I know this may sound a little off, but wikipedia has always made me feel we're that much closer to a Star Trek style world. Where people help people because they are people, and that makes me feel good.
I've been an avid user for years and I donate monthly. It's a great cause and tool that is well worth any kind of support you're able to give it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Well put blackout, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. Wikipedia is in my opinion, the second most useful site on the Internut.

I like the basic premise of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia for the people, by the people), but I have several large issues with the actual policies and some of the editors/admins. Basically everything on Wikitruth: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Interesting link rembar - sigh. I guess every silver lining must have a cloud. Regardless of its political issues - I still find it a supremely useful site.

I hold faith in that as more and more Wiki users emerge and Wikipedia will rid itself of these effects. Everything that is new has a difficult birth.

Dag, oh, of course, I've heard it said that Wikipedia is one of the few things that could restore someone's faith in humanity. But I try to pimp Wikitruth every chance I get because they do have a lot of information, information that some Wikipedians would prefer buried under tons of internet soil: http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikitruth_on_Wikipedia. Not very Wiki-like of Wikipedia, don't you think? I like Wikitruth's stance too: We like Wikipedia, we contribute to Wikipedia, but we think it needs a lot of adjusting to work well.

When I contribute, I mostly do so in science places. I used to work on martial arts articles, but I gave up because of the mass stupidity I encountered. People who believed in chi blasts, no-knockout touches, "deadly" strikes, that kind of baloney. I hope Wikipedia will change, and I believe it will, in time. But I think the administration in its current form is keeping the project down in many ways.

I love the Chi blast. Especially the fact that it can be countered by having one toe up and one toe down.

Good lord, don't get me started farhad. There are groups that number in the hundreds, if not thousands, who believe that kind of crap about chi blasts, and that's not even mentioning dim mak, the ever-deadly eye gouge, the testicle-ripping, the chest-bursting....

*blows steam*

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Might it also be argued that a community like that functions well under a benevolent despotic ruler - whereas complete democracy could lead to its breakdown?

(Totally hypothetical question - just putting it out there ;-) )

There is a case for that to be made, Jimmy Wales says himself that at the end of the day he can change anything

I don't disagree with that at all. He clearly shows that he had a certain vision for Wikipedia and he wants it to stay to that vision. At the same time you can see that he leaves it to run pretty much on it's own. This is why it works then, additions and changes that are beneficial are incorporated.

Too much democracy would lead to breakdown and standstill. Too much rule would lead to draconian communities that do not grow. There is a balance. But a vision has to exist.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I agree with that balance Farhad. Definitely some lessons there for budding communities.

Is that "wikitruth" website deliberately going for the ranting-raving-nutjob demographic?

I think they actually make Wikipedia look even more respectable than they deserve. I mean, c'mon - "atrocities"?!?

@theo47: Did you actually read through the website, or did you just skim over the front page while working yourself up in indignation before jumping back here? I daresay I know which one you did, because Wikitruth says everything with their tongues planted firmly in cheek. They have to joke about it, because sometimes there's not much more they can do about it than that. If you really want to learn about some of the problems with Wikipedia, go read. If you're ready to accept the fact that Mr. Wales and his followers can do no wrong and that he is in fact the second coming of Christ and that there is not even the slightest chance that there might be, Heavens forbid, a chance of improving the project by changing the manner in which the site is run and the administration and editors are chosen, then by all means, dismiss Wikitruth and every other Wikipedia watchdog website as the work of ranting, raving lunatics.

I think the old movie line went, "You want the truth? ..."

I didn't read all of Wikitruth, but it seemed like some jealous guy trying to put Wikipedia and its founder in a bad light. Most of it was pretty ambiguous, too.

There's a lot of Wikipedia DNA in VideoSift, I gather

A parable: there used to be a lunch place down the street at my work. They has a lunch special for 5 bucks. The place always had a line, cash register ringing away. You could pump your own coffee before ordering. When the owner sold to a new guy, you had to order (and wait for) coffee. It was $2 instead of $1. More importantly, waiting for coffee was slow/inefficient and sent a subtle message of distrust. I went a couple times, but the place was dead and creepy. They closed after 3 months.

The lesson to me is that extending trust to people is a compliment and encourages constructive behavior..

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, December 11th, 2006 12:13pm PST - promote requested by Hex.

*long

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by brycewi19.

yeah well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_wikipedia