Dear RG members: If yes, please, why; otherwise, why not? Also, please, feel free to elaborate on it as much as you wish. Any further comments? Thanks so much!
In another respect - dear RG members - notice that in this thread, although your kind answers to the posed question are gratefully appreciated, nonetheless I will not comment on them beyond a polite succinct acknowledgement: so that my opinion regarding the relevant subject matter is not revealed. In doing so, I try to avoid any undesirable potential bias, from my part, that could result in the final statistical outcome of the whole project. Please, I beg you not to regard my attitude as lack of due politeness. Thank you very much!
Background: In 2015, "Wikipedia" won the “Princess of Asturias” Award in their “International Cooperation” category, whose official evaluation guidelines are as follows:
“The Princess of Asturias Award for International Cooperation: aimed at recognizing individual or collective work, in cooperation with another or others, to develop and promote public health, universal education, the protection and defence of the environment, as well as the economic, cultural and social advancement of peoples.”
In the latter regard, the relevant Jury released the following statement in relation with their decision for conferring that award in 2015:
“Figuring among the ten most visited websites in the world, Wikipedia has grown continuously to offer more than 37 million articles in 288 languages, including a number of indigenous languages. The Jury has valued this important example of international, democratic, open and participatory cooperation −to which thousands of people of all nationalities contribute selflessly− that has managed to make universal knowledge available to everyone along similar lines to those achieved by the encyclopedic spirit of the 18th century.”
Further, in connection with the above, you may find useful information in the following links – both in English and Spanish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_of_Asturias_Awards
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premios_Princesa_de_Asturias
“Wikipedia” articles on the “Princess of Asturias” Awards.
http://www.fpa.es/en/princess-of-asturias-awards/
http://www.fpa.es/es/premios-princesa-de-asturias/
The official website of the “Princess of Asturias” Awards.
http://www.fpa.es/en/princess-of-asturias-awards/laureates/2015-wikipedia.html?especifica=0&idCategoria=0&anio=2015&especifica=0
http://www.fpa.es/es/premios-princesa-de-asturias/premiados/2015-wikipedia.html?texto=acta&especifica=0
The official web page of the “Princess of Asturias” Award for “International Cooperation”, 2015.
http://www.fpa.es/en/
http://www.fpa.es/es/
The official website of the “Princess of Asturias” Foundation.
I think Wikipedia is a great quick source of information and easy encyclopedia, and it is open content although it has some weaknesses such as every body is able to collaborate on the writing of an entire website, without any central editorial mechanism necessary . On the whole I am fan of Wikipedia and think it deserves to be admired !
Yes. Even though one might uncomfortable with the accuracy of Wikipedia contents, I would rather like to see them as the window into the topic. It might be a snapshot, distorted or false view on the subject matter, but it's a starting point.
Dear Azharudin,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
I agree with Azharudin,
About numbers, the wikipedia is today the fifth most visited website on the internet, with a value of U$710,111.58/day. The first is google.com (U$12,078,128.24/day), the second is youtube (U$3,858,479.14/day), and the third is facebook (U$1,717,784.77/day).
Dear Pedro Paulo,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. Also, I appreciate it very much your updating on today’s Wikipedia visit ranking.
Best regards, Ángel
Yes, I agree with "Wikipedia" being a deserving recipient of one of the “Princess of Asturias” Awards, from Spain, in 2015. It well satisfies the description of the Award because of being a collective work, in cooperation with many voluntary people world over, to develop and promote universal education, as well as the economic (it is a free encyclopedia) and cultural advancement of peoples.
More informations, as number of unique visitors per day, and other information about any site on the internet can be found at www.hypestat.com.
I hope that it helps you Professor Angel!
Best regards,
Pedro
Yes, I do agree. Its accuracy is questionable but I see many scholars quoting this site even here at RG. This a publication that when it has a misconcept there a thousands od people to fix it. Our papers once published with a mistake seldom someone comes to us to alert us of the problem.
Yes. Wikipedia is a friend who has given us information on virtually all topics. All her products and services cannot be 100% perfect. Yet, she has served us all teachers, researchers, students and so forth with great worth of information that offered an immediate solution to perplexing questions that became standing blocks in our academic journies！
Wikipedia, the mother of information, deserved the award and even deserves an award grandier than this. Best regards.
Yes I agree with the award. The Wikipedia provides numerous information in large number of languages which is open access despite its contents are edited by any of interested person. Service is important sometimes and Wikipedia has served large number of people and helped also.
According to my experience as a Wikipedian since 2006 and regarding this statement:
" ...to develop and promote public health, universal education, the protection and defence of the environment, as well as the economic, cultural and social advancement of peoples..."
I think Wikipedia deserves the award.
Wikipedia deserves this award; I however hopes she sees it as a recognition and a challenge to fix its challenges, inaccuracies by fine-tuning its crowd sourcing strategy to lead to greater integrity and higher value in academic fora. No model survives/confers advantages forever...
Dear Tatsuo,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In addition, your rationale for the rightness of conferring the award on Wikipedia is very much appreciated: in particular, your remark on the economic and cultural advancement of peoples.
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Pedro Paulo,
Many thanks again!, for providing us with the very useful link www.hypestat.com. Certainly, you have helped me a lot!
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Vilemar,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In particular, I find myself your statement, “Our papers once published with a mistake seldom someone comes to us to alert us of the problem.“ to be quite true and worthwhile-considering!
