Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.

— Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia 

Most of my friends know me to be a very strong “wiki aficionado”, to put it lightly. I’m quite obsessed with the site, and I lose countless hours traversing its seemingly endless sum of information, ranging from the mundane and obscure, to the profound and fundamental. I’ll freely admit that “wiki-ing” is basically a hobby of mine, and I credit this unique and wonderful site with teaching me a lot, or at least pointing me to the right place to do so. Despite popular belief, most articles have references and external links to relevant sources, and those that are sufficiently cited are identified as such to readers; also, pages with a bronze star at the upper-right corner are indicated as high-quality by the site’s actually employees.
In any case, my love for Wikipedia is almost certainly unsurprising. I’m a knowledge junkie after all, so any site that can give me full and easy access to almost any topic imaginable is a godsend (needless to say, I have a Wiki App on my iPod touch to facilitate constant learning).  
In fact, I was a true believer in the site from the very beginning, back when it was an upstart that was largely disregarded by most of the public, especially those in academia, who derided it as inaccurate and unreliable. At best, it was a fun little curiosity or something to pass the time with. Throughout my college studies, I recall having an increasing number of professors explicitly forbid the use of Wikipedia as a source, and from what I hear, that position has only become more prevalent, to the extent that such a warning is now codified in most class syllabi. Of course, most people still utilized it anyway, opting to simply fact check its claims from conventional sources, or clicking on its linked references.
Granted, Wikipedia was certainly not the most dependable source out there, especially in the early years when supervision was lax and vandalism – or mere human error – was subsequently common (if not exaggerated in its extent). But there wasn’t anything else like it that was online or as accessible – and there still isn’t. For all its flaws, Wikipedia was the only source of its kind – an aggregate of as much human knowledge as possible, covering realms of data ranging from pop culture to metaphysics.
I knew Wikipedia wasn’t perfect (and still isn’t, despite vast improvements). But I also knew that such an ambitious project would, like any other, take a lot of time and work to see fruition. If not yet taken seriously as a source, it at least deserved some respect and support as an idea. As its founder’s quote attests, a world where human beings, with their increasing access to the web, can have near-universal access to everything we know is a beautiful one that must be promoted. Long-term users like me will notice that Wikipedia has come a long way, and deserves all the help it can get to continue improving.
The site has managed to become the 5th most visited on the web, with close to 500 million visitors and billions of page views monthly – all that popular dismissal notwithstanding (I suspect even critics give it a glance once in a while). Few people have never seen a Wiki entry, and doing any sort of Google search almost always lists one among the top recommendations. The site has managed to grow enough to encompass 283 languages and close to 20 million articles – all this with only 679 serves and 95 staff (for comparison, Google has a million servers and Yahoo has around 13,000 employees).
This is all the more impressive given that the entire project is a non-profit, dependent upon donations to sustain it: there is no fee or subscription, nor is there any advertising. The absence of these things makes the site more conducive to learning, yet leaves it without a revenue stream – hence the periodic fund drives that request contributions for the bare minimum of keeping operations going.
I honestly used to ignore the banners at the top of each page pleading for donations. I can’t say I had a good reason to, given my enjoyment of the site and my presumed inclination for charitable causes. But I made amends and decided to finally give what I could to a project that is dear to me. I know all this sounds like a propaganda piece, but I sincerely ask that readers to do their part and give what they can. As this blog attests, I’m passionate about the dispersal of knowledge and the advancing of human progress through education. Wikipedia has its work cut out for it, but at least its making a step in the right direction.

3 comments on “Wikipedia

  1. I’m also an avid Wikipedia fan. And I am not ashamed to say that a lot of my trival knowledge on a great deal of many things also came from Wikipedia. Which come to think about it, I owe quite a lot to Wikipedia, lol. I have also been ignoring the donation plead banner at the top for the past few years, but thanks to your reminder of the operations of Wikipedia, I think I SHALL add Wikipedia to my list of end-of-the-year donations for this year (and for everyone else, bear in mind that like Romney, money is tight for me, especially for the infamous mouth of spending known as December, lol).

    • Haha, that is arguably far more valuable. I admire people who give their time to further the knowledge of others. Good for you!

      Come to think of it, I have an account on Wiki, and used to edit it here and there. Maybe I should get back on track 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s