Entered CNET Catalog: 10/21/2005
SKU: CNETWIKIPEDIA
Manufacturer: Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
Manufacturer description
Wikipedia is an 100% free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from all around the world.Product summary
The good: Wikipedia is free and easy to access; full of arcane information; evolving constantly; multiple languages; enormous collection of articles and media; works in any browser.
The bad: Vulnerable to vandalism; some Wikipedia sections still under construction; lack of kids' resources; uninspiring interface; demands Web access for most recent content.
The bottom line: Wikipedia offers rich, frequently updated information online, but you might need to verify some of its facts.
Editors' review
- Editors' Choice: No
- Reviewed on: 10/28/2005
Wikipedia is on the bold frontier of open-source information. Free and available online in its entirety, this virtual encyclopedia relies on readers to create and verify its content. Wikipedia is convenient, constantly updated, and easy to use, offering entries you won't find elsewhere. And if you don't find what you want, you can add an entry yourself. Wikipedia's hands-on nature leaves it vulnerable to vandalism, however, despite the community's efforts at self-policing. The authority of the contributors is also unclear, although the ongoing editing often creates balanced and detailed entries. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and some sections are still under construction. But if you're looking for a different take on information than what an off-the-shelf program offers, and you seek liberation from software-installation headaches, Wikipedia may fit the bill.
As a completely free online reference source, the nonprofit Encyclopedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2006. No need to devote chunks of computer memory to the program or fret about interference from antivirus software or firewalls--you can access Wikipedia from any computer with Internet access.
Designed by and for the tech savvy, Wikipedia's information-jammed pages and plain-Jane design are easy to navigate but may seem less ho-hum to young users. Once you reach Wikipedia.org, you can run searches or use Wikipedia's sister projects, such as the Wiktionary dictionary and thesaurus, the Wikibooks collection of editable online manuals and textbooks, the Wikispecies directory of animal and plant species, the Wikisource online source-document site, and the user-created Wikiquote quotation collection and a Wikijunior children's encyclopedia are under construction.
Wikipedia grew out of the open-source movement, which advocates free, community-constructed software. Thus, volunteers--even you--can write the articles after first testing your skills in the self-guided Sandbox section. Each hyperlink-laden article includes a discussion tab for comments and queries, a tab to edit the page, and a tab that displays the history of page edits. You can click to sister sites via icons at the bottom of the page. Thanks to its ease of use, detailed entries, and community spirit, Wikipedia is a favorite resource for bloggers.
Launched in January 2001, Wikipedia boasts a huge content warehouse: more than 1 million articles in English; more than 300,000 articles each in French, Polish, Swedish, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, and German; and over 1,000 articles in 62 other languages. Wikimedia Commons also offers a bank of more than more than 800,000 audio, music, image, and video files, to which readers can upload their relevant media.
Wikipedia's readers view several billion pages each month and instantly update news and information worldwide. For example, unlike its disk-bound competitors, Wikipedia had an article on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers the day of her nomination. Wikipedia also has plenty of historical entries, but its more obscure information sets it apart. After all, you won't find pictures of Carhenge (a Stonehenge-like structure made out of sedans) or a biography of Captain Kirk (Starfleet serial number SC 937-0176 CEC), in Britannica or Encarta. Wikipedia articles are generally thorough and accurate, and it's a useful and quick tool. Plus, you can chime in with your own details on any subject; contributing and editing aren't limited to credentialed writers. Wikipedia's collaborative nature serves literate DIYers well.
Yet the do-it-yourself nature of Wikipedia creates unique problems, such as vandalism--particularly with controversial topics. This summer, Wikipedia was flooded with phony edits after cable TV comedian Steven Colbert encouraged his viewers to do so. And readers have inserted churlish edits into an article on President George W. Bush. The community of some 500,000 registered "Wikipedians" is supposed to fix such aberrations as soon as possible and occasionally locks articles from editing to preserve their integrity. Top-notch contributors can become gatekeeping Administrators, who aim to keep content balanced and block disruptive users; however, it's unclear whether they can keep up with the ever-expanding volume of articles. Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, encourages contributors to cite sources for their data--a process that works surprisingly well. The most heavily edited articles are generally the most accurate.
Because Wikipedia is an ongoing project, it has occasional gaps in coverage. For instance, some words in the Wiktionary have their etymology listed, while others do not. We wonder how many scholars, who already have their hands full contributing to established publications for pay, actually take the time to add their authority to Wikipedia entries. And there are no student-friendly brainstorming tools, such as Encyclopedia Britannica's BrainStormer and Encarta's Visual Browser.
