5 ms·
I pay monthly to wikipedia, I use it tens of times a day, it is a fantastic unparalleled resource - a real public good. Wikipedia is a proof of a utopian visio
by deepnet 11y ago
I pay monthly to wikipedia, I use it tens of times a day, it is a fantastic unparalleled resource - a real public good.
Wikipedia is a proof of a utopian vision that infused the early web - ensuring public rights wins public contribution.
Humanities collective knowledge is better distributed because of Wikipedia, a true wonder of the modern world.
IMHO, we must treasure wikipedia as it is not clear it could happen again and it embiggens us all.
- gmt2027 11y agoWikipedia confirms that "embiggens" is a made up word from the Simpsons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast#Embiggen_and_cromulent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Iconoclast#Embiggen_a...
- meagain20000 11y agoI'm not sure if you are passing judgement but this is how language evolves.
- iolothebard 11y agoI'm perfectly cromulent with that as well.
- akavi 11y agoThis feels ungrammatical to me. I think "I find it perfectly cromulent." feels more correct. (I only comment because I'm amused to find I've heard "cromulent" used as a "real word" enough that my brain has intuited rules for its usage.)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pc86 11y ago> discromulent
- toephu2 11y agoYou failed at trying to make yourself sound smart by using a fancy word.
- phireal 11y agoTo be fair, all words are made up. Their usage is what makes them relevant.
- klenwell 11y agoThis is so well put. It should be engraved over the entrance to a library or public monument somewhere.
- chorizo 11y agoOr at least the linguistics department at the local community college.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoAlso every dictionary should have a disclaimer written on its cover with big, bold letters: DICTIONARIES ARE DESCRIPTIVE, NOT PRESCRIPTIVE. THEY DOCUMENT HOW WORDS ARE COMMONLY USED, THEY DO NOT DEFINE THEIR MEANINGS.
- menssen 11y agoAlthough this is not universally accepted. This old DFW essay on the topic is good reading. http://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-04-0070913.pdf http://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-0...
- contingencies 11y agoDictionaries are embiggened by new words.
- theklub 11y agoI feel like wikipedia killed the web in a way. Anytime you search for something 95% of the time wikipedia is the first result and thus 99% of the time it is I go to it for information. What websites or innovations have we missed out on because of this?
- JupiterMoon 11y agoMaybe the encyclopedias would have developed micropayments? Or maybe they would have just gone for a traditional expensive paywall approach and information would have been denied to the masses?
- theklub 11y agoWell there is no way that information wouldn't have gotten out. For the sake of argument I'm merely pointing out that having one website dominate as a source of information may have hurt the web in general.
- BatFastard 11y agoIndeed, it's too bad that libraries were created as well. Just think of how many other knowledge sharing techniques would have been developed in its place. I know some of the other contenders were "smoke signals", "bird whistles", the list would be longer but I refuse to accept readily accessible, free sources of knowledge. And the smoke signals have been strangely quiet as of late.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- HarryHirsch 11y agoIn a library you get Bill O'Reilly and Howard Zinn and everyone in between. But on Wikipedia, you get the loudest and most obsessive voice.
- Karunamon 11y ago
- magicmu 11y agoI think wikipedia (along with Google) really allowed for the current transition to over-abundance of easily accessibly information -- at least in developed countries. For better or worse, I think we've started moving towards only considering application of knowledge to be a worthwhile topic of study, instead of just gaining it. If this is true, it'd be pretty catastrophic for services like wikipedia to suddenly disappear.