アイドル、あずさのグチ

http://www.ted.com  Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia, the self-organizing, self-correcting, ever-expanding, and thoroughly addictive encyclopedia of the future. In this presentation, he explains how Wikipedia's collaborative system works, and why it succeeds. (Recorded July 2005 in Oxford, UK. Duration: 20:47)

RatchetsNetwork  2008-08-26

NERD!

0cards0  2008-08-16

me too...

darotevideos  2008-08-08

me too ...

1dala  2008-07-03

me too...

prep4md  2008-04-27

Me too! sheesh!

race426  2008-04-21

Politician isn't the right word, but it's the first word that comes to mind..

cuqui1  2008-03-27

I'm getting really tired of the TED intro video.

ddball1  2008-03-04

You don't need an office for office politics. It is all innocent enough. I tried to contribute in areas I knew of, including public information about my family. Some felt I was a shameless self promoter and took it upon themselves to examine anything I posted, removing it on pretexts that were vastly inflated. It is a learning experience, and they were right on some counts. But also frustrating.

NHRHS2010  2008-03-04

Who is opposing you? And why exactly are you being opposed?

ddball1  2008-02-12

I love wiki. I also am very frustrated by it. Sadly, I cannot contribute without being opposed.

TheTatterdemalion2  2007-12-09

So, if Wikipedia is as incredibly biased as you say it is, then it shouldn't be hard for you to show me an article that is blatantly biased or slanderous. Go ahead, show me.

TheTatterdemalion2  2007-12-09

Look, here's a challenge I'll make to you (although I don't know why I bother). You say that there are no anti-Israel articles or Pro-Arab articles on Wikipedia. On this I will agree, as Wikipedia is not supposed to show favor, and is supposed to be neutral. However, I have yet to find a single article that is anti-Arab or, as you would say, "pro-Jewish".

TheTatterdemalion2  2007-12-08

There are no "moderators" on Wikipedia. The reason we have a problem with ethnocentrists and nationalists on Wikipedia is that they don't realize that they themselves are incredibly biased, and therefore assume that everything that is neutral is actually biased in favor of the opposing side.

ehackster  2007-11-22

The answer to that is quite easy my friend: Neutrality.

acidic2007  2007-11-12

I live off of Wikipedia

pigmeo  2007-11-08

this is a project which everybody in the world will take benefit from, is there anything greater than this fact?

gatomas  2007-10-27

I access wikipedia several times a week sometimes several times daily, I accesed the New York Times website about 1 or 2 years ago. wikipedia is great, congratulations Jimmy.

019812424  2007-10-22

I love wikipedia

olywood9  2007-06-19

It works because the vast vast majority of people that edit and create pages and dedicated enthusiasts. Its a modern marvel of human coperation really :)

olywood9  2007-06-19

I think internet self-governing is brilliant and very encouraging. Justlook on any internet forum, its more than likely they will adopt a democractic model, and really noone is forcing them to do so.

MidgardEagle  2007-05-14

I don't understand HOW it can work, but it does.

Israelbeach  2007-05-04

Wikipedia = libel and slander.

606950  2007-04-26

People say, "Wikipedia is un-reliable because anyone can edit it". Well, you just proved my point. If someone can change something to make it in-accurate, then some one can change it back just as easily (actually even more easily, that's how the software was developed). It works.

thewikicaster  2007-04-13

I love Jimbo! Great speech! In fact, if anybody is interested, I have the only Wikipedia Article of the Day channel on the internet here, and if you like Wikipedia you'd probably like my channel.

Mindraker1  2007-04-03

Nice BMW commercial, poor out-of-sync talk.