Wikipedia's thorough online help section, accessible through a link on each page, covers the details of navigating, using, and contributing to the encyclopedia. You can also file complaints and report vandalism and copyright infractions online. Wikipedia's support pages have developed organically, reflecting the demands of fellow readers and editors, and are perhaps more useful than the online help pages of software such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Help and Reference desks are available online, and you can research technical and procedural questions at the Village Pump link. One downside is the lack of a phone number to call with tech questions. And while Wikipedia's FAQs and tutorials are useful, prepare to wait any length of time for a posted or e-mailed reply from fellow Wikipedians if you've posted questions to the help desk.
User opinions
Select a User Opinion to view: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32out of 32 user reviews
Dangerous.
Pros: For completely non-controversial topics, may be used as a starting point for information.
Cons: Often deliberately missleading.
But the most serious problem with Wikipedia is that on many topics it has devolved into a very crude propaganda outlet, with one side of a dispute controlling information through group editing wars and abuse of process. An informed Wikipedia user knows to look at the discussion page and the history of edits to any controversial article in order to see what has been left out (ofter more accurately, censored) before relying in the least on anything in the article itself. And this is usually more burdensome than the net result of the effort.
What is dangerous about Wikipedia is that few users will bother with this effort at all, and so will end up consuming base propaganda as though it is broadly accepted information.
Anyone who doubts this should take a long afternoon looking at the evolution of articles related to Israel and Zionism in Wikipedia.
out of 32 user reviews
Extensive, not alwatys accurate. Unintelligible interface.
Pros: Lots of coverage of even the most obscure of subjects
Cons: Near impossible to follow rules
out of 32 user reviews
Wikipedia - Editors Age 19 Who Troll Web Hourly
Pros: Everyone can edit
Cons: Everyone can edit
out of 32 user reviews
Very Useful
Pros: Free, loads of info, easy to use
Cons: prone to vandalism, not too much info on some items,
out of 32 user reviews
Best with facts of Scandinavian and Finland's History
Pros: I use Wikipedia first in my searching for true facts
Cons: I don't see any reason to doubt any article as.you may
out of 32 user reviews
Good start towards reliable information store
Pros: discussions refine the topic's validation process
Cons: Easy to undergo changes
out of 32 user reviews
anonymous authors sometimes irresponsible
Pros: lots of stuff
Cons: stuff sometimes inaccurate
out of 32 user reviews
Great for Scientific Data
Pros: Usefull for researching Scientific and Mathematical Formuals and other technical data
Cons: In some other areas it lacks factual data, and may not be entirely complete
out of 32 user reviews
Massive load of information, but not completely trustworthy
Pros: Most comprehensive encyclopedia around
Cons: Some articles are too subjective to be trusted
out of 32 user reviews
really good and any one can edit
Pros: everyone can contribute
Cons: sometimes the site goes slow
out of 32 user reviews
A brilliant resource for research of all kinds
Pros: Information on almost any topic under the sun, excellent web design gives logical structure and clarity, easy to edit with (largely) friendly community
Cons: Vunerable to vandalism
Wikipedia's one weakness and greatest strength is that anyone can edit, create, and delete as they please. This obviously makes it easy for destructive changes to be made by unhelpful members of the community. However, even this is not as big a problem as it first seems, as pages are automatically backed up and can be restored as soon as another user notices the damage (generally fairly quickly).
In short: excellent!
out of 32 user reviews
That was a poor review, Laurie Bouck.
Pros: Clearly the closest thing to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Cons: Vandalism and incomplete information.
out of 32 user reviews
The balls!
Pros: Easy to use. A lot of detailed information...
Cons: Some idiots want to change the main page layout...
out of 32 user reviews
A "quick and dirty" look-up.
Pros: Wikipedia is easy to access and gives fast reference from with to begin a research project.
Cons: The depth of articles seems very shallow and the lack of accuracy make it wotthless for any serious research.
out of 32 user reviews
You Got Some Nerve...
Pros: One of the best resources on the net, tons of terms & people covered in-dept, insightful & resourceful, info you may not find anywhere else, especially about diverse & various topics & people
Cons: Slow connection (hindrance, but expected for such a vast resource of info)
Sometimes when I'm at work, I just peruse things on Wikipedia that I'm interested in. Not only do many entries come up, but I usuaully find it explained in-dept like you wouldn't imagine. Try looking up Star Wars characters, comic book characters, wrestlers, just unbelievable stuff...especially about famous & popular people. You will not find something free like this anywhere; it's just an amazing resource.
out of 32 user reviews
cnet review is wrong
Pros: an offline version is indeed available
Cons: none to mention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk
atabase_downloadIt's also funny that the cnet review considers this a con:
"Wikipedia's information-jammed pages and plain-Jane design are easy to navigate but may seem less than dazzling for casual users accustomed to colorful, flashy Web pages."
out of 32 user reviews
No, no, no! Completely inaccurate.
