That's often reserved for more political pages, where editing is restricted to wikipedia's mods and staff (who are also very politically biased to the left).
@@PastryScentWell, one, that's a somewhat vague descriptor. I suppose I know what you mean, but it's definitely not very clear what counts as a "political" page. Also, not entirely true, almost all wikipedia pages are public for the majority of the time. Pages will be protected temporarily, typically in the case of current events or something similar to keep people from spam editing. The only exceptions that I'm aware of are site critical pages, like the main page and use disclaimers, but that's about it. Edits are still often delayed and I think sometimes reviewed for non-regular editors though, you can make edits, but they don't immediately go live. There are quite a few pages like that.
Porkchop GMX The amount of calling people who have nothing to do with the alt-right alt-right is insane. Like, compare how they talk about left leaning politicians, and look how they talk about right-leaning commentators.
The chad Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons (photos) and Wikiquote vs the barren wastelands of Wikidata, Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikibooks and Wikispecies.
Wikitonary is a great source, but Google Translate becomes usable once you understand the language well enough to understand why it's making the errors it makes.
Some times I just get on Wikipedia to see what random paths it takes me. I’ve gotten from reading about nuclear fusion to Godzilla in just a few clicks.
That actually makes sense because the original Godzilla film was inspired by nuclear threat. For obvious reasons, Japanese people were very interested in telling that story.
Wait if there’s a wiki on how it’s not a reliable source, does that imply that it’s also a reliable source for telling people that it’s not a reliable source
Science articles I read on wikipedia are incredibly reliable. They do go through great efforts to be reliable and admit they can be wrong, and that makes them more reliable. It's that scientific mindset that I like.
I've donated a few dollars to Wikipedia here and there. I think it's over-all a great resource and find myself using it pretty often for various things.
@Don’t Read12 maybe they should have said “person” but it doesn’t mean they’re sexist. If you’re looking for someone who actually is sexist, look no further than Preston Garvey’s reply to your comment
Man I did an internship with Wikipedia in college through their WikiEDU program. They’re good people and it was a mutual relationship of students doing research and fixing articles while getting professional editing skills / training while Wikipedia got basically free labor. Their structure is extremely smart. They utilize everything they can.
I'm gonna be honest, WikiEd editors are responsible for some of the worst edits I've ever seen on the site. I feel like most of them don't understand how to write in an encyclopedic tone because they're used to writing essays (not that their essays are good either).
I feel like folks hear that “anybody can edit Wikipedia” and get the impression that it’s literally just cobbled together nonsense. I’ve edited the encyclopedia quite a bit. First, edits almost always need to be supported by verifiable sources. That’s why it’s said that “Wikipedia is not a source”... it’s literally designed in such a way that everything in an article should be verifiable in the references section. So there’s no need to use it as a source, because it’s not a place for original research... whatever you see there should be accessible in the published resource cited for that information. Also, it’s worth mentioning that, while it’s true that any registered user can edit most articles, every article edit is also reviewed by a community of other editors who are passionate about maintaining a legitimate encyclopedic resource for that particular topic. So if an article is vandalized, they undo it quickly. If unsubstantiated information is added, the edit is reviewed by anywhere from a couple to as many as dozens of other editors who can remove or otherwise contest the edit. So while there isn’t generally a centralized source of oversight, the peer review system actually works pretty damn well. That’s not to say that every article is world-class, by any means. But in general, it’s pretty extraordinary how accurate most articles are when you consider that they’re pieced together bit by bit, edit by edit, fact by fact, and source by source by a community of collaborating volunteer editors that are simply passionate about the topic or about the platform.
@@goobermcgilicuty3754 nope. I just edit and oversee articles on topics that are of personal interest to me, same as anyone could really. Purely volunteer basis. If I never logged in again starting tomorrow, nobody would ask why. And it’s the same for virtually all of the editors of Wikipedia... it’s all just people committed to articles/topics that they are sincere about doing what they can in the time have available.
@Dan Quayles ITS SPELT POTATOES! What you are saying does not make any sense. He said that all info in an article is sourced. So you just use the sources provided, there should be no unsourced info in the article.
Verifiable sources - does not mean accurate; use it as a source - then why even call it an encyclopedia; reviewed by a community - not sure why that makes it reliable; "legitimate encyclopedic resource" - never seen that descript before, libraries don't tend to use it; "peer review system" - inferring they are accurate again; pretty extraordinary how accurate - SHOULDn't it be world class then?; pieced together bit by bit, edit by edit, fact by fact, and source by source - just because a lot of effort was put into a thing, doesn't mean it is reliable! Thats a whole lotta contradiction in there fella... and uuh if what your saying is on target.... "Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to be a reliable resource.-Larry Sanger" which does states quite nicely the purpose and at the same time (future tense) its not reliable, yet! You may be a committed volunteer, not questioning your edits but I can say (as confident as you) its not a reliable encyclopedia based on my research beyond WP. There is no way there are enough volunteers to fix everything, even if it not world class. In fact I would go as far as saying, 'encyclopedia' is not even an accurate term. also you should read the policy, nothing in there gives me the confidence, it ever will be reliable
I'm an antivandal editor and every time someone does my job for me in seconds (sometimes even less than 1 second) I get frustrated because someone stole my warning rights
@JustEnd I've had edit wars with people. One specifically was over the name of a Portuguese king. For context, every portuguese King called Jão is listed as John on English wikipedia, as its the english form. I changed the name of Jão III to John III to match the rest of the Johns of Portugal. Nope, some portuguese guy changed it back to Jão, and even now you have a list of kings that goe something like John John Jao John John And I fucking hate it. Guy couldn't accept he's not called Jão in English, and I gave up trying to change it.
I've seen edit wars where a small minority of people win their personal preference. There's this page on one of the most famous classic cinema actors of all time, and there's no infobox. And every now and again, you have some poor soul asking in the Talk page why there is no infobox only to be responded with "See previous discussions. We won, loser"
@@ObitoSigma That small minority of people seem to have nothing else going on in their lives so they have time to dedicate to their silly edit wars, whereas everyone else will eventually realize they have better things to do and will give up.
When I'm bored I search things on Wikipedia that come to mind. I love them so much. I donate when I can to helped keep them around. I even have bought from their wiki-webstore.
even though I have barely ever found false info on an important wiki page. Teachers thought anyone could edit any page but you can't. Maybe in the early days anyone could.
They're fine for objective material - geography, science, history. The problem is that they go full blown propagandist Liberal on subjective matters. If they just kept out of political bias and only presented objective scientific facts, they'd be fine. I get mathematical and scientific equations and financial market information out of them all the time, and though I ALWAYS take with a grain of salt, I would say they're essentially 100% accurate on all of those. But when they start saying "Clinton good, Trump bad, G. Edward Griffin crazy" they shoot themselves in the head.
Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia
I have donated to Wikimedia every year for the last several years, alongside the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Mozilla Foundation, Linux Foundation, Free Software Foundation (FSF), Internet Archive, and maybe one or two I am forgetting. For me this is a no brainer. I use each of these sites and/or their products near daily, and/or they are a great cause for Internet Freedom. So the $100-200/yr in donations just doesn't seem or feel like much to me. Especially since at least some of them are responsible for me being able to do my job.
@@thotslayer9914 Depends, for what? For casually looking up or learning about things? Easily. As a starting point for more serious research (especially checking out their sited sources)? Sure. As a direct source for any kind of research paper? No.
@@thotslayer9914 No idea, never used them. Generally though, if they are true wikis, meaning editable by the public, they're probably never going to be viewed as reliable enough for the world of academia. You'd probably have to restrict it to those with verifiable education and/or experience in the subject matter, and have some kind of serious review system, at which point, you have more of a loosely structured academic journal than a wiki.
