate, will soon whither away.

Thus speaks the idiot: "Our current mode, capitalism and all its subordinate ideals, is the highest and most peaceful mode of operation humanity has ever known. Why, just look at our cultural acheivements! The internet, for instance! Now we can watch Spiderman 13 in our living room via On Demand supportive cableboxes!"

Analogue re-establishes the proper domain of life: Space and Time and Face and Organism.

The human organism was not meant to be reduced to how you are currently experiencing it. This syntax was created by a living breathing human, the true context of which nobody here will ever experience. And that is not unimportant. The shallowness of commincation on the internet is due in large part to the distance that we have so-called "transcended". We have transcended nothing by connecting the whole world together with such tediously trivial threads. Nothing has been truly connected. Only ghosts and vague ideas. True intimacy is literal near-ness.

Nobody is near anymore. The internet, no matter what content it provides, might as well be a cable running to mars. Nothing connects.

The human organism and its behavior and its magnetic field speaks in ways beyond most everyone's knowing (save the more occult theosophists). There is something definitively lost when we consider this mode of interaction as a substitute for intimacy.

I won't deny the utility of Wikipedia, but the content you can dig up on places like Internet Archive and Google Books is usually more valuable imo. All these different resources make me jealous of kids growing up today. I would skip school and watch PBS all day to satisfy my intellectual curiosity as a kid, and if a donation marathon happened to be going on I was stuck watching Days of Our Lives.

Nigga how high were you when you wrote this?

the reason people will dismiss you here and write you off as verbose and open ended is because your style of having written this does reflect the way thoughts come to someone who is high, let me try to give some insight:

you have many threads which you have established but not explored. These threads are only repetitions of the base notion at the moment because you have not had the patience to stop at the door of each one and let it fill you. The problem with most potheads is, they reiterate a simple base notion with many threads that have not been explored. The reason for the feeling of insight is because the potential is readily apparent when the mapping of the problem occurs. You know that point 1 is incomplete, and you can already feel a rush of a great flood about to burst through point 1 and you can choose to either pursue or continue mapping.

I don't know if you are a smart guy since your post doesn't tell me, it may be that you already know what i'm saying and were planning to expand, or you let the whim take you and were meaning to leave it. either way I can't tell, but what I can say is that it is empty at the moment, the threads really are an empty thing for anyone other than one seeking to investigate since they give him starting points for his parallel search.

best of luck

wikipedia typically deems mass consensus of current events as fact; articles supplemented with citations like from huffington post or the nyt that have been proven by wikileaks to be partisan outlets for propaganda

Many if not most of the interactions I have are still in the so-called analogue realm

ITT: /pol/babies upset that wikpedia isn't stormfront

Cool pic.

This must be taken in the UK (or somewhere else that uses British English) due to the spelling of "centre"

I honestly don't think I've used Wikipedia for at least a few years. I ignore them whenever I search for anything.

Skim wikipedia article, go down to resources, use those sources for your essay, wash rinse repeat

this, desu. even when i was writing my thesis i did most of my real "research" on wikipedia but cited the things that are more proper to be cited. nobody reads journals anymore, why would you?

Looks real comfy