Wikipedia Hits 300,000 Articles 507
Raul654 writes "Today Wikipedia reached the 300,000 article mark. Wikipedia is a 3-year-old non-profit project to build an encyclopedia using WikiWiki software. All text is licensed under the GFDL. It has everything that a traditional encyclopedia would, but also many things that would never get written about, such as Crushing by elephant and the GNU/Linux naming controversy. For size comparisons, the English Wikipedia has 90.1 million words across 300,000 articles, compared to Britannica's 55 million words across 85,000 articles. (All the languages combined together reach 790,000 articles.) For much of the first half of 2004, Wikipedia's growth has outstripped server capacity - however, the shortage of PHP/MySQL developers is probably the biggest long term problem facing the project. Slashdot had previously reported when Wikipedia reached the 200,000 mark."
Celebration! (Score:3, Funny)
Whohoooo! Let's celebrate by slashdotting the site!
Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Goatse (Score:5, Funny)
May his memory live on.
stack of 60's era encylopedia americana (Score:5, Funny)
The real advantage is to Wikipedia is.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Goverment Funding (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
How to name numbers [wikipedia.org]
Re:Celebration! (Score:3, Funny)
Wow - I did not know that. So in the future I should cry "Whohooo - let's Wiki slashdot"?
Then again, I'm not sure I trust a gigant spyware manufacturer like Alexa - even if gathering people's surfing habits _IS_ their business...
Re:Congrats! (Score:5, Funny)
Aparantly, the moderators disagree with you and mods you informative. Or rather, they agree with you and mod you... Or, they... agree, I mean disagree... with... or... AAAARGH! I sprained my brain!
Click! Click! Click! (Score:5, Funny)
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Difference between Wikipedia and journalism (Score:3, Funny)
> Wikipedia, from that standpoint, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from traditional, commercial journalism. Its authors have all the time in the world to get things right, check facts, correct bad wording, improve clarity. The quality of the entries is generally astounding. And if anything is wrong with an entry, we readers can become writers and correct it ourselves!
And for the most part it works, but unfortunately - just like with the rest of the internet - there are plenty of 45540135 who can't resist inserting their racism, nationalism, religionism, or other fanatic ideology into various articles. Also pseudoscientific kooks who like to set up camp on their favorite article and continually combat all attempts to correct it.
Use with caution, especially on exotic topics where there aren't enough experts to keep up with the kooks. If it's something you really want to be informed on, look at the page history to see whether it is a battleground. If it looks like one person is continually undoing everything ten others are trying to do, be wary of that person's edits.
Re: Celebration! (Score:3, Funny)
> > actually Wikipedia is busier than slashdot, according to Alexa.
> Wow - I did not know that. So in the future I should cry "Whohooo - let's Wiki slashdot"?
I think the verb is "wikipee".
Link like wiki (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
When sentience arises on the net... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Congrats! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Congrats! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Size doesn't matters (Score:3, Funny)
err...
Re:Perhaps they should add... (Score:3, Funny)
:-)
Even earlier (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Random page (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks
Re:And...? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Random page (Score:3, Funny)