And I spend my time with books and research in the library contemplating all views on all matters. Wikipedia either does not allow all view points, or in a bias way debunks them!
@@goobermcgilicuty3754 Neat. I donate to my Local Library too. Its called taxes. Or at least I did before the tax got voted down because the Library Board decided to start censoring specific books.
It was fairly new when I was in college (2000's) and I always double checked what sources the article used. It's great to see that Wikipedia is still going strong
Thats right because everyone knows popularity is much more important than actual truth. Historically a generation who bend at the knee to popularity have always been viewed as laughing stocks or bad examples later on!
because someone made a bot that auto-translates articles from English to Swedish and Cebuano. The second biggest language other than those two is German.
@@hetakusoda2977 I'm actually disappointed that the number (and quality) of articles in Spanish lags behind the actual scale of the language. Doesn't help that there's so much tension between the various Hispanoamerican dialects against Castilian Spanish. I often read articles there and they're very specific in spelling and content to Spain, rather than being more representative of the world at large or at least the Hispanosphere.
I started using Wikipedia in earnest circa 2006, when I was working on my computer science degree and I discovered that Wikipedia had excellent articles on all of the data structures and algorithms I needed to learn.
Behind the company that got you through every research assignment. *The OG of "Can I copy your homework - Yeah just change it up a bit so that it's not obvious you copied"*
Thanks for that Company Man. I never understood what the request for donations was all about, but I'm glad you explained how it relates to the company. Very informative. Now that I know this, I'll definitely donate when I can. No different from donating to any other charity I donate to, except I actually have benefited from this site many times over. Keep up the great channel.
Going down the wikipedia rabbit hole is so fun. I love reading articles on wikipedia and clicking on any hyperlinked articles that I find interesting. I've gotten an overview on so many interesting and obscure topics that way
If you like Wikipedia, but like comedy too, there's Uncyclopedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, which are both great sites if you're looking for a good laugh every now and then.
Wiki “free fall” is the absolute most fun way to spend 9 hours on the internet and suddenly realize the birds are chirping and the sun is rising, isn’t it? 😂😂😂
I donate a bit of money to Wikipedia monthly, since I can afford to do so and Wikipedia is like magic. Having a resource like that is wonderful, and I never want it to go away.
just noticed I’m not subbed, your vids are recommended so much idk how I missed that. You’re my favorite RUclipsr, you lay everything out plainly with simple reference photos and you dig up so much interesting history about each company. Along with how everyone started out, how their finances and sales were over the years, it’s detailed, thorough and you’re genuinely enthusiastic about statistics and learning in general. You always make it interesting
True story: I was in college, and needed to turn in a paper. So I went to Wikipedia. I found all the info I needed, and they cited their sources. So rather than copy and paste as my own work, I visited those sources, paraphrased when I could, quoted them, and sourced them. I turned in my paper, and the next day the teacher addresses the huge auditorium style class discussing how disappointing she was. Apparently she had internet access too! Who knew? She was upset that like half the class copied and pasted straight from Wikipedia. I was really scared. They have kicked people out of class, even put students on academic probation for plagiarism. She reminded the class of this, and gave half the class a big fat zero. But because it was like hundred of us, she said that we could rewrite the paper for 50 points. So, still an F, but at least more people have a chance at passing her class now. She handed me back my paper... ...65! Still not the best grade ever, but better than the 50 that all these people now had to find a way to get on top of whatever employment they may have. I was guilty for using Wikipedia to write my paper, but because I used different sources, cited, and paraphrased, I managed to pull off a D.
@@mirzaahmed6589 when it comes to college and schools the correct way to use Wikipedia is to in fact use the sources located at the bottom as your own sources and use content from those sources instead of Wikipedia, this ensures it won't get flagged for cheating and you still get to do it easy. Personally I think it's perfectly fine for a teacher not to allow Wikipedia as a source, students need to know how to research stuff on their own.
@@tankerkiller125 yes, however, using the sources from Wikipedia is being resourceful in getting what you need without all the pre-search that can be involved in finding sources. As long as you use those sources for the answers and not Wikipedia as the source, you did the research.
Damn American uni grades are high. In the UK a 65 is a solid Upper Second Class (basically the 2nd best grade, only under a First Class!). Granted, anything beyond 80 is considered god-tier, and 90 is essentially academically publishable, and a 40 is a pass here. But yeah, suprised so many of your class thought they could get away with plagiarism. We had it drilled into us long before we submitted essays how to properly cite our sources and insert quotations. I do History so it's very important!
@@honolulublues5548 I believe that was exactly the point the person you replied to made. Don't cite Wikipedia, cite the sources wikipedia cites. Use wikipedia as a gateway to references, not the reference itself.
The Company Men is 2010 American drama film, written and directed by John Wells. It features Ben Affleck, Kevin Costner, Chris Cooper and Tommy Lee Jones.
I realized that a lot of PBS Kids shows are not active anymore, and people like me don't bother watching the one's that are left. Even Sesame Street went from PBS Kids, to HBO. Could you do a rise and fall with it? Edit: Huh, I didn't know it would be this supported. Thanks for the likes guys!
I love Wikipedia, and Wiktionary is an almost daily site for me. I donate if I have the money to, but being a uni student means $20 can make or break rent sometimes, but I think it's important to support the things you use every day
@@mirzaahmed6589 anything is better than nothing. I'd like to support more creators on Patreon, but I can't afford to pledge every channel, so I have Premium which at least does something more than ad revenue
Wikipedia challenge. Try to find 2 wiki articles. Start with the one you want to start with and go through the many articles to get to the one you want to go. Example, NASA to Minecraft. Good luck making it there.
Some of the behind the scenes Wikipedia articles are quite interesting. I particularly recommend Wikipedia:Village stocks, a collection of amusing blunders throughout the history of Wikipedia -- e.g. deleting the Main Page, or blocking Jimmy Wales.
I remember getting a CD-ROM with a laptop I bought back in 1999 that had Encarta on it. Compared to the 20+ volume paper encyclopedia I had on my bookshelf it was incredibly brief and limited. Had some good articles on there and some interesting multimedia stuff like interactive charts and short films to demonstrate scientific concepts, but not nearly enough information overall. It felt more like a demo of a future product rather than a complete product itself, and I don't recall them ever releasing a more complete 20+ CD set.
I actually donated to Wikipedia just today! I figured I use the site so much, I ought to donate. My high school librarians taught us to use Wikipedia articles as a starting point, and go through the sources listed for better information. It definitely helped with research!
The key to using Wikipedia as a source is their source list. It's actually a wonderful way to find relevant material. You read through Wikipedia and find some useful information, click on the footnote, access the source and reference it from there.
You can start one. With nearly a million subscribers, he should be considered notable enough for inclusion (I've seen RUclipsrs with fewer subs that have Wikipedia pages).
@@mirzaahmed6589 the rule for the youtuber are very bad. (accepted if it have change in the last year) the number of subscribers, or view, is not take in count to measure the notoriety of a RUclipsr. the English Wikipedia is a bit lax about it, and will tolerate the very high number of suscriber. but the french, no. whatever is the number of subscriber, if there is not "2 articles in newspaper of national scale at least 2 years apart", the article will be delete. (there is some other possible rule to make an article admissible , but not things that are likely to concerne a youtuber) (and generally, the newspaper don't car about the youtuber, so it is very hard to a youtuber to be admissible)
@@paulamblard3836 The English Wikipedia once had similar rules, I know that. They were adamant that they would not turn into an internet directory. I don't know what more recent rules say, or how moderators react to articles about RUclipsrs these days. But personally, I'm just happy to retain the notion that "the real world" isn't entirely online.
