It was in 2006 that I first came to know about Wikipedia.org, and the very first interaction made me fall in love with it, head over heels.
Just try to think of a single web site like Wikipedia.org, and you will fail. Because there is none. After all, where will you get a single point source of information on everything under the Sun, ranging from the topics like Adolf Hitler and Global Warming to the ones like "Dhaba" and "Chutney"? Just ask for the information on anything, and Wikipedia.org is there at your service. It is very very very rare that you will fail to locate the information that you are seeking. Yes, sometimes it happens. It has happenned for a couple of times with my humble self, as well. But as I said, it is very very very rare.
Some of my friends compare the web site with Encyclopedia. Well, while I accept that Encyclopedia does come very close to Wikipedia, I do not consider the former to be exactly at par with the latter. Why? Well, mainly for 3 reasons.
No. 1, the range of Encyclopedia is not as widespread as that of Wikipedia.org. As I have already said that Wikipedia.org contains information on everything ranging from the topics like Adolf Hitler and Global Warming to the ones like "Dhaba" and "Chutney". This is something you cannot expect from Encyclopedia. For example, right now I typed "Michelle" in the "search box" of Wikipedia.org. And it is showing the names of various people named Michelle, quite a number of whom will certainly not feature in Encyclopedia.
No. 2, the regular updating of Wikipedia.org. The information found in a particular series of Encyclopedia are restricted to the information considered valuable at the time of publication of that series. But that is not the case with Wikipedia.org It is regularly updated. In fact, you can even find the Website containing a detailed information about a person who has become famous just 1 hour back. A notable example of that sort is that of Abhinav Bindra. Within days of his winning the Olympics gold medal I searched for his name in the Wikipedia, and found the same to be present there.
No. 3, Wikipedia gives you the liberty to add/modify content. In case you feel the web site should have displayed information about a particular person/topic/country, etc, you can create content on the same and submit to the site.
You can also add content (and thus add value) to an already existing content, provided you have something valuable to add.
And yes, you also have the opportunity to rectify a particular bit of information if you find it to be wrong.
Needless to say, like the benefits mentioned in points no. 1 and 2, the opportunities mentioned in point no. 3 are not to be found in Encyclopedia.
Yes, Wikipedia.org does have its own shares of draw backs. For example, the information found in it are sometimes not accurate. And it is widely suggsted not to have blind faith on Wikipedia.org. Nevertheless, the web site is a golden feather in the cap of Internet in general and Web 2.0 in particular.
Just try to think of a single web site like Wikipedia.org, and you will fail. Because there is none. After all, where will you get a single point source of information on everything under the Sun, ranging from the topics like Adolf Hitler and Global Warming to the ones like "Dhaba" and "Chutney"? Just ask for the information on anything, and Wikipedia.org is there at your service. It is very very very rare that you will fail to locate the information that you are seeking. Yes, sometimes it happens. It has happenned for a couple of times with my humble self, as well. But as I said, it is very very very rare.
Some of my friends compare the web site with Encyclopedia. Well, while I accept that Encyclopedia does come very close to Wikipedia, I do not consider the former to be exactly at par with the latter. Why? Well, mainly for 3 reasons.
No. 1, the range of Encyclopedia is not as widespread as that of Wikipedia.org. As I have already said that Wikipedia.org contains information on everything ranging from the topics like Adolf Hitler and Global Warming to the ones like "Dhaba" and "Chutney". This is something you cannot expect from Encyclopedia. For example, right now I typed "Michelle" in the "search box" of Wikipedia.org. And it is showing the names of various people named Michelle, quite a number of whom will certainly not feature in Encyclopedia.
No. 2, the regular updating of Wikipedia.org. The information found in a particular series of Encyclopedia are restricted to the information considered valuable at the time of publication of that series. But that is not the case with Wikipedia.org It is regularly updated. In fact, you can even find the Website containing a detailed information about a person who has become famous just 1 hour back. A notable example of that sort is that of Abhinav Bindra. Within days of his winning the Olympics gold medal I searched for his name in the Wikipedia, and found the same to be present there.
No. 3, Wikipedia gives you the liberty to add/modify content. In case you feel the web site should have displayed information about a particular person/topic/country, etc, you can create content on the same and submit to the site.
You can also add content (and thus add value) to an already existing content, provided you have something valuable to add.
And yes, you also have the opportunity to rectify a particular bit of information if you find it to be wrong.
Needless to say, like the benefits mentioned in points no. 1 and 2, the opportunities mentioned in point no. 3 are not to be found in Encyclopedia.
Yes, Wikipedia.org does have its own shares of draw backs. For example, the information found in it are sometimes not accurate. And it is widely suggsted not to have blind faith on Wikipedia.org. Nevertheless, the web site is a golden feather in the cap of Internet in general and Web 2.0 in particular.
