Archive:Stories: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
--> |
--> |
||
{{cquote|I am writing a biography of a man and his wife who were born in Germany in the 20s and went through the war, Russian occupation, escape and immigration to the US. Interviewing and taping their story over the last ten years. Memories now failing along with Health, I lacked the information I needed to write the book. If it had not been for the wealth of information on Wikipedia, this task would have been impossible. I can't begin to express the help Wikipedia has been in accessing historical information and pictures form thousands of sources right from my desk-top. Thanks to all those thousands of people who have taken the time to contribute. }} |
|||
<hr> |
|||
{{cquote|As the husband of a PhD student, I look over many scientific articles and am struck by the continuing lack of connectedness between works cited, where citations still consist of author name(s) + year of publication. Scientists may be used to this, but I find it frustrating, and something that the original designers of HTML were trying fundamentally to address. I think Wikipedia shows the full flowering of HTML's ability to cross link and draw together knowledge. I think that that by itself would be enough to set Wikipedia apart, but I also think there is a subtler psychological effect involved. Wikipedia's snowballing content and the increasingly rigorous and academic standards applied to that content are, I think, beginning to show people that they can publish their research and findings to the world through this forum and be happy that it will not be vandalized or subverted willy nilly, WHILST still being open for valid, properly referenced criticism. This can only be a good thing, since it embeds in context the nuances and controversies that the lay person may not initially realize exist in any work of exploration, AND allow those facets to be easily explored. It frees us from simply 'looking up the answer' and purveying that as gospel. :-) Thanks. }} |
{{cquote|As the husband of a PhD student, I look over many scientific articles and am struck by the continuing lack of connectedness between works cited, where citations still consist of author name(s) + year of publication. Scientists may be used to this, but I find it frustrating, and something that the original designers of HTML were trying fundamentally to address. I think Wikipedia shows the full flowering of HTML's ability to cross link and draw together knowledge. I think that that by itself would be enough to set Wikipedia apart, but I also think there is a subtler psychological effect involved. Wikipedia's snowballing content and the increasingly rigorous and academic standards applied to that content are, I think, beginning to show people that they can publish their research and findings to the world through this forum and be happy that it will not be vandalized or subverted willy nilly, WHILST still being open for valid, properly referenced criticism. This can only be a good thing, since it embeds in context the nuances and controversies that the lay person may not initially realize exist in any work of exploration, AND allow those facets to be easily explored. It frees us from simply 'looking up the answer' and purveying that as gospel. :-) Thanks. }} |
||
Revision as of 17:23, 25 February 2011
Template:2010/Donate-header/en
Template:2009/Header-links/en
Wikipedia is Changing Lives
Here are just a few of the amazing stories that our users shared with us. We thank them for their willingness to tell their story about Wikipedia.
- From our 2010-2011 Fundraiser
- From our 2009-2010 fundraiser
A story from Romania:
Template:Cquote English translation: Template:Cquote
You can find the article that Adama started in the French Wikipedia: Agnam-Goly.
Have a story to share? Please tell us! Click here.
Click here to make a financial donation to the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.