I haven't donated to Wikipedia, but I have made a few thousand edits over several years (which in a way is also a donation). While I definitely think that Wikipedia is an important service to share information freely on the Internet, what worries me is how often people, companies, or organizations pay to have professional editors write up or polish their Wikipedia pages, often with biased and misleading information. Now that Wikipedia has most of the articles that one might expect to find on it, it's very important to ensure the platform isn't used as a means of propagating false information, especially when it is intentionally misleading or defamatory. Since Wikipedia has a budget surplus every year and the article count rate growth has slowed down, if people want to help Wikipedia and have spare time, I think that submitting a few constructive edits a month, or just whenever there's an obvious error, is more important than donating a few dollars.
In high school we would have wiki races. A third party would pick an article as the destination using the random function. The competitors would then pick their starting points using the random function and see who could get to the destination article first. Speaks to how ridiculously large and interconnected Wikipedia is
Bro, I have been using Wikipedia to binge on its articles since second grade, in fact, it's one of the reasons why I want to become a linguist because of how accessible it made the knowledge to me. Nowadays, I use it daily out of thirst for knowledge, spreading anthropology, linguistics, several branches of maths, physics and sometimes computer science. Often, I go down super large rabbit holes that span days of reading, and quite possibly a good portion of RAM being used to hold on to all the open tabs; hell, sometimes I end up in a radically different place from where I started! I've been logging my progress with bookmarks and watch laters. I would never want the free encyclopedia to go down, so I donate to it and buy something from it as a token of my appreciation.
I use it a lot nowadays. Never as an official source for my history works, but for a day to day read it is amazing. Sources have improved a lot and so does editing (more control now).
“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.” - Michael Scott
mike does a fantastic job researching and filtering research for this channel. compared to other youtube channels, companyman is head and shoulders above even other channels with sponsors. i try to watch every video from this channel which even holds a little interest in some way for me. the information is high quality and concise
But it's really, really easy to put biased, outdated, or otherwise inaccurate information there with hardly anyone batting an eye. I know because I've seen it personally.
I have donated in the past, and I likely will in the future. I believe that they are the single best source for students. This is because even if you can't cite them directly, the sources the volunteers provide at the bottom of the page are a huge advantage to any student not well versed in finding academic papers. It is truely a wonderful site. It got me through a lot of my college papers and projects. Bless you Jimmy and team! Y'all saved my ass constantly!
I am a computer science/computer engineering researcher. I use Wikipedia pretty much a couple times every day for my research and for the random things that enter my mind. I do have a $5/month donation plan. I am writing my first Wikipedia page--you can't appreciate the fine internal infrastructure until you write a (non-trivial) page.
@@esteban4284 "Time-Utility Functions" (plus a comment about it on my Talk page, which is very easy to write compared to even a simple page like my TUF page). I have had to pause writing it but will be back soon. Writing Wikipedia pages is sort of akin to learning TeX (LOL).
I do absolutely love the stock footage you use in your videos. Just random clips of people yelling at each other while pointing to various papers, very funny imo
I've donated to Wikipedia exactly once. I think if you have the means to support something that you feel passionate about and something that has helped you then it's definitely not a bad thing to show some support too. Wikipedia has helped us all and we're lucky to have it.
I absolutely love wikis, and I’ve donated to Wikimedia on several occasions, and even edited some. I spend all my editing time on Wookieepedia now, though, and the amount of passion and dedication I see for making sure articles are of the highest quality makes me proud of the work we do.
Hey, well done to you for explaining non-profit accounting in terms that most everyone can understand. Most people get frustrated when they hear a non-profit made more than they spent; I thought you handled that well.
I love Wikipedia, that’s my first go to for learning also reading things in different languages the same article like looking up Armenia in Portuguese shows the European and Brazilian spelling versions. I believe when someone makes a wiki article on you, you’ve made it into the world somehow.
Over the years, I have donated repeatedly (even having a recurring monthly donation). And the reason why is because I use this site extensively. My first place I go any time I learn something on a new topic or subtopic, I go straight to Wikipedia. So it only seems fair that I donate to it, to help keep them running and available :D
When I worked at a grocery store one of my customers was a volunteer for the German Wikipedia. He told me verbatim "don't bother donating, they have more money than they know what to do with"
I donate to Wikipedia because i use it so much and it had granted me with knowledge and A way to structure many essays . For uni its the first place i visit when doing an assignment for base reference and the reference page Has really helped me
I've actually donated and edited some articles specific for my community and language since they were not yet translated. I really appreciate the mission of wikipedia to have almost everything we know available to learn for Free!
I've donated a handful of times. I don't use wikipedia as much anymore, but I still feel at least somewhat indebted to them for being the powerhouse to my middle school-college career. At that time teachers were constantly telling us that if we copied wikipedia, they have algorithms to detect it and it would result in an immediate fail. Especially in college. I'm quite happy they revealed that detail, because they gave me the formula for an easy cheat. Do 90% of your research on wikipedia, then when you have to make a statement on something, simply rearrange keywords with synonyms stylistically chosen to fit your own dialect, and slightly paraphrase whatever statement you're trying to use. Throw in the recommended source material as a reference and you're done. Thanks for saving me hours wikipedia, you the best, dawg.
@@Raskolnikov70 I know it's from a different movie, but also coffee and from Pacino: _"I had k'hoaffee with McCauley... _*_HALF AN HOUR AGO!!!"_* (Heat, 1995)
I am a wikipedia donor. The reason I donate is because I use Wikipedia as the starting point for my research. My hobby is writing superhero sci-fi fantasy books. So I'm often in need of a quick resource to get me started on my research. When I had to find out the hierarchy of the NYPD, wikipedia was the first place to look to get me started. From there I found other resources and eventually found the information I needed through the NYPD website. Considering they are dependent on donations, it really doesn't hurt me to spend 3 or 5 dollars to help keep them afloat. I think it's a great resource and it's one I have no qualms funding.
They’re not. They are moderated pretty frequently for inaccurate info/sources. And they can only be edited by approved users. I only know this bc I’m a bit of a Wikipedia nerd.
I work in the nonprofit sector, so imagine my surprise after binge watching your videos about for-profit companies, that you turned your attention to an NPO! I was biting my nails because, oh boy, lots of folks do not understand how nonprofits are very similar and very different from regular companies, but you do an excellent job. Two thoughts: 1) Folks often give the Overhead Ratio an outsized weight as a metric of performance. (75/25% split program/admin is pretty healthy) 2) Temporarily Restricted Net Assets are a PAIN in the REAR. It mostly has to do with a donor or funder saying "I'm giving you a lump sum now but I want to you to split it and spend half this year and spend the other half next year."
Yeah, when something wrong happens someone usually fixes it pretty quickly, it's a lot more reliable than people may think, and most of the time if you really can't use it, you can use one of the many sources for most purposes
Uh, no they're not.. Just two days ago I saw an article on the film Carmen Jones, which said that it was released after 20th Century Fox switched to Cinemascope and Technicolor as their main production format. But in reality, Fox switched to Deluxe Color after about a year of Cinemascope, and Carmen Jones was likewise made in Deluxe instead of Technicolor (the poster on the Wikipedia page even said so.) In another spot, Lindsey Graham is categorized as an Armenian genocide denier simply because he voted against the Congressional resolution last year recognizing it. But this doesn't necessarily prove he's an Armenian genocide denier; he was against the resolution mostly to avoid provoking the Turkish government, not because he personally denies the genocide. I could go on and on with examples of errors I've found on Wikipedia, but these are two of the most egregious examples.
