(Created page with 'The [http://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia] is a brilliant and compelling success of the new era of the Internet. = Our contributions = We edit infrequently the wikipedia but sel…') |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The [http://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia] is a brilliant and compelling success of the new era of the Internet. | The [http://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia] is a brilliant and compelling success of the new era of the Internet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Fabrice = | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have met it online when it was still marginal and widely unknown. At my earliest encounters, I was fascinated by the concept, but did not believe it would take off (who would have? Even Jimmy Wales seems to have been warry.) I was also confused with other similar projects, like Nupedia (later abandonned) that at this time seemed to hold a stronger status than Wikipedia, or the [[h2g2]] website following from [[Adams]]' insights, but that I could never take seriously. It wasn't obvious Wikipedia was having any lead. I remember lamenting to a friend the lack of support of images, mathematics, etc. Actually, images were already pretty much supported but it was rare to find them in an article. The style was much less polished than today. Really a work in progress... but what progress! | ||
= Our contributions = | = Our contributions = | ||
| − | We edit infrequently the wikipedia | + | We edit infrequently the wikipedia and seldom put notable efforts in its development. We keep annotated records of entries we created or contributed to significantly, see our [[contributions to the Wikipedia]]. |
The Wikipedia is a brilliant and compelling success of the new era of the Internet.
I have met it online when it was still marginal and widely unknown. At my earliest encounters, I was fascinated by the concept, but did not believe it would take off (who would have? Even Jimmy Wales seems to have been warry.) I was also confused with other similar projects, like Nupedia (later abandonned) that at this time seemed to hold a stronger status than Wikipedia, or the h2g2 website following from Adams' insights, but that I could never take seriously. It wasn't obvious Wikipedia was having any lead. I remember lamenting to a friend the lack of support of images, mathematics, etc. Actually, images were already pretty much supported but it was rare to find them in an article. The style was much less polished than today. Really a work in progress... but what progress!
We edit infrequently the wikipedia and seldom put notable efforts in its development. We keep annotated records of entries we created or contributed to significantly, see our contributions to the Wikipedia.