• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Is wikipedia one of the most underappreciated websites?

Is it one of the most underappreciated websties?

  • Yes

    Votes: 221 74.2%

  • No

    Votes: 77 25.8%
  • Total voters
    298
hwarang

hwarang

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,452
I'm not gonna lie. I've used wikipedia a lot to read about concepts and events of which I had never known about with the understanding that it's not to be taken as truth literally. But this could be said the same with news articles. Is it an underappreciated site? I always remember people online dogpile on others who would use wikipedia to read about a certain concept or topic.
 
L Thammy

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
50,037
lolhljki.png
 
Bradford

Bradford

terminus est
Member
Aug 12, 2018
5,423
I don't think it is underappreciated. It is an invaluable tool and one of the most frequently visited sites on the web. It is a monolithic part of the modern internet.
 
Crossing Eden

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
53,340
It's one of if not one of the biggest sources of information on the internet. We live in the age of "fake news" so ofc it's underappreciated. The fact that they consistently have to ask for donations is shameful. I think if anything the moderation is unappreciated because they constantly have to make sure that the idea that "anyone can edit a wiki article thus none of them are reliable" never sticks.
 
GamerJM

GamerJM

Member
Nov 8, 2017
15,636
I feel like it's really appreciated, but even given that it's still underappreciated given how ubiquitous and helpful it is. I feel like the "most" underappreciated would probably have to be something obscure though.
 
NotLiquid

NotLiquid

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
34,767
It's only really become underappreciated in the sense that it's become a permanent fixture within the online osmosis and its existence is taken as a matter of fact, the same way Google's search engine is "underappreciated".
 
i hate cheaters

i hate cheaters

Member
Feb 16, 2018
2,685
there was a meme that anyone could edit anything and it made wikipedia untrustworthy

but it got a lot better with public changelogs and scrutiny and corrections, so it's now probably the most reliable encyclopedia in existence
 
OP
OP
hwarang

hwarang

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,452
Crossing Eden said:
It's one of if not one of the biggest sources of information on the internet. We live in the age of "fake news" so ofc it's underappreciated. The fact that they consistently have to ask for donations is shameful. I think if anything the moderation is unappreciated because they constantly have to make sure that the idea that "anyone can edit a wiki article thus none of them are reliable" never sticks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, I'm always surprised when I see the donation. There ought to be some sort of philanthropy set aside for it to get funding.
 
Africanus II

Africanus II

Member
Oct 26, 2017
403
It's an invaluable source in some respects but often works to reinforce the Western hierarchy of White Supremacy.
Both in the passive process of which articles are cited and whose history is saved and fleshed out on to the active process of right wing editors having leeway.
 

Deleted member 49611

Nov 14, 2018
5,052
It's taken for granted. If it were to go down people would lose their shit and no doubt it would be a massive loss.

I don't know if they really are struggling for money or if it's just to get donations but I donated to them for the first time recently.
 
PinkSpider

PinkSpider

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,924
Through college, being bored, Wiki'ing X thing it's probably the most useful resource out there. I was going to say it needs some kind of public funding but then it would probably be have to be from a number of nations with anonymous payments because (BBC) we all know how public funding can influence things.
 
Hecht

Hecht

Blue light comes around
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
9,734
hwarang said:
I'm not gonna lie. I've used wikipedia a lot to read about concepts and events of which I had never known about with the understanding that it's not to be taken as truth literally. But this could be said the same with news articles. Is it an underappreciated site? I always remember people online dogpile on others who would use wikipedia to read about a certain concept or topic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A lot of that stemmed from when it was initially created - a place where people can just EDIT STUFF??!?! oh no

But then, while that is still true, it's clear that only a specific subset of people have any interest in maintaining the information contained on Wikipedia. Just look into any math equation article - it's insane how detailed it gets. While I completely understand why teachers and the like don't like it as a "source," it provides the sources at the bottom of the page and those should provide the information. It's an invaluable tool for coalescing information.
 