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Barbara and Furqan,
Many thanks!, for your answers to my question: certainly, they will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Zubair,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In particular, your discussion concerned with hoaxes/errors in both the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” and the “English Wikipedia” respectively is very revealing: along with “Nature” statement that, “English Wikipedia inaccuracies are the exception rather than the rule."!. In this regard, since you didn’t explicitly answer my question as formulated, may I assume that you agree with “Wikipedia” being a deserving recipient of the “Princess of Asturias” Award for “International Cooperation”, in 2015?
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Zubair,
Please, could you provide us with the reference to the 2005 “Nature” issue, concluding that the English Wikipedia is a source of information as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Britannica does?
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Dickson,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In this regard, you have shown and weighed up more the pros than the cons associated with Wikipedia, for arriving at your relevant judgement.
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Prabhat,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. Among other beneficial characteristics, you definitely emphasize the social positive impact of Wikipedia on people worldwide.
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Mourad,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Saeid,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. As a seasoned “Wikipedian”, you surely are well aware of the benefits and flaws of the relevant service, so that your judgement on it may presumably be based on experience, well-informed and sound.
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Adewale,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In this regard, I value very much your attempt at being unbiased regarding the relevant award issue, as well as your criticisms on the current “Wikipedia”: indeed, one of the goals of this research is finding practical ways to eradicate/improve known flaws of the latter service.
Best regards, Ángel
Yes I agree
Wikipedia can still improve, still contains many inaccuracies, but it is a great achievement that a large number of writers, researchers and experts from different fields of knowledge contribute to a common good, to create a "Democratic Encyclopedia" written by many in academic and intellectual communion , still not known.
I agree with it.
Wikipedia is, most of the time, the first point of reference for me to get introduced to a topic of interest.
a thesis to ro read on wiki
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/research/phd_theses/phd_theses_2010/rut_jesus/
Although Wikipedia is the largest comprehensive encyclopaedia in which the public is involved, it is not a reliable source. It is not surprising that university professors refuse to mention Wikipedia as a source of research, citing it as quoting a Google search site rather than search results.
Yes, I agree with "Wikipedia" being a deserving recipient of one of the “Princess of Asturias” Awards, from Spain, in 2015
Dear José Luis,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In this regard, I take due notice of your remarking that, despite “Wikipedia” current flaws, it constitutes a great achievement for the common good, as a free "Democratic Encyclopedia".
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Ashis,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In particular, your own acknowledgement of being “Wikipedia”, “the first point of reference … to get introduced to a topic of interest.”
Best regards, Ángel
Dear J.C. Tiago de Oliveira,
Many thanks!, for providing me the link to Rut Jesus’ excellent Thesis: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In this regard, since you didn’t explicitly answer my question as formulated, may I assume that you agree with “Wikipedia” being a deserving recipient of the “Princess of Asturias” Award for “International Cooperation”, in 2015?
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Ali hadi, Maher Ali, Ajit Roy and Wessam,
Many thanks!, for your answers to my question: certainly, they will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Isam,
Many thanks!, for your answer pointing definitely out the current “Wikipedia” reliability flaws: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In this regard, since you didn’t explicitly answer my question as formulated, may I assume that you disagree with “Wikipedia” being a deserving recipient of the “Princess of Asturias” Award for “International Cooperation”, in 2015?
Best regards, Ángel
I don't think Wikipedia is deserving because anyone, not just experts, can contribute to or edit articles without peer review. I can't count the number of times that students have written in papers flat-out false claims. When I mark them down for these claims, I am told by the students, "Well, I got it from Wikipedia!" and, indeed, they did. My response is always, "Wikipedia isn't a legitimate scholarly source, and you're taking a huge risk in relying on its statements as true."
Dear Kirk,
Many thanks!, for your flat-out disagreement on the issue, and answer pointing definitely out the current “Wikipedia” reliability flaws: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research.
Best regards, Ángel
Dear Concha,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. Besides, your rationale for the rightness of conferring the award on Wikipedia is very much appreciated: indeed, you have pondered – in your comprehensive discussion – on both the pros and cons associated with the use of Wikipedia, as things stand today; and, also pointed out several useful, productive and flexible ways of using Wikipedia information, despite its current known flaws. In particular, your specific reference to the modus operandi associated with other traditional, and respected, encyclopedias is surely worth mentioning.
Best regards, Ángel
I regularly donate a little money to Wikipedia to express my gratitude.
Dear Robert,
Many thanks!, for your answer to my question: certainly, it will be very helpful for my intended research. In this regard, since you didn’t explicitly answer my question as formulated, may I assume that you agree with “Wikipedia” being a deserving recipient of the “Princess of Asturias” Award for “International Cooperation”, in 2015?
Best regards, Ángel
Wikipedia can be used as an initial reference resource. At the same time, it is an opportunity for international cooperation. However, Wikipedia cannot be considered as a source for scientific research, since a significant part of the information has no scientific justification.
I think that, because it provides the basic information of interest to anyone in any discipline in the world, although I do not recommend the adoption of its information as documented sources in scientific research.
I think Wikipedia is a great quick source of information and easy encyclopedia, and it is open content although it has some weaknesses such as every body is able to collaborate on the writing of an entire website, without any central editorial mechanism necessary . On the whole I am fan of Wikipedia and think it deserves to be admired !
Wiki is equivalent to digital encyclopedia . So no doubt it is a digital knowledge base but the information should be combined with standard text book or specific
Journal of interest .
As I have already stated , I use it not because I contribute penny-wise ,. I find it useful for understanding the basics too ...
Yes, it deserves the Wikipedia Award because it is a comprehensive encyclopedia that gives ample information on any topic
Greetings
Yes, it deserves, because Wikipedia allowed The information is immense, fast and accurate, although I estimate it to be 88% reliable, because others can easily enter false information.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education