Wikipedia Quotes

Wait, Wikipedia isn't working? Why hasn't someone invented a paper version of it? A set of books organized alphabetically by topic?

One thing that I'm really interested in is the kind of esoteric detail that surrounds these great figures. And Wikipedia is full of that kind of stuff, whether it's true or untrue. It staggers me: why, in the short space assigned to a person or an event, that kind of random information is there. To be honest, that's wonderful fuel for songwriting.

The Internet gives you access to a lot of material, and it's fun to sit and read. I go to something like Wikipedia and look at different topics... I find the subject fascinating. I like to read about concepts and mathematicians.

One of the most common questions writers are asked is "Where do you get your ideas?" But the sad truth is, we don't know. Ideas can come at any time and from any direction: in the shower, waiting for an elevator, or while bouncing across Wikipedia pages.

The definition of marriage cannot be disputed. It's right there in black and white and it's been the same since the start of Wikipedia.

Does anything really matter? We all end up in the same place. All that's left is our Wikipedia entry.

Wikipedia was offline after an overheating problem at one of its data centers. It was pretty bad. For a while there, people had nowhere to go for phony, inaccurate information.

Citizendium is based on the failings and unreliability of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is the first place I go when I'm looking for knowledge... or when I want to create some.

Take it from someone who's read the Wikipedia entry: this is how the Ottoman Empire was won: madden horsemen fueled by lethal jet-black coffee-mud.

The proselytisers for man-made global warming have long exercised a tight stranglehold over the contents of Wikipedia.

A Wikipedia article is a process, not a product.

Free services like Wikipedia I don't think benefit anyone - they don't benefit the professional because they're not paid.

If you really want the truth of anything, don't use Wikipedia.

We have lived in this world where little things are done for love and big things for money. Now we have Wikipedia. Suddenly big things can be done for love.

Think of how Wikipedia works, how Amazon harnesses user annotation on its site, the way photo-sharing sites like Flickr are bleeding out into other applications. We're entering an era in which software learns from its users and all of the users are connected.

I have always viewed the mission of Wikipedia to be much bigger than just creating a killer website. We're doing that of course, and having a lot of fun doing it, but a big part of what motivates us is our larger mission to affect the world in a positive way

I know Wikipedia is very cool. A lot of people do not think so, but of course they are wrong.

I do not need wireless access to Wikipedia. I would prefer to stir-fry my own small intestines than to have continual access to a site where the entry for Klingon is longer than the entry for Latin.

Everybodys saying, be skeptical of Wikipedia. That is true. They should also be skeptical of everything. We should all be critical consumers of the media.

Wikipedia is a victory of process over substance.

Wikipedia was a big help for science, especially science communication, and it shows no sign of diminishing in importance.

You can't retrieve you life (unless you're on Wikipedia, in which case you can retrieve an inaccurate version of it).

I dont know how to add things to my own wikipedia page.

A lot of stuff in Wikipedia is not true, and that goes for a lot of people. I sometimes think, "How can that happen?" But Wikipedia is maintained by people, and everybody can add stuff to it.

I'm loath to use my personal life to promote what I do, but at the same time, I don't like a journalist going away with no more than you could get off Wikipedia, where most of it's invented anyway.

Wikipedia, a nonprofit, is an enormously popular website but has managed to operate without advertising. And, you know, maybe it's a little simpler than Google and YouTube, but it does show there's another way.

The core of Wikipedia is something people really believe in. That is too valuable for the world to screw it up.

For all its shortcomings, Wikipedia does have strong governance and deliberative mechanisms; anyone who has ever followed discussions on Wikipedia's mailing lists will confirm that its moderators and administrators openly discuss controversial issues on a regular basis.

I love the Wikipedia link chain because it has led me into some strange articles. Wikipedia is one of my favorites.

I'm on it pretty much all the time. I edit Wikipedia every day, I'm on Facebook, I'm on Twitter, I'm reading the news. During one of the US elections, I actually went through my computer and I blocked myself from looking at the major newspaper sites and Google News because I wasn't getting any work done.

The strange thing with Wikipedia is that the first article that ever gets written about you will define your Wikipedia page forever.

If it were a choice between putting ads on Wikipedia or shutting down Wikipedia, we would then very reluctantly consider putting ads on Wikipedia.

When I was invited to go to Wuhan, I didn't know anything about it, so I looked up the Wikipedia about Wuhan. I discovered that part of Wuhan used to be Hankou, and then I realised that my great grandmother came from Hankou. My grandmother and father were both born in Hankou. Of all the places in China, it is the most amazing place to have asked for my exhibition. I needed to go back where my family comes from!

Wikipedia [...] is the product not of collectivism but of unending argumentation.

I guess there should be somewhere on the Internet that feels like a source of sacred truth. But Wikipedia sure isn't it.

Wikipedia represents a belief in the supremacy of reason and goodness of others.

When you consider the magnitude of how many people use Wikipedia globally, there is a potential here for really creating some noise and getting some attention in the U.S.

I do not go on my Wikipedia page. There's just too much weird information on there for me to pick apart.

I don't really agree that most academics frown when they hear Wikipedia. Most academics I find quite passionate about the concept of Wikipedia and like it quite a bit. The number of academics who really really don't like Wikipedia is really quite small and we find that they get reported on in the media far out of proportion to the amount they actually exist.

He found a set of encyclopedias—like Wikipedia, but paper and very bulky.

What defines Web 2.0 is the fact that the material on it is generated by the users (consumers) rather than the producers of the system. Thus, those who operate on Web 2.0 can be called prosumers because they simultaneously produce what they consume such as the interaction on Facebook and the entries on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a non-profit. It was either the dumbest thing I ever did or the smartest thing I ever did.

The notion of collective contribution, like the Wikipedia, is a very powerful one.

Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so.

Wikipedia only works in practice. In theory, it's a total disaster.

Given enough time humans will screw up Wikipedia just as they have screwed up everything else, but so far it's not too bad.

Wikipedia is so dangerous. You go online to look up the definition of eclampsia, and three hours later you find yourself reading this earnest explanation of tentacle porn in [Japanese] anime.

Everything's wrong on Wikipedia.

Oh, Wikipedia, with your tension between those who would share knowledge and those who would destroy it.