@@hotwax9376 If you find what you know to be an error on Wikipedia, please fulfill your obligation to change the article and bring it up in the talk page
@@hotwax9376 wtf are you blabbering about? There's no such thing in either of pages? If there was, it is edited now. Also, this is word to word copied about what is written on Lindsey Graham page. In November 2019, Graham blocked a Senate resolution to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. In doing so, Graham justified himself by claiming that the Senate should not "try to rewrite [history]" [180]
@@hotwax9376 So how about you go "on and on" about more examples of Wikipedia's fairness. Just accept the fact that even if there is a problem,it gets edited out pretty quickly so most people don't see it. And don't you goddamn start about how it was up for 100 days when you saw it or more of your lies.
I donate every year. It is hard to understate the huge educational achievement it is that people the world over have at their fingertips the ability to look up virtually any topic and find reasonably accurate information about said topic. It's the only thing i donate to really.
I donate to Wikipedia because I use it regularly. I don't make an outright purchase for it, and I am not really fed ads in exchange, so this is how I support something I value. Which reminds me...I should probably donate to your Patreon as well.
I just go to wikipedia to have a quick look about something and end up all over the place. Origins of flour: Cereal flour is the the main ingredient of bread. Corn flour is important to Mesoamerican cuisine > Mesoamerica: is a region that extends from Central Mexico, Belize.. Wooh, Belize ☺️
The other wikis are very underrated. Wiktionary has more detail than other online dictionaries (and modern slang like Urban). Wikivoyage is like a wiki for Lonely Planet or Tripadvisor (not to be confused with Wikitravel which is commercial). Wikibooks has good textbooks (the articles at the pedia are sometimes too short to learn about something).
You should make a video on the success of TJ-Maxx/Marshall’s! I’m really curious to why they’re so successful, and why they are so much more profitable than their competitors (Ross, etc).
Some Wikipedia pages can't just be edited by anyone, so when it comes to credibility, I think there's more nuance than people think.
That's often reserved for more political pages, where editing is restricted to wikipedia's mods and staff (who are also very politically biased to the left).
Pastry Scent
How do you know there’s a political bias
Wikipedia literally tries to be non-biased
They have a rule about that
@@PastryScentWell, one, that's a somewhat vague descriptor. I suppose I know what you mean, but it's definitely not very clear what counts as a "political" page.
Also, not entirely true, almost all wikipedia pages are public for the majority of the time. Pages will be protected temporarily, typically in the case of current events or something similar to keep people from spam editing. The only exceptions that I'm aware of are site critical pages, like the main page and use disclaimers, but that's about it.
Edits are still often delayed and I think sometimes reviewed for non-regular editors though, you can make edits, but they don't immediately go live. There are quite a few pages like that.
Porkchop GMX The amount of calling people who have nothing to do with the alt-right alt-right is insane. Like, compare how they talk about left leaning politicians, and look how they talk about right-leaning commentators.
"Whatever they say that I don't agree with is biased to whatever direction I say"
I used Wiktionary so much during Middle School for Latin class. Much more reliable than Google Translate for sure
The chad Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons (photos) and Wikiquote vs the barren wastelands of Wikidata, Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikibooks and Wikispecies.
Wikitonary is a great source, but Google Translate becomes usable once you understand the language well enough to understand why it's making the errors it makes.
Real linguists use word reference lol
William Fisher agreed. It’s great for verifying sentences, not making them.
its great for ancient greek too
Some times I just get on Wikipedia to see what random paths it takes me. I’ve gotten from reading about nuclear fusion to Godzilla in just a few clicks.
I love the random page feature!
I’ve done that and I was reading about concrete then the female anatomy then climate change.
I go to the "what happened today in history" page nearly daily. That usually takes me on some random path too.
That actually makes sense because the original Godzilla film was inspired by nuclear threat. For obvious reasons, Japanese people were very interested in telling that story.
The nuclear reactors in Japan feom the 2011 earthquake would easily lead you then to talks about Japan and their mainstay of Godzilla, lol.
“It all started with 2 guys: John Wiki and Joe Pedia”
nah one guy... first name Wiki and his last name was Pedia
They turned down requests to name the site "JohnJoe"
Nah! It all started with Satoshi Nakawiki.
Add this to the "Pedia" file.
John Wik
I’ve spent so many hours browsing Wikipedia at school with nothing else to do
Me too
I spent a boring telemeeting browsing through Wikipedia’s list of Egyptian Pharaohs.
I learned what Georgism is from Wikipedia. But I forget now.
that's me when I was in high school, during my free periods or when I finished lunch early
@@archer1949 I'm surprised by how many Pharoahs Egypt has. But then again their civilization lasted 4k years
Wait if there’s a wiki on how it’s not a reliable source, does that imply that it’s also a reliable source for telling people that it’s not a reliable source
shhhh, uncharted territory here.
Wikiception
A Paradox
@@Omar-em7rl .....Excellent comment
Science articles I read on wikipedia are incredibly reliable. They do go through great efforts to be reliable and admit they can be wrong, and that makes them more reliable. It's that scientific mindset that I like.
I've donated a few dollars to Wikipedia here and there. I think it's over-all a great resource and find myself using it pretty often for various things.
You, sir, are a great man.
@@PlayerMathinson
Or woman!
Sexist
Same. I use it enough for give them a buck or two when they ask.
@@dontread12 shut up who cares about women.
@Don’t Read12 maybe they should have said “person” but it doesn’t mean they’re sexist. If you’re looking for someone who actually is sexist, look no further than Preston Garvey’s reply to your comment
My high school teacher: Wikipedia is devil's work!
My college professor: so here's an article on Wikipedia about the topic for today's lecture.
did you see if your teacher participated in the article ?
True!
True!
My professor: Alright, please check this wikipedia article that contains my research as it's main source.
My High School Teacher: Wikipedia is...LOL, It didn't exist when I was in school. Pop in CD Microsoft Encarta.
What teachers see when you use Wikipedia as a source: source(s): Dude trust me
SAVE THIS COMMENT WHILE WE STILL CAN GOD'S BLOODY HAMMER IS GOING TO COME AND SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION AAAAAAAAA
@@spoondo6003 what
@@Kyogen. if you look in the top 2 comments a guy named 'God's Bloody Hammer' was spreading false information.
kr we always have to use that outdated website from 1997
@Gods Bloody Hammer OH GOOD GOD HE'S HERE RUN FOR YOUR LIFE EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF
Man I did an internship with Wikipedia in college through their WikiEDU program. They’re good people and it was a mutual relationship of students doing research and fixing articles while getting professional editing skills / training while Wikipedia got basically free labor. Their structure is extremely smart. They utilize everything they can.
I'm gonna be honest, WikiEd editors are responsible for some of the worst edits I've ever seen on the site. I feel like most of them don't understand how to write in an encyclopedic tone because they're used to writing essays (not that their essays are good either).
Gotta love the people who say “ great vid, keep it up!” Even though the video hasn’t been out long enough to fully watch
They're bots, they spam that on a bunch of different channels
Luke Rinderknecht I watch at 2x speed....
Still people showing support for the man. Just let it happen
Great comment! Keep it up!