Pros: Quick and easy way to get a general idea of something
Cons: Lots of factual inaccuracies, prone to vandalism, biased
Why not go with something you can be sure has been checked? Wikipedia was criticized a few years ago for having some 'red herring' George Bush entries that were made up, but even more factual entries don't always get high marks:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html
out of 32 user reviews
One of the best things on the net lately
Pros: Huge amount of information. Editable. It does not take up gigs of hard drive as software encyclopedias.Multilingual. Everyone can contribute. very easy to find the info you want
Cons: Some "delicate" articles might not be very objective since are written by people who might have their opinion.
out of 32 user reviews
An amazingly broad and detailed resource
Pros: Mobilizing the whole world's knowledge; available in 100 languages
Cons: Writing is not always great; not uniformly edited
Coverage of modern events, people, and places is unmatched online. Style and scope are excellent; related communities are vibrant and wonderful. The user-contributed aspect of the project (it has been built essentially from scratch by tens of thousands of people in under 5 years) is helping spread education and its importance.
Teaching people how to teach, and /that/ they are capable of teaching others, is an important goal; just as is giving them accurate information.
Still working on coping better with vandalism, jokers, and strongly-biased editors. Has some interesting tools in place at present for dealing with these issues, which work rather well.
out of 32 user reviews
Interesting concept
Pros: Concept has a lot of possibilities
Cons: Lack of true mandated checks and balances
out of 32 user reviews
wikipedia is just about the best encylopedia!
Pros: everything about it
Cons: none so far
out of 32 user reviews
Wikipedia's potential is the Web's potential
Pros: "Flat" hierarchy, anyone can contribute
Cons: Limited by intellectual property laws
out of 32 user reviews
wikipedia is the best thing ever!!
Pros: No banners, no Corporate take over, everything you could ever read
Cons: none at all, its perfect i hope it stays this way
out of 32 user reviews
One of the best websites for information
Pros: Free. Up to date. Vast.
Cons: Bias is sometimes a problem
out of 32 user reviews
Great place for "off-the-main-stream" information
Pros: wide scrope of relatively organized information you might not be able to find any where else
Cons: like internet, can be overloaded with irrelavent / inaccurate information
out of 32 user reviews
A Great Source
Pros: There are many articles that go into depth
Cons: Some articles are not complete
out of 32 user reviews
incredible resource
Pros: everything you can think of, reliable in my experience
Cons: none at all
out of 32 user reviews
Its free, its huge, its comprehensive & in-depth!!
Pros: Free, no multimedia clutter, heavily cross-linked
Cons: None that I can think of
out of 32 user reviews
Not the authority, but good anyways
Pros: offers information on things not found in other encyclopedias
Cons: could be more useful to entymologist
out of 32 user reviews
Rich resource
Pros: Rich resource, tons of information on a mind boggling number of topics
Cons: Vulnerable.
For the purpose it's used for, the interface is excellent. Most articles are well cross referenced. The lack of a lot of decoration helps me keep focused on what I'm there for - to read up on a subject. It's not supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, it's supposed to be a source of information.
That being said, if I ever had to use the information for something critical I'd have it verified by a more reliable resource. For this reason I'd give it an 7. But from the standpoint of how much I value it, it's a definite 9. So I'll go halfway and give it a 8.
out of 32 user reviews
Not super-accurate
Pros: Extremely huge selection of articles. Completely free. Open for editions.
Cons: Several articles contain minor factual inaccuracies.
But if you're researching the Ancient Greek Olympic games for a history class paper, I wouldn't be so confident about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's recommended article structure is nice. With most articles, the first paragraph is a concise overview of the topic. For those looking for more details, they can read further. If they find and error, they can edit it or delete that information.
What stands out about Wikipedia is its cost (free) -- editability -- and most notably, its extremely huge selection of articles. It's even got something about my school:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Laboratory_High_School_of_Urbana,_Illinois
out of 32 user reviews
A great resource with entertaining information.
Pros: Full of useful information that range from the standard academia to various things in pop culture.
Cons: Not all sections are accurate or complete. Confusing procedure to edit if you spot an error in the article.
But it's still a fun site to dig around and most of the articles are well-written and informative.
