User:Hannes Röst/About Wikipedia

http://bostonreview.net/BR34.6/morozov.php

"If it hadn't been called *.pedia, very few of the current objections cited would be relevant."

- Anonymous

"Wikipedia is not commonly presumed to be authoritative. Instead, in summarizing vast amounts of information (and supplying key search terms for further research), it is generally taken as a first step to finding real, accurate data and original resources. Just as a student should get his knuckles rapped for quoting a regular encyclopedia in a paper, he should get them rapped for quoting Wikipedia. But the student would be crazy not to check Wikipedia first."

- Anonymous

"As a professor at a major university, I can attest that much time is wasted on bureaucracy on Wikipedia - but even more so at the university. Also, try getting anything published in a refereed journal; you'll have to bow before every whim of the referees and editors, some of which are contradictory."

- Anonymous

fork!? better version control system / patch system: http://scytale.name/blog/2009/11/announcing-levitation

Gift (de): http://blog.koehntopp.de/archives/2675-Communitygift.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sethfinkelstein