A Quote by Ian Gillan

I've consciously avoided actually reading anything about Wikipedia. — © Ian Gillan
I've consciously avoided actually reading anything about Wikipedia.
I'm actually an optimist about what lies ahead. Are wikis reliable? It depends on the specific business. Is Wikipedia reliable? You bet. Wikipedia is a researcher's dream.
Movies that are consciously life-affirming are to be consciously avoided.
I don't really agree that most academics frown when they hear Wikipedia. Most academics I find quite passionate about the concept of Wikipedia and like it quite a bit. The number of academics who really really don't like Wikipedia is really quite small and we find that they get reported on in the media far out of proportion to the amount they actually exist.
Hell is not a subject to be avoided; it is a place to be avoided. Thinking about Hell is actually a very good idea. It's a good way to keep ourselves out of it.
I don't believe Wikipedia about anything. I don't go there for anything but keywords.
The strange thing with Wikipedia is that the first article that ever gets written about you will define your Wikipedia page forever.
Light reading is not to be avoided but should be used as a conduit to more serious reading.
If you re-read your work, you can find on re-reading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by re-reading and editing.
If it were a choice between putting ads on Wikipedia or shutting down Wikipedia, we would then very reluctantly consider putting ads on Wikipedia.
The reason is that for many years I have avoided reading anything whatsoever that approaches my own line of country, out of a somewhat fanatical desire to avoid the risk of unconscious imitation.
I'm on it pretty much all the time. I edit Wikipedia every day, I'm on Facebook, I'm on Twitter, I'm reading the news. During one of the US elections, I actually went through my computer and I blocked myself from looking at the major newspaper sites and Google News because I wasn't getting any work done.
Now in Wikipedia it's really interesting. If you put something incorrect up on Wikipedia within minutes there are people crawling all over that sentence saying, "This is wrong" or "I want to change this" or "You've got to include an amplification," et cetera. So there's this massive checks and balances that actually makes that accuracy work. This is the kind of model that we - and I'm not sure why no one's discussing this - that we now have to begin to apply to fake news.
I don't think there's anything that I would really baulk at doing on-screen. I don't think so. I've got certain pet peeves about writing... my pet peeve about reading scripts is when they give you a line reading and there'll be a line but next to your character's name it'll say 'very angry'. But I'm like: "Well, I'll decide that actually!" So, there's little things like that. That's a slight pet peeve.
The core community is passionate about quality and getting it right. If you want to read some good criticisms of Wikipedia, probably the best place to go is to the Wikipedia article called 'criticisms of Wikipedia'... It was either the dumbest thing or the smartest thing I ever did. The dumbest thing for the obvious reasons, but the smartest thing because I don't think it could have had nearly as much impact as it has. One of the key things that inspired people to put a lot into it (was the charity aspect).
Wikipedia celebrates its 12th birthday today. Of course, I have no idea if it's true. I read it on Wikipedia.
I love the Wikipedia link chain because it has led me into some strange articles. Wikipedia is one of my favorites.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!