Evgeny Morozov Quotes

Wikipedia is just an incredible thing. It is fact-encirclingly huge, and it is idiosyncratic, careful, messy, funny, shocking and full of simmering controversies - and it is free, and it is fast.

If you think of the ideas of open source applied to information in an encyclopedia, you get to Wikipedia - lots and lots of small contributions that bubble up to something that's meaningful.

I don't think Silicon Valley understands the power of Wikipedia, how it works, or the opportunities it represents.

Wikipedia was a big help for science, especially science communication, and it shows no sign of diminishing in importance.

Wikipedia is kind of extreme, where a very, very small group of people contribute pretty much everything.

To continue down the path of comprehensiveness, Wikipedia will need to sustain the astonishing mass fervor of its birth years. Will that be possible? No one knows.

I have always viewed the mission of Wikipedia to be much bigger than just creating a killer website. We're doing that of course, and having a lot of fun doing it, but a big part of what motivates us is our larger mission to affect the world in a positive way.

Because everyone in the world has the power to edit, Wikipedia has long been plagued by the so-called edit war. This is like a house where the husband wants it warm and the wife wants it cool and they sneak back and forth adjusting the thermostat at cross purposes.

It created a global platform that allowed more people to plug and play, collaborate and compete, share knowledge and share work, than anything we have ever seen in the history of the world.

I think open source is an evolutionary idea for humanity, this idea of transparency. It played out for us in the technology world, but it also played out with the idea of a truth and reconciliation commission and Wikipedia.

Encyclopedias are finished. All encyclopedias combined, including the redoubtable Britannica, have already been surpassed by the exercise in groupthink known as Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, every day, is tens of thousands of people inputting information, and every day millions of people withdrawing that information. It's a perfect image for the fundamental point that no one of us is as smart as all of us thinking together.

Wikipedia is a victory of process over substance.

The free sharing and teaching of open source is incompatible with the notion of the solitary genius.

You have to test your ideas in a public forum.

I love participatory media, collective knowledge systems, user-generated content and the like, and spent much of my life and career participating in them and making them.

Consider this: alms aside, Wikipedia is fueled by competitive pedantry and emo-ness. How great is that?

Wikipedia [...] is the product not of collectivism but of unending argumentation.

Oh, Wikipedia, with your tension between those who would share knowledge and those who would destroy it.

You can get really far by putting your ideas out there and letting other people build on them.

Ideas exist in the marketplace; they are thrown out for everyone to use.

If I could police every other social platform in the world, I would.

One of the missions of 'The Nightly Show' was to have a conversation with America in a sense, and talk about the things that people didn't want to talk about it.

We believe open data helps citizens have a better understanding about Seoul's policies and motivates them to join the city government's efforts.

I've consciously avoided actually reading anything about Wikipedia.