{I'm definitely not a bot...}
《Beep...boop...boop...beep!》
2x speed bro
I feel like folks hear that “anybody can edit Wikipedia” and get the impression that it’s literally just cobbled together nonsense. I’ve edited the encyclopedia quite a bit. First, edits almost always need to be supported by verifiable sources. That’s why it’s said that “Wikipedia is not a source”... it’s literally designed in such a way that everything in an article should be verifiable in the references section. So there’s no need to use it as a source, because it’s not a place for original research... whatever you see there should be accessible in the published resource cited for that information. Also, it’s worth mentioning that, while it’s true that any registered user can edit most articles, every article edit is also reviewed by a community of other editors who are passionate about maintaining a legitimate encyclopedic resource for that particular topic. So if an article is vandalized, they undo it quickly. If unsubstantiated information is added, the edit is reviewed by anywhere from a couple to as many as dozens of other editors who can remove or otherwise contest the edit. So while there isn’t generally a centralized source of oversight, the peer review system actually works pretty damn well. That’s not to say that every article is world-class, by any means. But in general, it’s pretty extraordinary how accurate most articles are when you consider that they’re pieced together bit by bit, edit by edit, fact by fact, and source by source by a community of collaborating volunteer editors that are simply passionate about the topic or about the platform.
You have to work for them or are somehow related to some who works for them?
@@goobermcgilicuty3754 nope. I just edit and oversee articles on topics that are of personal interest to me, same as anyone could really. Purely volunteer basis. If I never logged in again starting tomorrow, nobody would ask why. And it’s the same for virtually all of the editors of Wikipedia... it’s all just people committed to articles/topics that they are sincere about doing what they can in the time have available.
@Dan Quayles ITS SPELT POTATOES! What you are saying does not make any sense. He said that all info in an article is sourced. So you just use the sources provided, there should be no unsourced info in the article.
Verifiable sources - does not mean accurate; use it as a source - then why even call it an encyclopedia; reviewed by a community - not sure why that makes it reliable; "legitimate encyclopedic resource" - never seen that descript before, libraries don't tend to use it; "peer review system" - inferring they are accurate again; pretty extraordinary how accurate - SHOULDn't it be world class then?; pieced together bit by bit, edit by edit, fact by fact, and source by source - just because a lot of effort was put into a thing, doesn't mean it is reliable! Thats a whole lotta contradiction in there fella... and uuh if what your saying is on target....
"Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to be a reliable resource.-Larry Sanger" which does states quite nicely the purpose and at the same time (future tense) its not reliable, yet! You may be a committed volunteer, not questioning your edits but I can say (as confident as you) its not a reliable encyclopedia based on my research beyond WP. There is no way there are enough volunteers to fix everything, even if it not world class. In fact I would go as far as saying, 'encyclopedia' is not even an accurate term. also you should read the policy, nothing in there gives me the confidence, it ever will be reliable
I'm an antivandal editor and every time someone does my job for me in seconds (sometimes even less than 1 second) I get frustrated because someone stole my warning rights
Any hot political, news and personal pages have insanely long editing pages. I’ve seen pages change content hourly. It’s an information war zone.
Hourly? I've seen articles on airlines and obscure urban planning philosophies edited every few seconds. Edit wars are common and accepted.
@CommandoDude Yeah the gatekeeping on some articles is annoying. All under the facade of "consensus". Yeah consensus between, like, 3 editors.
@JustEnd I've had edit wars with people. One specifically was over the name of a Portuguese king. For context, every portuguese King called Jão is listed as John on English wikipedia, as its the english form.
I changed the name of Jão III to John III to match the rest of the Johns of Portugal. Nope, some portuguese guy changed it back to Jão, and even now you have a list of kings that goe something like
John
John
Jao
John
John
And I fucking hate it.
Guy couldn't accept he's not called Jão in English, and I gave up trying to change it.
I've seen edit wars where a small minority of people win their personal preference. There's this page on one of the most famous classic cinema actors of all time, and there's no infobox. And every now and again, you have some poor soul asking in the Talk page why there is no infobox only to be responded with "See previous discussions. We won, loser"
@@ObitoSigma That small minority of people seem to have nothing else going on in their lives so they have time to dedicate to their silly edit wars, whereas everyone else will eventually realize they have better things to do and will give up.
When I'm bored I search things on Wikipedia that come to mind. I love them so much. I donate when I can to helped keep them around. I even have bought from their wiki-webstore.
They have that?
Gross
@@mbolduc???
@@mbolduc Gross
"I found it on Wikipedia", a five word horror story for teachers.
even though I have barely ever found false info on an important wiki page. Teachers thought anyone could edit any page but you can't. Maybe in the early days anyone could.
@Gods Bloody Hammer WRONG!
@Gods Bloody Hammer source?
They're fine for objective material - geography, science, history. The problem is that they go full blown propagandist Liberal on subjective matters. If they just kept out of political bias and only presented objective scientific facts, they'd be fine. I get mathematical and scientific equations and financial market information out of them all the time, and though I ALWAYS take with a grain of salt, I would say they're essentially 100% accurate on all of those. But when they start saying "Clinton good, Trump bad, G. Edward Griffin crazy" they shoot themselves in the head.
@Gods Bloody Hammer What's an "internate"?
There’s even a Wikipedia page for Wikipedia, wikiception!
One in each language that has a Wikipedia.
Let me guess, you are a fan of "Every Thing Wrong With...". Am I right?
@@wbcc3388 or he's a fan of the movie Inception, no?
Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia in Wikipedia
Run by sockpuppets
"Wait, it's all wikipedia?"
"Always has been."
*gun shot*
@@GarbanzoBeansFan *whip crack*
Tiberian Fiend nice 😊
I see TAEL
Boo
I have donated to Wikimedia every year for the last several years, alongside the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Mozilla Foundation, Linux Foundation, Free Software Foundation (FSF), Internet Archive, and maybe one or two I am forgetting. For me this is a no brainer. I use each of these sites and/or their products near daily, and/or they are a great cause for Internet Freedom. So the $100-200/yr in donations just doesn't seem or feel like much to me. Especially since at least some of them are responsible for me being able to do my job.
@@thotslayer9914 Depends, for what?
For casually looking up or learning about things? Easily.
As a starting point for more serious research (especially checking out their sited sources)? Sure.
As a direct source for any kind of research paper? No.
@@thotslayer9914 No idea, never used them. Generally though, if they are true wikis, meaning editable by the public, they're probably never going to be viewed as reliable enough for the world of academia. You'd probably have to restrict it to those with verifiable education and/or experience in the subject matter, and have some kind of serious review system, at which point, you have more of a loosely structured academic journal than a wiki.
@@gixxygamma uP
And I spend my time with books and research in the library contemplating all views on all matters. Wikipedia either does not allow all view points, or in a bias way debunks them!
@@goobermcgilicuty3754 Neat. I donate to my Local Library too. Its called taxes. Or at least I did before the tax got voted down because the Library Board decided to start censoring specific books.
It was fairly new when I was in college (2000's) and I always double checked what sources the article used. It's great to see that Wikipedia is still going strong
2003 Wikipedia: “Hey Dad, I hit 100,000 articles! How many do you have?”
Nupedia: “Twenty-four”
I thought of something funnier than 24... 25~
@@alexthetiger7806 nice spongebob reference
Thats right because everyone knows popularity is much more important than actual truth. Historically a generation who bend at the knee to popularity have always been viewed as laughing stocks or bad examples later on!
@@goobermcgilicuty3754 wtf
@@goobermcgilicuty3754TROLL ALERT
Most amazing thing is Swedish is the 2nd biggest language on the site with 3.7 million entries.
Actually, Cebuano (a Filipino language) is second with over 5 million articles.
ceb.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Espesyal:Estadistika&action=raw
because someone made a bot that auto-translates articles from English to Swedish and Cebuano. The second biggest language other than those two is German.
@@hetakusoda2977 I'm actually disappointed that the number (and quality) of articles in Spanish lags behind the actual scale of the language. Doesn't help that there's so much tension between the various Hispanoamerican dialects against Castilian Spanish. I often read articles there and they're very specific in spelling and content to Spain, rather than being more representative of the world at large or at least the Hispanosphere.
@@mirzaahmed6589 uP
I started using Wikipedia in earnest circa 2006, when I was working on my computer science degree and I discovered that Wikipedia had excellent articles on all of the data structures and algorithms I needed to learn.
Top 3 Things schools hate.
3rd place: cheating
2nd place: homework not being turned in
1st place: Wikipedia
Thank for the likes everyone!!!
4th place: bullying and suicide
5th place: jackets and earings
6th place: those damn shoulders
7th place: wearing your hood indoors
@Gods Bloody Hammer I can assure you God is disappointed in you. you aren't going to Heaven.
You should do "Toyota bigger than you know" (they still make textiles etc)
Behind the company that got you through every research assignment.
*The OG of "Can I copy your homework - Yeah just change it up a bit so that it's not obvious you copied"*
Thanks for that Company Man. I never understood what the request for donations was all about, but I'm glad you explained how it relates to the company. Very informative. Now that I know this, I'll definitely donate when I can. No different from donating to any other charity I donate to, except I actually have benefited from this site many times over. Keep up the great channel.
"Looks like you're going to the Shadow Realm, Jimbo"
Whats poppin jim🅱️o?
Whats poppin jim🅱️o
What poppin jim🅱️
Whats poppin jim🅱️o
Whats poppin jim🅱️o?
Going down the wikipedia rabbit hole is so fun. I love reading articles on wikipedia and clicking on any hyperlinked articles that I find interesting. I've gotten an overview on so many interesting and obscure topics that way
If you like Wikipedia, but like comedy too, there's Uncyclopedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, which are both great sites if you're looking for a good laugh every now and then.
Wiki “free fall” is the absolute most fun way to spend 9 hours on the internet and suddenly realize the birds are chirping and the sun is rising, isn’t it? 😂😂😂
Close to a million subs?? 🤔
Company Man does “Company Man”?
Company Man: “The Rise & Rise Again of My Subs”
🥳 ENJOY THAT SWEET GOLD PLAY BUTTON 🥳
_,,You fairy... you _*_COMPANY MAN!!!"_*
(Al Pacino, Glengarry Glen Ross, 1992)
Mind blown
The Mind of William it is now.
@@HBKnowItAll William?
_,,You, _*_Williamson!!!_*_ I'm talking to you, sh%thead!"_
(Al Pacino, Glengarry Glen Ross, 1992)
I donate a bit of money to Wikipedia monthly, since I can afford to do so and Wikipedia is like magic. Having a resource like that is wonderful, and I never want it to go away.
just noticed I’m not subbed, your vids are recommended so much idk how I missed that.
You’re my favorite RUclipsr, you lay everything out plainly with simple reference photos and you dig up so much interesting history about each company. Along with how everyone started out, how their finances and sales were over the years, it’s detailed, thorough and you’re genuinely enthusiastic about statistics and learning in general. You always make it interesting
And he has a really cool voice, I love listening to him. I would listen to him recite the alphabet.
True story: I was in college, and needed to turn in a paper. So I went to Wikipedia. I found all the info I needed, and they cited their sources. So rather than copy and paste as my own work, I visited those sources, paraphrased when I could, quoted them, and sourced them. I turned in my paper, and the next day the teacher addresses the huge auditorium style class discussing how disappointing she was. Apparently she had internet access too! Who knew? She was upset that like half the class copied and pasted straight from Wikipedia. I was really scared. They have kicked people out of class, even put students on academic probation for plagiarism. She reminded the class of this, and gave half the class a big fat zero. But because it was like hundred of us, she said that we could rewrite the paper for 50 points. So, still an F, but at least more people have a chance at passing her class now.
She handed me back my paper... ...65! Still not the best grade ever, but better than the 50 that all these people now had to find a way to get on top of whatever employment they may have. I was guilty for using Wikipedia to write my paper, but because I used different sources, cited, and paraphrased, I managed to pull off a D.
She sounds like a horrible person.
@@mirzaahmed6589 when it comes to college and schools the correct way to use Wikipedia is to in fact use the sources located at the bottom as your own sources and use content from those sources instead of Wikipedia, this ensures it won't get flagged for cheating and you still get to do it easy. Personally I think it's perfectly fine for a teacher not to allow Wikipedia as a source, students need to know how to research stuff on their own.
@@tankerkiller125 yes, however, using the sources from Wikipedia is being resourceful in getting what you need without all the pre-search that can be involved in finding sources. As long as you use those sources for the answers and not Wikipedia as the source, you did the research.
Damn American uni grades are high. In the UK a 65 is a solid Upper Second Class (basically the 2nd best grade, only under a First Class!). Granted, anything beyond 80 is considered god-tier, and 90 is essentially academically publishable, and a 40 is a pass here.
But yeah, suprised so many of your class thought they could get away with plagiarism. We had it drilled into us long before we submitted essays how to properly cite our sources and insert quotations. I do History so it's very important!
@@honolulublues5548 I believe that was exactly the point the person you replied to made. Don't cite Wikipedia, cite the sources wikipedia cites. Use wikipedia as a gateway to references, not the reference itself.
These videos are so addicting, I live every single one of them so much
There are also the Wikias, now owned by Fandom.
And Gamepedia.
I hate the Wikia Engine.
Ads everywhere
@@user-sd7qo7qe4v Get ad blockers
Keith Pixton
Even if I did, the engine is really hard to navigate on a computer. And it is impossible to use on a phone
@@mattsprojects2047 slow as heck, my phone battery begs for mercy whenever i browse a wikia page
The Company Men is 2010 American drama film, written and directed by John Wells. It features Ben Affleck, Kevin Costner, Chris Cooper and Tommy Lee Jones.
insightful comment
Funny random comment 👍
Did you learn that on Wikipedia?
I realized that a lot of PBS Kids shows are not active anymore, and people like me don't bother watching the one's that are left. Even Sesame Street went from PBS Kids, to HBO. Could you do a rise and fall with it?
Edit: Huh, I didn't know it would be this supported. Thanks for the likes guys!
I second this.
@@concept5631 I third this
And now...a word from us kids!
@@xKarenWalkerx and now!.... Back to arthur!
Arthur is getting its final season and it’s so weird how I think that pbs kids as a station will probably be shut down by 2030
I love Wikipedia, and Wiktionary is an almost daily site for me. I donate if I have the money to, but being a uni student means $20 can make or break rent sometimes, but I think it's important to support the things you use every day
I've never donated more than $3 at a time, but I do so frequently.
@@mirzaahmed6589 anything is better than nothing. I'd like to support more creators on Patreon, but I can't afford to pledge every channel, so I have Premium which at least does something more than ad revenue
Wikipedia challenge. Try to find 2 wiki articles. Start with the one you want to start with and go through the many articles to get to the one you want to go. Example, NASA to Minecraft. Good luck making it there.
Thanks, will saved that for later.
Can you do a video about Mojang, or maybe just the rise, the fall and the rise again of Minecraft?
A lot of videos like that have already been made so i dont know if hell actually do that
Find an article that starts with “A” and see how far down the alphabet you can get.
Check John Swan on that.
Some of the behind the scenes Wikipedia articles are quite interesting. I particularly recommend Wikipedia:Village stocks, a collection of amusing blunders throughout the history of Wikipedia -- e.g. deleting the Main Page, or blocking Jimmy Wales.
Decline of "Encarta"? Or AskJeeves
I haven't heard that word in YEARS
Woah, Encarta!!! My god the memories...😭😭
Those MSN days, for the folks who hated AOL
Encarta is my encyclopedia during my childhood
I remember getting a CD-ROM with a laptop I bought back in 1999 that had Encarta on it. Compared to the 20+ volume paper encyclopedia I had on my bookshelf it was incredibly brief and limited. Had some good articles on there and some interesting multimedia stuff like interactive charts and short films to demonstrate scientific concepts, but not nearly enough information overall. It felt more like a demo of a future product rather than a complete product itself, and I don't recall them ever releasing a more complete 20+ CD set.
I actually donated to Wikipedia just today! I figured I use the site so much, I ought to donate.
My high school librarians taught us to use Wikipedia articles as a starting point, and go through the sources listed for better information. It definitely helped with research!
Teachers: don't use Wikipedia it's all false information
Students: then what should we use?
Teachers: *shrugs*
use a database that our school paid for that does the exact same thing
I-
@@the.abhiram.r we all pay for wikipedia, brother...
Use the primary sources listed in the references section of the wiki page.
@Gods Bloody Hammer Shut up please. Not only are you wrong, you don't deserve internet access.
The key to using Wikipedia as a source is their source list. It's actually a wonderful way to find relevant material. You read through Wikipedia and find some useful information, click on the footnote, access the source and reference it from there.
When are we getting the Wikipedia page for company man?
You can start one. With nearly a million subscribers, he should be considered notable enough for inclusion (I've seen RUclipsrs with fewer subs that have Wikipedia pages).
Mirza Ahmed yes we mus
@@mirzaahmed6589 the rule for the youtuber are very bad. (accepted if it have change in the last year)
the number of subscribers, or view, is not take in count to measure the notoriety of a RUclipsr.
the English Wikipedia is a bit lax about it, and will tolerate the very high number of suscriber.
but the french, no. whatever is the number of subscriber, if there is not "2 articles in newspaper of national scale at least 2 years apart", the article will be delete. (there is some other possible rule to make an article admissible
, but not things that are likely to concerne a youtuber)
(and generally, the newspaper don't car about the youtuber, so it is very hard to a youtuber to be admissible)
@@paulamblard3836 The English Wikipedia once had similar rules, I know that. They were adamant that they would not turn into an internet directory. I don't know what more recent rules say, or how moderators react to articles about RUclipsrs these days. But personally, I'm just happy to retain the notion that "the real world" isn't entirely online.
as a wikipedia editor, probably not for another 5-6 years.
I haven't donated to Wikipedia, but I have made a few thousand edits over several years (which in a way is also a donation). While I definitely think that Wikipedia is an important service to share information freely on the Internet, what worries me is how often people, companies, or organizations pay to have professional editors write up or polish their Wikipedia pages, often with biased and misleading information. Now that Wikipedia has most of the articles that one might expect to find on it, it's very important to ensure the platform isn't used as a means of propagating false information, especially when it is intentionally misleading or defamatory. Since Wikipedia has a budget surplus every year and the article count rate growth has slowed down, if people want to help Wikipedia and have spare time, I think that submitting a few constructive edits a month, or just whenever there's an obvious error, is more important than donating a few dollars.
In high school we would have wiki races. A third party would pick an article as the destination using the random function. The competitors would then pick their starting points using the random function and see who could get to the destination article first. Speaks to how ridiculously large and interconnected Wikipedia is
Ah, company man video+cup of coffee+a warm poptart= lovely morning
The last time I came this quickly Moto Moto hadn’t even broke the surface yet.
Bro, I have been using Wikipedia to binge on its articles since second grade, in fact, it's one of the reasons why I want to become a linguist because of how accessible it made the knowledge to me. Nowadays, I use it daily out of thirst for knowledge, spreading anthropology, linguistics, several branches of maths, physics and sometimes computer science. Often, I go down super large rabbit holes that span days of reading, and quite possibly a good portion of RAM being used to hold on to all the open tabs; hell, sometimes I end up in a radically different place from where I started! I've been logging my progress with bookmarks and watch laters. I would never want the free encyclopedia to go down, so I donate to it and buy something from it as a token of my appreciation.
Teachers: Don't believe Wikipedia.
Wikipedia: We aren't reliable.
Teacher: Wait what?
I’m easily pleased. I see a Company Man video. I click like.
YOO IT'S WEDNESDAY I FORGOT! Love how professional the videos are, keep it up!
I use it a lot nowadays. Never as an official source for my history works, but for a day to day read it is amazing.
Sources have improved a lot and so does editing (more control now).
“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.” - Michael Scott
mike does a fantastic job researching and filtering research for this channel. compared to other youtube channels, companyman is head and shoulders above even other channels with sponsors. i try to watch every video from this channel which even holds a little interest in some way for me. the information is high quality and concise
Wikipedia is one of the most heavily moderated resources out there. It's really, really hard to deliberately lie in Wikipedia and have it stay.
@Tell It to My Heart found the LTA
@Tell It to My Heart no.
@Tell It to My Heart Example of such a page?
@Tell It to My Heart TBF, unless the cops knew about Floyd's criminal record and were reacting to it, that's irrelevant information.
But it's really, really easy to put biased, outdated, or otherwise inaccurate information there with hardly anyone batting an eye. I know because I've seen it personally.
Your videos are so good love seeing them. I like knowing about the working of companies. I watch all the ads keep up the great content
Wikipedia: The reason we know Ctrl A, Ctrl C, Ctrl V...
You can Ctrl V that again
Command for Mac users.
*Nope, I knew **_all_** these commands before Wiki, younging...*
I have donated in the past, and I likely will in the future. I believe that they are the single best source for students. This is because even if you can't cite them directly, the sources the volunteers provide at the bottom of the page are a huge advantage to any student not well versed in finding academic papers.
It is truely a wonderful site. It got me through a lot of my college papers and projects. Bless you Jimmy and team! Y'all saved my ass constantly!
I am a computer science/computer engineering researcher. I use Wikipedia pretty much a couple times every day for my research and for the random things that enter my mind. I do have a $5/month donation plan. I am writing my first Wikipedia page--you can't appreciate the fine internal infrastructure until you write a (non-trivial) page.
what is the page you were working on?
@@esteban4284 "Time-Utility Functions" (plus a comment about it on my Talk page, which is very easy to write compared to even a simple page like my TUF page). I have had to pause writing it but will be back soon. Writing Wikipedia pages is sort of akin to learning TeX (LOL).
I do absolutely love the stock footage you use in your videos. Just random clips of people yelling at each other while pointing to various papers, very funny imo
Students: Uses Wikipedia
Teachers: Wait, that's illegal
I've donated to Wikipedia exactly once. I think if you have the means to support something that you feel passionate about and something that has helped you then it's definitely not a bad thing to show some support too. Wikipedia has helped us all and we're lucky to have it.
I absolutely love wikis, and I’ve donated to Wikimedia on several occasions, and even edited some. I spend all my editing time on Wookieepedia now, though, and the amount of passion and dedication I see for making sure articles are of the highest quality makes me proud of the work we do.
Hey, well done to you for explaining non-profit accounting in terms that most everyone can understand. Most people get frustrated when they hear a non-profit made more than they spent; I thought you handled that well.
I love to edit on Wikipedia. It’s always so fun when you find a reference to replace a citation needed.
Thanks for posting Mike. Very good video 👍
Glad you enjoyed it
I like how teachers say use more reliable source like encyclopedia. Most of wikis information came from them.
This was great! Nice work!
I love Wikipedia and I use it all the time! This was a very interesting episode and it was great to watch!
I love Wikipedia, that’s my first go to for learning also reading things in different languages the same article like looking up Armenia in Portuguese shows the European and Brazilian spelling versions. I believe when someone makes a wiki article on you, you’ve made it into the world somehow.
