Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wikipedia overtaking major news sites
CNN Money ^ | September 6, 2005 | Staff Writer

Posted on 09/11/2005 12:10:56 PM PDT by CreviceTool

Wikipedia overtaking major news sites Traffic to the multilingual network of sites has grown 154 percent over the past year. September 6, 2005: 5:21 PM EDT SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Wikipedia, which has surged this year to become the most popular reference site on the Web, is fast overtaking several major news sites as the place where people swarm for context on breaking events. Traffic to the multilingual network of sites has grown 154 percent over the past year, according to research firm Hitwise. At current growth rates, it is set to overtake The New York Times on the Web, the Drudge Report and other news sites. But the rising status of the site as the Web's intellectual demilitarized zone, the favored place people look for background on an issue or to settle a polemical dispute, also poses challenges for the volunteer ethic that gave it rise. "We are growing from a cheerful small town where everyone waves off their front porch to the subway of New York City where everyone rushes by," said Jimmy Wales, the founder of the volunteer encyclopedia. "How do you preserve the culture that has worked so well?" p>

(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fr; freerepublic; frinthenews; internet; mediabias; wikipedia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
Now that Wikipedia is the most popular reference site on the Web, shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I see that references to conservatives are filled with questions and allusions, while liberals are portrayed in the best possible light. Should a Rapid Response Team be assembled, if not already?
1 posted on 09/11/2005 12:10:57 PM PDT by CreviceTool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Why did you not use the real title of the article "Wikipedia overtaking major news sites" ?


2 posted on 09/11/2005 12:14:35 PM PDT by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Any 6-year-old can contribute to Wikipedia. All anyone has to do is write a page. Of course they reserve the right to "edit" anything they wish. I don't consult Wiki ... it's usually trash.


3 posted on 09/11/2005 12:14:45 PM PDT by manwiththehands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: CreviceTool

Do not change the headline from that found at the original source. Thank you.


5 posted on 09/11/2005 12:15:12 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

Such is how the left operates. Control information.

They can't win in a fair fight in the arena of ideas.


6 posted on 09/11/2005 12:16:14 PM PDT by weegee (The lesson from New Orleans? Smart Growth kills. You can't evacuate dense populations easily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: CreviceTool
Now that Wikipedia is the most popular reference site on the Web, shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I see that references to conservatives are filled with questions and allusions, while liberals are portrayed in the best possible light. Should a Rapid Response Team be assembled, if not already?

Of course. A argument is never won by complaining that the other side shows itself in a good light... I personally find timelines very useful ... can put the isolated events and out-of-context quotes we get fed from the MSM into a useful structure.

8 posted on 09/11/2005 12:20:15 PM PDT by podkane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

That's what I thought too. It's readers contribute. What better way for libbies to get and spread more false info.


9 posted on 09/11/2005 12:21:14 PM PDT by Last Exit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

I have found blatant bias in Wikipedia, usually over inane topics that don't matter too much, but obviously written by teenagers or political hacks.


10 posted on 09/11/2005 12:21:59 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I

I edited there a while. You cannot win a logical argument with a liberal. Because they are always so right, every time. No matter what you do, it will get reverted, and then fought over, and the argument will continue until they win or hell freezes over.

Its pointless. Just let it go completely moonbat liberal.
11 posted on 09/11/2005 12:22:14 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Really? I've never been there.


12 posted on 09/11/2005 12:23:24 PM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; CreviceTool

They did a bad job covering the Terri Schiavo case.

The liberals thinks they are so credible, which tells us something.


13 posted on 09/11/2005 12:25:33 PM PDT by Sun (Call U.S. senators toll-free, 1-877-762-8762; tell them to give Roberts an up or down vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
Wikipedia overtaking major news sites

The original title is misleading. As the article says "The Wikipedia... has ... become the most popular reference site on the Web, fast overtaking several major news sites." The article confuses information reference and news - which is a failing of the news media itself. It does not help that Wikipedia actually has news on its front page - a business it should stay strictly out of.

14 posted on 09/11/2005 12:25:33 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
Wikipedia is dubious at best on a lot of information. It is frightening that history and facts are now subject to even more revision and altering on a grand scale.
15 posted on 09/11/2005 12:28:24 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action?

Wikipedia is useless as a reference source itself. It is usefull to find links to other sites.

If you don't know, how it works, you may find it interesting to surf on over there and post an article. Within days, if not minutes, your article will be turned around, inside out, upside down, and come to postulate the the exact opposite of what ever you said about any thing you care to mention.

It is the revisionist's dream, and the historian's nightmare because anything posted is subject to revision by any know-nothing with a chip on his shoulder. It is usefull only for those things that contain no controversy at all.

That it would be more popular than CNN is not supprising.

16 posted on 09/11/2005 12:28:43 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool; manwiththehands

I read a couple weeks ago that Wikipedia is planning to take measures to improve the integrity of their pages, after someone did something unseemly (I don't remember what it was) to the entry for Pope Benedict XVI.


17 posted on 09/11/2005 12:28:54 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Well, have you considered flagging the allegedly biased entry for "neutrality" so that it will be discussed and modified?


18 posted on 09/11/2005 12:29:56 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Isnt it open source?


19 posted on 09/11/2005 12:30:07 PM PDT by cardinal4 ("When the Levee breaks, Mama, you got to move....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
Any 6-year-old can contribute to Wikipedia. All anyone has to do is write a page. Of course they reserve the right to "edit" anything they wish. I don't consult Wiki ... it's usually trash.

Actually, the Wikipedia is usually very accurate. There are problems, and articles sometimes are biased, but the system generally works far better than your description would lead someone to believe. One reason is because bias is a multi-edged sword on a wiki: all sides get to play. Another reason is because a wiki produces good results in the same way a society does: by collaboration from all parties, each seeking its own self interest.

Disclaimer: I happen to personally know Ward Cunningham, the inventor of wiki, due to my long usage of the Smalltalk programming langauge (since 1985.) I also know or have met Dan Ingalls, Adele Goldberg, Dave Robson, Ted Kaehler, Diana Merry-Shapiro and Alan Kay (members of the Xerox PARC Smalltalk design team.)

20 posted on 09/11/2005 12:30:45 PM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson