Wikipedia gets a lot of things wrong.
Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.
The accuracy of Wikipedia can be dodgy in some places, but in maths, it's really quite good.
For all its shortcomings, Wikipedia does have strong governance and deliberative mechanisms; anyone who has ever followed discussions on Wikipedia's mailing lists will confirm that its moderators and administrators openly discuss controversial issues on a regular basis.
My original concept was to provide a free encyclopedia for every single person in the world.
Wikipedia was a big help for science, especially science communication, and it shows no sign of diminishing in importance.
Wikipedia has a way of compiling compendiums of information on subjects.
Wikipedia is the first place I go when I'm looking for knowledge... or when I want to create some.
I first met Jimbo Wales, the face of Wikipedia, when he came to speak at Stanford.
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.
Wikipedia is the #5 site on the Web and serves 450 million different people every month - with billions of page views.
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.
People take issue with individual aspects of Wikipedia all the time. But it's kind of hard to hate the general idea of a free encyclopedia. It's like hating kittens.
I think it's weird that the news cedes so much ground to Wikipedia. That isn't true in other informational sectors.
When you consider the magnitude of how many people use Wikipedia globally, there is a potential here for really creating some noise and getting some attention in the U.S.
I've consciously avoided actually reading anything about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia celebrates its 12th birthday today. Of course, I have no idea if it's true. I read it on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a strange thing. Whoever gets there first, you know, they decide. Like the picture: You can't choose it! You can't be like, 'You know, I hate that picture of me doing stand-up from 2005 - that doesn't exemplify who I am.' You take it down, and someone puts it back up.
Wikipedia is kind of weird. I feel it's lame to put up my own page, but I desperately want someone else to do it.
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.
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 don't think Silicon Valley understands the power of Wikipedia, how it works, or the opportunities it represents.
Wikipedia is a non-profit. It was either the dumbest thing I ever did or the smartest thing I ever did.
Wikipedia is an amazing construct. It's a commons that works. I don't know how Jimmy Wales came up with it. I'm sure all of us would have said, "This is the stupidest thing we've ever heard of. That'll never work in a million years."
Wikipedia is a victory of process over substance.