I said Wikipedia to my teacher and she looked at me like a evil anime character look down on me
I have a very passing interest in business, yet I watch all of your videos. Thanks for the entertaining dumbed-down explainations!
company man: "We've all used Wikipedia"
Me: *COUGH* to cheat *COUGH*
Cheat on what?
i remember being in middle school and always google translating an article from another language and changing up the wording a bit
Over the years, I have donated repeatedly (even having a recurring monthly donation). And the reason why is because I use this site extensively. My first place I go any time I learn something on a new topic or subtopic, I go straight to Wikipedia. So it only seems fair that I donate to it, to help keep them running and available :D
When I worked at a grocery store one of my customers was a volunteer for the German Wikipedia. He told me verbatim "don't bother donating, they have more money than they know what to do with"
I donate to Wikipedia because i use it so much and it had granted me with knowledge and A way to structure many essays . For uni its the first place i visit when doing an assignment for base reference and the reference page Has really helped me
Wikipedia would be the richest company on earth if I donated $4 everytime they ask me to
I've actually donated and edited some articles specific for my community and language since they were not yet translated. I really appreciate the mission of wikipedia to have almost everything we know available to learn for Free!
People: Wikipedia
Me, a man of culture: Wookieepedia
bulbapedia
This site must've been a blessing for students who had school reports for class that needed to be done.
Were you too old when it came out to use?
Schools: Wikipedia is an unreliable source!
The thousands of fact checkers of Wikipedia: Am I a joke to you?
Cunningham's law
Despite the “fact checking” Wikipedia is horribly unreliable especially beyond the popular articles
Yes, yes they are
Like the entire Scottish Wikipedia derail by one teenage furry shitposter from the US who doesn't even speak Scottish?
In fact, Wikipedia editors will be the first to tell you you shouldn't take it as a reliable source.
I've donated a handful of times. I don't use wikipedia as much anymore, but I still feel at least somewhat indebted to them for being the powerhouse to my middle school-college career. At that time teachers were constantly telling us that if we copied wikipedia, they have algorithms to detect it and it would result in an immediate fail. Especially in college. I'm quite happy they revealed that detail, because they gave me the formula for an easy cheat. Do 90% of your research on wikipedia, then when you have to make a statement on something, simply rearrange keywords with synonyms stylistically chosen to fit your own dialect, and slightly paraphrase whatever statement you're trying to use. Throw in the recommended source material as a reference and you're done. Thanks for saving me hours wikipedia, you the best, dawg.
_,,You fairy... you _*_COMPANY MAN!!!"_*
(Al Pacino, Glengarry Glen Ross, 1992)
COFFEE IS FOR CLOSERS!!!!!!!
@@Raskolnikov70 I know it's from a different movie, but also coffee and from Pacino:
_"I had k'hoaffee with McCauley... _*_HALF AN HOUR AGO!!!"_*
(Heat, 1995)
I am a wikipedia donor. The reason I donate is because I use Wikipedia as the starting point for my research. My hobby is writing superhero sci-fi fantasy books. So I'm often in need of a quick resource to get me started on my research. When I had to find out the hierarchy of the NYPD, wikipedia was the first place to look to get me started. From there I found other resources and eventually found the information I needed through the NYPD website.
Considering they are dependent on donations, it really doesn't hurt me to spend 3 or 5 dollars to help keep them afloat. I think it's a great resource and it's one I have no qualms funding.
Got his bachelors then his masters , not sure if that's quitting school. lol
Thanks for making this video!
It's answering some questions I've had!
Also Wikipedia can be reliable on moderated articles that have the lock on the edit button so you can tell if an article is reliable
They’re not. They are moderated pretty frequently for inaccurate info/sources. And they can only be edited by approved users. I only know this bc I’m a bit of a Wikipedia nerd.
Chris Schmelter lol
I work in the nonprofit sector, so imagine my surprise after binge watching your videos about for-profit companies, that you turned your attention to an NPO! I was biting my nails because, oh boy, lots of folks do not understand how nonprofits are very similar and very different from regular companies, but you do an excellent job. Two thoughts: 1) Folks often give the Overhead Ratio an outsized weight as a metric of performance. (75/25% split program/admin is pretty healthy) 2) Temporarily Restricted Net Assets are a PAIN in the REAR. It mostly has to do with a donor or funder saying "I'm giving you a lump sum now but I want to you to split it and spend half this year and spend the other half next year."
I trust wikipedia because it's really hard to edit articles. they're meticulous at fact checking thh
Yeah, when something wrong happens someone usually fixes it pretty quickly, it's a lot more reliable than people may think, and most of the time if you really can't use it, you can use one of the many sources for most purposes
Uh, no they're not.. Just two days ago I saw an article on the film Carmen Jones, which said that it was released after 20th Century Fox switched to Cinemascope and Technicolor as their main production format. But in reality, Fox switched to Deluxe Color after about a year of Cinemascope, and Carmen Jones was likewise made in Deluxe instead of Technicolor (the poster on the Wikipedia page even said so.)
In another spot, Lindsey Graham is categorized as an Armenian genocide denier simply because he voted against the Congressional resolution last year recognizing it. But this doesn't necessarily prove he's an Armenian genocide denier; he was against the resolution mostly to avoid provoking the Turkish government, not because he personally denies the genocide.
I could go on and on with examples of errors I've found on Wikipedia, but these are two of the most egregious examples.
@@hotwax9376 If you find what you know to be an error on Wikipedia, please fulfill your obligation to change the article and bring it up in the talk page
@@hotwax9376 wtf are you blabbering about? There's no such thing in either of pages? If there was, it is edited now. Also, this is word to word copied about what is written on Lindsey Graham page.
In November 2019, Graham blocked a Senate resolution to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. In doing so, Graham justified himself by claiming that the Senate should not "try to rewrite [history]" [180]
@@hotwax9376 So how about you go "on and on" about more examples of Wikipedia's fairness. Just accept the fact that even if there is a problem,it gets edited out pretty quickly so most people don't see it. And don't you goddamn start about how it was up for 100 days when you saw it or more of your lies.
I donate every year. It is hard to understate the huge educational achievement it is that people the world over have at their fingertips the ability to look up virtually any topic and find reasonably accurate information about said topic. It's the only thing i donate to really.
some guys still don't understand you shouldn't use the parts that say "citation needed". everything else is fine.
I donate to Wikipedia because I use it regularly. I don't make an outright purchase for it, and I am not really fed ads in exchange, so this is how I support something I value. Which reminds me...I should probably donate to your Patreon as well.
I just go to wikipedia to have a quick look about something and end up all over the place.
Origins of flour: Cereal flour is the the main ingredient of bread. Corn flour is important to Mesoamerican cuisine > Mesoamerica: is a region that extends from Central Mexico, Belize.. Wooh, Belize ☺️
I want to mention my chill 7th grade social studies teacher lived Wikipedia and even allowed us to use it as a source as long as we had other sources.
As long as any money i eventually donate goes directly to helping me quickly win arguments i dont care
The other wikis are very underrated. Wiktionary has more detail than other online dictionaries (and modern slang like Urban). Wikivoyage is like a wiki for Lonely Planet or Tripadvisor (not to be confused with Wikitravel which is commercial). Wikibooks has good textbooks (the articles at the pedia are sometimes too short to learn about something).
Almost at a million subs! Maybe for your gift in a week you'll hit the mark
You should make a video on the success of TJ-Maxx/Marshall’s! I’m really curious to why they’re so successful, and why they are so much more profitable than their competitors (Ross, etc).