Одну секунду
Что-то сучилось. Попробуйте еще раз.
Wikipedia is no doubt one of the most useful resources as a student as it basically has articles on everything you can think of from history and literature to calculus and physics. Despite this, most teachers and professors aren't very big fans of Wikipedia given that the site has historically not been the most accurate or reputable because anyone can submit revisions and additions to the site. Over time, the site has become much more accurate due to the large number of contributors, and in most cases, all of the sources used for the wiki article are cited. So, Wikipedia is often a great starting point to get a general understanding of a topic or concept which can then be confirmed by cross-referencing the sources. But, this still leaves the question: Who founded Wikipedia and where are the founders today? This video explains the story of Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales, and Wikipedia, and how they created one of the most resourceful sites in the world. Socials: 🤍🤍instagram.com/hariharan.jayakumar/ Discord Community: 🤍discord.gg/SJUNWNt Timestamps: 0:00 - Wikipedia 0:59 - Jimmy Wales 3:45 - Larry Sanger 6:00 - Nupedia 8:10 - Wikipedia 10:16 - Jimmy & Larry Today Thumbnail Credits: Rex 🤍bit.ly/3JzzFTx 🤍bit.ly/3LRqwYG Resources: 🤍pastebin.com/RXMwWDsg
Very Nobel work done by Founders of Encyclopedia, My everyday School/College projects or assignment was completed only because of Encyclopedia. Still Most Trustful source of Information Provider.
Multi-User Dungeons didn't even have that much graphics. It was all ASCII, in-line command line.
The one Chad discord mod who actually turned their life around and didn't succumb to the stereotype. Awesome!!
One of the best informative website...
It's still pretty accurate regardless.
An amazing free knowledge repository tool!
Aside from social issue articles, raw science articals (geology, chemestry, mathamatics) are pretty accurate on wikipedia. It documents time well.
What happened? They hired a bunch of pink haired sjws to run the site
"Ph.D. In philosophy" = "Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy".
M
wikipediAHH
Wiki is good for science but Leftist for opinion
Hard sciences are great. Social, biology, politics, recent history is bullshit.
I wouldn't normally make a fuss about this and magnanimously cut you some slack for such a benign lexical error since the content of your videos (third day in a row and I am still binging down the rabbit hole, hoping to quench my lust for knowledge consolidation) keeps amazing me, but please allow me to kindly give you constructive "flak" : the first time I heard you say it, I obviously didn't bother to comment, but the idiom at the < _Rt0eAPLDkM&t=3m33s 3:33 > timestamp should be "getting a lot of flak" instead of "getting a lot of 'slack'".
😉
Please keep up the good work; did you apply in order to get in at Space X or Tesla yet?
I like Wki. I donate to Wiki. I am curious as to what were the criticisms Jumbo has about Wikipedia. 🤔😉
Sad that Wikipedia is dying. I use it alot, actually. Nearly everyday use.
I love Wikipedia I recently donated 80 INR ie. 1 USD
Wikipedia is vital to information as one can reference sources and check where things were cited to see the perspective rather than unified immediate truth at one place. Usually an article covers a zoomed out semi-pluralist view of perspective with biased where a critical thinker and reader could expect in the analysis section and outcome sections of events and individuals based on sociology, utility, consequentialism, and a gradually lessened anthropocentric view of what is and what was. The only thing Wikipedia needs is a tab changer based on philosophy and politics to highlight or even separate entire perspectives based on the writers/editors consistent history otherwise the random edits(most are from nerds with their own biases and get verified after alerts to others involved in the topic.) can randomly be referenced as such. Like a comment…
It often provides the basis of how something or someone realistically came to being in historicity and different recognitions.
Censorship in knowledge should be removed and almost entirely to the limits of debate as to allow logic and reasoning to filter information rather than just casting even bullshit aside.
Today people seem to be losing the ability to sense bullshit and its not right to keep them away and blind from what needs to be understood themselves as true or false based on their philosophical values amd reasoning capabilities to actually LEARN. People don’t often find the right answer or exact truth at first. Wikipedia cant serve to do this, and it shouldn’t. It doesn’t seem to try either, it has just been as it has been and done what its done as a collective effort towards public information disquisition and exposition that is still slow and ineffective to the masses that want a quick answer to reference forever, outside and away from inherent comprehension of topics and any internal discussion with what can be read in both agreement and disagreement — in ones own inquisition of knowledge.
But, fuck mods.
Fuck overseers and underminers.
Fuck meritocracy for sure, and fuck titular capability.
Revision for improvement necessitates inclusion for progressive coherence, rather than ultimate knowledge and total reduction.
Now the co founder is lumping pedophiles and lolicons together
.svg){kind=small}