Aurica

Aurica

音楽オタク - Comics Council 2020
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
23,495
A mountain in the US
Hecht said:
it provides the sources at the bottom of the page and those should provide the information.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not to say this isn't helpful, but I can't count the number of times I've clicked on Japanese or English pages' sources to find broken links or referenced articles that... actually never existed in the first place.
 
Pau

Pau

Self-Appointed Godmother of Bruce Wayne's Children
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,847
Africanus II said:
It's an invaluable source in some respects but often works to reinforce the Western hierarchy of White Supremacy.
Both in the passive process of which articles are cited and whose history is saved and fleshed out on to the active process of right wing editors having leeway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Very much this. Trying to get an article up about POC creators and their works is an uphill battle. Meanwhile articles about completely fictional histories and worlds (usually made by white creators) are considered "notable". I imagine it's the same for other areas, but I only have experience with the literature section.
 
monstar

monstar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
479
It's been a staple of the internet for like 15 years. Arguably google and facebook are the only websites to have a bigger cultural impact. How could it be appreciated more?
 

Radd Redd

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,006
They guilt me for money every once in a while. I donate once a year. Nothing big mind you. Basically a bit more than they ask for to get them through another year. Lord knows I use it enough, many time when college said you can use them sometimes for references. They don't bombard me with ads.
 
Radec

Radec

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,406
I wish billionaires will donate to wikipedia.
It's one of the best inventions on the internet that is still free.
 
Pancoar

Pancoar

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,551
I usually try to donate some money to them when I can. I always feel bad when they start asking for donations.
 

Deleted member 3093

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,956
Pau said:
Very much this. Trying to get an article up about POC creators and their works is an uphill battle. Meanwhile articles about completely fictional histories and worlds (usually made by white creators) are considered "notable". I imagine it's the same for other areas, but I only have experience with the literature section.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As someone who makes articles about plenty of fictional characters and other such nonsense, I entirely agree that Wikipedia's pretty racist. Also transphobic, sexist, homophobic... just generally has a pretty shitty, unempathetic userbase.
 
Jordan117

Jordan117

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,998
Alabammy
I'd say the Internet Archive is less appreciated given the scale of what they do. It's way more than just the Wayback Machine.
 
Sabretooth

Sabretooth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,067
India
Whatever appreciation you can give to this modern Library of Alexandria, it will never be enough.

Jordan117 said:
I'd say the Internet Archive is less appreciated given the scale of what they do. It's way more than just the Wayback Machine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay damn, that I did not think of writing this really goes to show how underappreciated IA is.

I'd also add Project Gutenberg to the mix, but I imagine nobody cares about it because most people don't care as much about reading obscure old-timey books and magazines.
 
OP
OP
hwarang

hwarang

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,452
Sabretooth said:
Whatever appreciation you can give to this modern Library of Alexandria, it will never be enough.

Okay damn, that I did not think of writing this really goes to show how underappreciated IA is.

I'd also add Project Gutenberg to the mix, but I imagine nobody cares about it because most people don't care as much about reading obscure old-timey books and magazines.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Those old school self improvement books hold some really valuable information.
 
Sabretooth

Sabretooth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,067
India
hwarang said:
Those old school self improvement books hold some really valuable information.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I sometimes go there to peruse random books, and I always pick ordinary, obscure books that nobody's ever heard of from the Latest Additions pile. It's always a blast reading how weird the world was back then. It's like reading fantasy lore books or something, lol.
 
devenger

devenger

The Fallen
Oct 29, 2017
2,734
Its the closest thing to Hitchhiker's Guide we have.

All of my 11 yr old's teachers have been taught to say " Wiki is not a good resource because it's edited by users." No one is planting lies about Galileo that aren't fixed immediately.
 
Lord Moriarty007

Lord Moriarty007

Member
Nov 21, 2017
958
Sabretooth said:
Whatever appreciation you can give to this modern Library of Alexandria, it will never be enough.



