Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
Machines and people are both necessary for Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Google, and neither is sufficient on its own.
I guess there should be somewhere on the Internet that feels like a source of sacred truth. But Wikipedia sure isn't it.
Free services like Wikipedia I don't think benefit anyone - they don't benefit the professional because they're not paid.
Wikipedia was a big help for science, especially science communication, and it shows no sign of diminishing in importance.
Given enough time humans will screw up Wikipedia just as they have screwed up everything else, but so far it's not too bad.
In the world of the Internet, there are many falsehoods. Anyone can write stuff on Wikipedia, and it doesn't have to be true.
Wikipedia works because those who know the truth are usually more numerous and committed than those who believe in a falsehood.
I've been reading a lot of books on history, and watching a lot of educational TV. Wikipedia too, even though it is not reliable.
I have heard that my Wikipedia entry is completely incorrect, but then again, so is everyone else's. I haven't bothered about that.
Wait, Wikipedia isn't working? Why hasn't someone invented a paper version of it? A set of books organized alphabetically by topic?
The strange thing with Wikipedia is that the first article that ever gets written about you will define your Wikipedia page forever.
Wikipedia is wrong! I was born in Los Angeles, not New York, but my parents and I would come here a lot, so I feel like a New Yorker.
The definition of marriage cannot be disputed. It's right there in black and white and it's been the same since the start of Wikipedia.
I looked up affirmative action once in Wikipedia, and it said, 'A measure by which white men are discriminated against,' and I got so mad.
But Akshay Kumar is not even an Indian citizen. He holds a Canadian passport and Wikipedia describes him as an Indian-born Canadian actor.
You know it's Oscar season when you see a slew of new movies based on true stories whose resolutions you can find in three seconds on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's funny. Some of the stuff on there - I go there occasionally - it's unbelievable the amount of stuff that people will write on there.
If it were a choice between putting ads on Wikipedia or shutting down Wikipedia, we would then very reluctantly consider putting ads on Wikipedia.
I think it's important never to look yourself up on Wikipedia. I think the temptation to correct any interesting factual errors would be too much.
Take it from someone who's read the Wikipedia entry: this is how the Ottoman Empire was won: madden horsemen fueled by lethal jet-black coffee-mud.
I have often lost whole days jumping from one Wikipedia article after another in an attempt to understand the full scope of marriage as an institution.
It's fair to say that Wikipedia has spent far more time considering the philosophical ramifications of categorization than Aristotle and Kant ever did.
Everybodys saying, be skeptical of Wikipedia. That is true. They should also be skeptical of everything. We should all be critical consumers of the media.
Everybody's saying, be skeptical of Wikipedia. That is true. They should also be skeptical of everything. We should all be critical consumers of the media.
We have lived in this world where little things are done for love and big things for money. Now we have Wikipedia. Suddenly big things can be done for love.
...I can’t stop squirming. If fidgets were Wikipedia edits, I would have completely revamped the entry on guilt by now, and translated it into five new languages.
To continue down the path of comprehensiveness, Wikipedia will need to sustain the astonishing mass fervor of its birth years. Will that be possible? No one knows.
People take issue with individual aspects of Wikipedia all the time. But it's kind of hard to hate the general idea of a free encyclopedia. It's like hating kittens.
When you consider the magnitude of how many people use Wikipedia globally, there is a potential here for really creating some noise and getting some attention in the U.S.
I'm actually an optimist about what lies ahead. Are wikis reliable? It depends on the specific business. Is Wikipedia reliable? You bet. Wikipedia is a researcher's dream.
Encyclopedias are finished. All encyclopedias combined, including the redoubtable Britannica, have already been surpassed by the exercise in groupthink known as Wikipedia.
When Wikipedia first started, the only people interacting on the Internet were hard core geeks. Now everyone is there, and they're attracted to the easy, free ways to interact.
Wikipedia was offline after an overheating problem at one of its data centers. It was pretty bad. For a while there, people had nowhere to go for phony, inaccurate information.
TV ushered in the age of postliteracy. And we have gone so far beyond that. I mean, what with the Internet and Google and Wikipedia. We have entered the age of post-intelligence.
Poor Vogue is working really long hours - she's a 'model,' that's what it says on her Wikipedia or whatever. People just assume she does nothing but she's super-busy all the time.
If you think of the ideas of open source applied to information in an encyclopedia, you get to Wikipedia - lots and lots of small contributions that bubble up to something that's meaningful.
A lot of stuff in Wikipedia is not true, and that goes for a lot of people. I sometimes think, "How can that happen?" But Wikipedia is maintained by people, and everybody can add stuff to it.
Wikipedia is so dangerous. You go online to look up the definition of eclampsia, and three hours later you find yourself reading this earnest explanation of tentacle porn in [Japanese] anime.
When you look at Yahoo Answers, there can be a lot of garbage. But if you're careful about the rules and supporting good contributions, over time you can get better and better, like Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is just an incredible thing. It is fact-encirclingly huge, and it is idiosyncratic, careful, messy, funny, shocking and full of simmering controversies - and it is free, and it is fast.
People rely on Wikipedia, and a lot of it is wrong. But because there it is on the Internet, they assume it's right. Rumor gets printed as fact. We may have lost our critical facility as a nation.
I'm loath to use my personal life to promote what I do, but at the same time, I don't like a journalist going away with no more than you could get off Wikipedia, where most of it's invented anyway.
I do not need wireless access to Wikipedia. I would prefer to stir-fry my own small intestines than to have continual access to a site where the entry for Klingon is longer than the entry for Latin.
In the media age, everybody was famous for 15 minutes. In the Wikipedia age, everybody can be an expert in five minutes. Special bonus: You can edit your own entry to make yourself seem even smarter.
Even if people would know who we are, or you could click on a Wikipedia page saying my date of birth, it does not necessarily mean that I have to go out on social media and tell you where I'm eating.
I can't tell you how many times I've been writing and then found myself seven clicks deep into a Wikipedia entry that I don't even care about. Self-distraction appears to be my version of sleepwalking.
On my Wikipedia page, it used to say I was born in Belfast, Ireland, then it said Belfast, Northern Ireland, and then it said Belfast, U.K. So there was a little war going on about where Belfast is located.
If I don't get a TV show next year because someone looks up my Wikipedia and it says 'openly gay,' then it's worth the risk because I've had so many years being openly gay and proud of myself as a role model.
Wikipedia, a nonprofit, is an enormously popular website but has managed to operate without advertising. And, you know, maybe it's a little simpler than Google and YouTube, but it does show there's another way.
There are loads of fan sites for the 'Edge,' including deviant art, song lyrics using 'Edge' language, multiple entries on Wikipedia, there are even some 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?' games all about the 'Edge.'