Top 177 Wikipedia Quotes & Sayings

The notion of collective contribution, like the Wikipedia, is a very powerful one.

Wikipedia, eh? Must be accurate then.

I'm quite good at taking in information so I voraciously inhale Wikipedia - which may have some things wrong in it, but I think is generally more information than we had before. Last tour we didn't have Wikipedia. And then Discovery Channel and History Channel. I can take it in and retain what I think are the most important facts.

Wikipedia has a way of compiling compendiums of information on subjects.

Citizendium is based on the failings and unreliability of Wikipedia.

I love the Wikipedia link chain because it has led me into some strange articles. Wikipedia is one of my favorites.

I've consciously avoided actually reading anything about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia took the idea of peer review and applied it to volunteers on a global scale, becoming the most important English reference work in less than 10 years. Yet the cumulative time devoted to creating Wikipedia, something like 100 million hours of human thought, is expended by Americans every weekend, just watching ads.

Wikipedia is the first place I go when I'm looking for knowledge... or when I want to create some.

Most of my work is, I get an idea, and, with the help of Wikipedia, I can write. I don't have to leave my apartment.

When I opened Wikipedia, it had three articles, yet it was called an encyclopedia.

A lot of stuff in Wikipedia is not true, and that goes for a lot of people. I sometimes think, "How can that happen?" But Wikipedia is maintained by people, and everybody can add stuff to it.

I get so sick and tired of Wikipedia. People write their own crap on there.

It turns out a lot of people don't get it. Wikipedia is like rock'n'roll; it's a cultural shift.

I don't think Silicon Valley understands the power of Wikipedia, how it works, or the opportunities it represents.

Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia!

In the world of the Internet, there are many falsehoods. Anyone can write stuff on Wikipedia, and it doesn't have to be true.

I know Wikipedia is very cool. A lot of people do not think so, but of course they are wrong.

I think it's weird that the news cedes so much ground to Wikipedia. That isn't true in other informational sectors.

I did a series in Britain years ago called 'Skins,' and I remember my little sister telling me that I had a Wikipedia page that was talking about me. But then it got deleted because on Wikipedia anyone can write stuff, right? So I think that it got sabotaged. But this is years ago, so it got taken down. I don't think it exists anymore.

Wikipedia represents a belief in the supremacy of reason and goodness of others.

The proselytisers for man-made global warming have long exercised a tight stranglehold over the contents of Wikipedia.

Yeah, but look, who really provided the world's information to everybody on Earth? That was Wikipedia, right? And if you're asking what could we do to make the digital world work for people, the Wikipedia model is great. It's a donation model.

For all its shortcomings, Wikipedia does have strong governance and deliberative mechanisms; anyone who has ever followed discussions on Wikipedia's mailing lists will confirm that its moderators and administrators openly discuss controversial issues on a regular basis.

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.

Wikipedia celebrates its 12th birthday today. Of course, I have no idea if it's true. I read it on Wikipedia.

I use Wikipedia and eBay; I look for singles for my 1950s jukebox.

Everything's wrong on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is so dangerous.

The definition of marriage cannot be disputed. It's right there in black and white and it's been the same since the start of Wikipedia.

A Wikipedia article is a process, not a product.

There are other sources, but Wikipedia is a good start.

The accuracy of Wikipedia can be dodgy in some places, but in maths, it's really quite good.

I'd rather play golf than go on to Wikipedia!

Wikipedia gets a lot of things wrong.

I have heard that my Wikipedia entry is completely incorrect, but then again, so is everyone else's. I haven't bothered about that.

Wikipedia only works in practice. In theory, it's a total disaster.

He found a set of encyclopedias—like Wikipedia, but paper and very bulky.

We talked about the Internet and Wikipedia and how facts and history are being collectively created online.

There's actually a thing called Wikifeet that's the Wikipedia of celebrity girls' feet.

The core of Wikipedia is something people really believe in. That is too valuable for the world to screw it up.

Does anything really matter? We all end up in the same place. All that's left is our Wikipedia entry.

Wikipedia will be small, disreputable, and unimportant compared to CZ in a few more years. Uh, ;-)

The strange thing with Wikipedia is that the first article that ever gets written about you will define your Wikipedia page forever.

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.

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).

If you really want the truth of anything, don't use Wikipedia.

I first met Jimbo Wales, the face of Wikipedia, when he came to speak at Stanford.

I guess there should be somewhere on the Internet that feels like a source of sacred truth. But Wikipedia sure isn't it.

This is a perfect example of the power and ridiculousness of a website like Wikipedia. I did give a slightly contentious graduation speech, where I decided not to be funny as my classmates had hoped, which was why I was chosen. I was not valedictorian, that's for sure. Instead, I talked about the failure to communicate between the administration and the teachers and students. That's what was contentious about it. At some point, somebody wrote about that incident on my Wikipedia page. And then somebody added the bit about me exposing my genitals to the crowd.

Consider this: alms aside, Wikipedia is fueled by competitive pedantry and emo-ness. How great is that?

I dont know how to add things to my own wikipedia page.

Wikipedia flourished partly because it was a shrine to altruism.

Wikipedia is a victory of process over substance.

I do not go on my Wikipedia page. There's just too much weird information on there for me to pick apart.

If it were a choice between putting ads on Wikipedia or shutting down Wikipedia, we would then very reluctantly consider putting ads on Wikipedia.

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.

People go to the movies to have an emotional experience, not to learn information they could look up on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia [...] is the product not of collectivism but of unending argumentation.

Machines and people are both necessary for Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Google, and neither is sufficient on its own.