Like Tree28Likes

Wikipedia - do you use it?

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,879

    I use it from time to time - since I can remember it exists. I just sent them $350 HKD for the past 13 years of using it. Was easy as 1-2-3. Follow link in first post, select amount or type $350 as in my case, then pay via PayPal.

    Here you go:
    https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index...edirect%253Dno

    Last edited by 100LL; 20-07-2014 at 08:56 PM.
    East_coast likes this.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,076
    Original Post Deleted
    Sometimes yes, but it's a bit too formal. I prefer the wider variety of info you get on Wiki, even though it all needs to be checked for accuracy.
    Watercooler likes this.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110

    Well I'll say this, thanks to wikipedia, all those Encyclopedia Britannica salesmen are history. Am I too harsh in saying I'm not sad to see them go?

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/sho...-salesmen-door

    Come to think of it, does anyone still use Britannica as a source of reference?

    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-07-2014 at 10:41 PM.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    Well I'll say this, thanks to wikipedia, all those Encyclopedia Britannica salesmen are history. Am I too harsh in saying I'm not sad to see them go?
    Quite harsh, yes. Everyone needs to earn a living, and I doubt their trade was any more immoral in nature than that of many posters on this site. How do you earn a crust?
    Watercooler likes this.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by bookblogger:
    Quite harsh, yes. Everyone needs to earn a living, and I doubt their trade was any more immoral in nature than that of many posters on this site. How do you earn a crust?
    You are probably right. One could argued certain high-powered financiers in certain banks are far more immoral than lowly encyclopedia salesmen.

    Still, I can't help but laugh in glee whenever I watch this monty python sketch about those poor old encyclopedia salesmen:



    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-07-2014 at 10:55 PM.
    bookblogger likes this.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,076

    We have a full set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica at home, and I used to spend whole evenings reading it as a kid. But then I'm not normal.

    Watercooler likes this.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by bookblogger:
    We have a full set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica at home, and I used to spend whole evenings reading it as a kid. But then I'm not normal.
    Who is really "normal" anyway? I often find those with talent also have a bit of eccentricity to them (just a little mind you, nowhere close to being called outright crazy) and are the people who often succeed in life the most.

    After all, I bet many would have called Jimmy Wales not right in the head when he got the idea to start wikipedia.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-07-2014 at 11:10 PM.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,076

    I'll drink to that.

    Watercooler likes this.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    Who is really "normal" anyway? I often find those with talent also have a bit of eccentricity to them (just a little mind you, nowhere close to being called outright crazy) and are the people who often succeed in life the most.

    After all, I bet many would have called Jimmy Wales not right in the head when he got the idea to start wikipedia.
    I bet he just read book by Douglas Adams

    From the HHGTTG
    "This anonymous group effort ends up outselling Encyclopedia Galactica even though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate."
    Watercooler and R.O. like this.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    I bet he just read book by Douglas Adams

    From the HHGTTG
    "This anonymous group effort ends up outselling Encyclopedia Galactica even though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate."
    Hehehe, that's funny. Not to mention prophetic (when was hitch hiker's guide written? 1979?)

    Anyway, the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, wow, I haven't read that classic in such a long time (too long if you asked me), thanks for bringing back the laughter.

    But...to be fair, as I said, most general topics on wikipedia are quite accurate and spot-on. Its when you move into the more technical/controversial topics that errors/omissions and bias become more apparent.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-07-2014 at 11:32 PM.