Okay damn, that I did not think of writing this really goes to show how underappreciated IA is.

I'd also add Project Gutenberg to the mix, but I imagine nobody cares about it because most people don't care as much about reading obscure old-timey books and magazines.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Project Gutenberg is great for history students if their institutions don't give them access to academic journals that are under paywalls.
 
Inugami

Inugami

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,995
If you want to talk about under rated websites... I think the true king is archive.org and the wayback machine in particular. Everyone forgets that exists till they can't find some website or information that would otherwise have been lost to time.
 
MoonsaultSlayer

MoonsaultSlayer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,690
I'm kind of disturbed by the mentions of the right wing editors and how POC aren't well represented/fact checked being ignored and juxtaposed with the "give them all my money" posts.

I kind of want to know more about that. Is there something to it or just a lack of editors with that knowledge or not enough out there with wiki know-how?
 
brawndolicious

brawndolicious

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,925
Bradford said:
I don't think it is underappreciated. It is an invaluable tool and one of the most frequently visited sites on the web. It is a monolithic part of the modern internet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the ad-free and open format is underappreciated. It could have just as easily been a swamp of ads with articles only written by an approved group of contributors that insert paragraphs of sponsored content. Can you imagine how many companies would use their ad leverage to keep scandals off of their wiki pages?

An online encylopedia was always going to exist, but we got lucky with this one.
 
Bradford

Bradford

terminus est
Member
Aug 12, 2018
5,423
brawndolicious said:
I think the ad-free and open format is underappreciated. It could have just as easily been a swamp of ads with articles only written by an approved group of contributors that insert paragraphs of sponsored content. Can you imagine how many companies would use their ad leverage to keep scandals off of their wiki pages?

An online encylopedia was always going to exist, but we got lucky with this one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Great points.
 
dejay

dejay

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,081
I give them some money when Jimmy starts sending me emails with a sad face.
 
BetterGraphics

BetterGraphics

Member
Dec 11, 2017
2,502
I love it. It's a gateway to pretty much any subject and I sometimes think I should read it just as much as I read books.

I actually downloaded the entire thing last month. 89GB for every article in the English wiki.
 
Unknownlight

Unknownlight

One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 2, 2017
10,568
MoonsaultSlayer said:
I'm kind of disturbed by the mentions of the right wing editors and how POC aren't well represented/fact checked being ignored and juxtaposed with the "give them all my money" posts.

I kind of want to know more about that. Is there something to it or just a lack of editors with that knowledge or not enough out there with wiki know-how?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wikipedia has extremely strict and non-negotiable rules about what is and isn't allowed to be kept on the site. The exact details are more complicated than this, but it basically boils down to "Do multiple other established and prominent outlets talk about this?" If no, it's not allowed on Wikipedia.

This is a big problem for many POC creators and others because "the establishment" tends not to talk about them, and so Wikipedia won't either.

Despite its drawbacks (especially in doubling down on "history as written by the winners". It doesn't necessarily matter what's true, just what gets written about the most), I think this approach is a net positive. It's definitely harmful in many cases, but it also prevents conspiracies, misinformation, and propaganda from getting on the site either. I don't know how I would change its rules to improve it.
 
iwam

iwam

Member
Aug 7, 2019
95
A.By said:
As someone who makes articles about plenty of fictional characters and other such nonsense, I entirely agree that Wikipedia's pretty racist. Also transphobic, sexist, homophobic... just generally has a pretty shitty, unempathetic userbase.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
MoonsaultSlayer said:
I'm kind of disturbed by the mentions of the right wing editors and how POC aren't well represented/fact checked being ignored and juxtaposed with the "give them all my money" posts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The money goes to the Wikimedia Foundation, not any of the editors (which to be fair, has its own issues). And while many of them are indeed total dickheads, there's also good ones working on stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.