Skip to main content

Wikipedia VS Blogs

I'm not sure if it's right to compare two things of different kinds but how did we know that they are of different kinds if we didn't compare them in the first place?

The thing is blogs sucks! it has many interesting posts and I read many interesting blogs but how worthy is it ? other than the worthness of I read blogs instead of newspapers then it's not worth at all especially those blogs that writes about anything and everything (me?) I admit I learned many tips and tricks thru following technical blogs and learned many stuff while reading about people experience but was it that worthy compared to articles in wikipedia ?

Well, I have been away from blogging for almost one month now with exception of Al faisali game post and I can tell you that I was reading blogs but not as I used to do and I started reading more of Wikipedia's articles and I just was reading a random article about eye contact.

Maybe one shouldn't be very e-social person because social networks and communities traps you sometimes and make you just fool addict to it while one should be addict to something useful like wikipedia or even do what my friend bakkouz been doing, write for wikipedia! yes you can write or translate English articles into Arabic.

anyway, I hope to maintain my current e-readings ratio which is about 1/5, one blog post per five wikipedia's articles, try it, it worth it.

[tags] wikipedia, blogs, readings [/tags]


  1. Nice article mr madi.. and really interesting but where did you learn english? (no offense here) :P

  2. Mazen,
    Public school, any problem ?

  3. comparing blogs to wikipedia is not fair to both

    they are totaly differant

    now sometimes i find good material on wiki but many times i find many many mistakes,historical, can i trust a so called encyclopedia when i know i can edit it myslef?

    i prefere trustworthy sites..

  4. mla2e6, just because you can edit the wiki yourself, doesn't mean that it will stick forever, thats where people are mistaken, there are people who will check the info, and look for sources, many articles get deleted, and articles that are disputed has a warning to identify that this article might not be correct or might lack resources, just because someone adds a piece of information to the wiki doesn't mean it will be taken as granted, trust me, it will go through serious dispute before it will be established as fact, it might take some time but it will happen eventually.

    you see, people don't really still get this, Wikipedia isn't a work of single people who edit stuff without any supervision or control. its a work of the community, and as in any community there are people who have certain jobs and do certain parts. also, people aren't allowed to go loose and wild and add whatever they want to the wiki, its not a jungle, there are many rules and regulations and information goes through processes of verification by many users.

    Now, if you happen to find a piece of information that is incorrect (which may very possibly happen) it only means that it has not been checked yet, as you know the wiki is very large, and you can't expect it to be kept updated and up to standards at each and every minute, there will always be delays, but at the same time you are encouraged to participate yourself and correct the error, there's no need to be registered or anything, if you see something wrong just correct it, its better than complaining about it, don't you think? :)

  5. bakkouz
    thanks for the reply..i am not complaining i am merely saying i don't trust it as a source of if i need an article for instance.i need it now how do i know if it was corrected or not? how do i know if the information provided is reliable? i cant..i know it is a shared work and i am sure it is supervised but after many incidents i stopped trusting it. anyway what you are doing is great and it contribute alot so thanks.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

?????? ?????

?????, ?????, ????? ??? ???? ?????! ?? ????? ??????? ???, ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? , ???? ???? ????? ???????, ????????, ???? ???????, ???? ? ???? ? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????, ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ????? ? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ? ???????? ???? ???????, ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??, ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??????

اهم التطورات العلمية في العام ٢٠١٩

القضاء: لا دليل على أن مقتحمي الكونغرس خططوا لقتل مشرعين

أكد محققو وزارة العدل الأمريكية أنهم لم يجدوا حتى الآن أي دليل على أن أنصار دونالد ترامب الذين هاجموا مبنى الكونغرس الأسبوع الماضي خططوا لاحتجاز مسؤولين منتخبين وقتلهم. يأتي ذلك في الوقت الذي أُوقفت فيه الشرطة، الجمعة، رجلا مسلّحا في واشنطن خلال محاولته عبور إحدى نقاط التفتيش في محيط مبنى الكونغرس حيث ستقام الأربعاء مراسم تنصيب جو بايدن. في ذات الوقت أفادت شبكة NBC الأمريكية، بأن مكتب التحقيقات الفيدرالي يحقق في إمكانية تمويل حكومات أو جماعات اقتحام مبنى الكونغرس. وقالت مصادر للشبكة: "المكتب يحقق في مدفوعات "بيتكوين" بقيمة 500 ألف دولار، يبدو أنه تم تحويلها من قبل مواطن فرنسي، لشخصيات ومجموعات رئيسية يمينية قبل اندلاع أعمال الشغب". وفي جلسة استماع في محكمة أريزونا بشأن اعتقال أحد مثيري الشغب جاكوب تشانسلي الذي يؤمن بنظرية المؤامرة ومن أتباع الحركة اليمينية المتطرفة "كيو-آنون"، تراجع المدعون الفيدراليون عن اتهامات سابقة بأن أنصار ترامب كانوا يخططون "لاحتجاز مسؤولين منتخبين وقتلهم" في هجوم السادس من كانون الثاني/ يناير في واشنطن. ع