Top 50 Wikipedia Quotes

Here we have the best Wikipedia Quotes from famous authors such as Lee Mack, James Gleick, Joichi Ito, Newt Gingrich, Gylfi Sigurdsson. Find the perfect quotation from our collection.

I use Wikipedia and eBay; I look for singles for my 195
I use Wikipedia and eBay; I look for singles for my 1950s jukebox.

It’s fair to say that Wikipedia has spent far more time considering the philosophical ramifications of categorization than Aristotle and Kant ever did.

Think about it. If it’s taking pictures, it’s not a cellphone. If it has a McDonald‘s app to tell you where McDonald’s is based on your GPS location, that’s not a cellphone. If you can get Wikipedia or go to Google, that’s not a cellphone.

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

I’m loath to use my personal life to promote what I do, but at the same time, I don’t like a journalist going away with no more than you could get off Wikipedia, where most of it’s invented anyway.

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.

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

Tom Hulce
I’ve been reading a lot of books on history, and watching a lot of educational TV. Wikipedia too, even though it is not reliable.

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.

Wikipedia is so dangerous.

Lois McMaster Bujold
I’m under stress. They killed me on wikipedia. They killed me. And I didn’t stay dead long enough to sell no DVDs. I didn’t even stay dead long enough – I was too stupid. I should‘ve stayed low. I should’ve laid low. I could’ve been gone for a year; I’d have made money. And then I’d have risen from the dead.

If you think of the ideas of open source applied to information in an encyclopedia, you get to Wikipedia – lots and lots of small contributions that bubble up to something that’s meaningful.

Poor Vogue is working really long hoursshe‘s a ‘model,’ that’s what it says on her Wikipedia or whatever. People just assume she does nothing but she’s super-busy all the time.

If I don’t get a TV show next year because someone looks up my Wikipedia and it says ‘openly gay,’ then it’s worth the risk because I’ve had so many years being openly gay and proud of myself as a role model.

Max von Essen
If you’re reading IMDB, half of it’s made up. You can’t trust it or Wikipedia, which is just lies, lies!

Even if people would know who we are, or you could click on a Wikipedia page saying my date of birth, it does not necessarily mean that I have to go out on social media and tell you where I’m eating.

People take issue with individual aspects of Wikipedia all the time. But it’s kind of hard to hate the general idea of a free encyclopedia. It’s like hating kittens.

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

Wikipedia is a strange thing. Whoever gets there first, you know, they decide. Like the picture: You can’t choose it! You can’t be like, ‘You know, I hate that picture of me doing stand-up from 2005 – that doesn’t exemplify who I am.’ You take it down, and someone puts it back up.

Some guy decided that it would be funny to put that in my Wikipedia entry. He was adamant that ‘Mickey‘ was about Micky Dolenz. I choreographed the ‘Head’ movie but I didn’t really know Micky at all. I knew Davy Jones much better.

Wikipedia is just an incredible thing. It is fact-encirclingly huge, and it is idiosyncratic, careful, messy, funny, shocking and full of simmering controversies – and it is free, and it is fast.

I think it’s important never to look yourself up on Wikipedia. I think the temptation to correct any interesting factual errors would be too much.

In the media age, everybody was famous for 15 minutes. In the Wikipedia age, everybody can be an expert in five minutes. Special bonus: You can edit your own entry to make yourself seem even smarter.

When you look at Yahoo Answers, there can be a lot of garbage. But if you’re careful about the rules and supporting good contributions, over time you can get better and better, like Wikipedia.

Anytime someone basically commissions a piece, I write a song based on something personal to them. I go online and I do research on that person – Wikipedia, YouTube interviews, anywhere I can find a piece of information that kind of tugs at your heart a little bit.

I have always viewed the mission of Wikipedia to be much bigger than just creating a killer website. We’re doing that of course, and having a lot of fun doing it, but a big part of what motivates us is our larger mission to affect the world in a positive way.

TV ushered in the age of postliteracy. And we have gone so far beyond that. I mean, what with the Internet and Google and Wikipedia. We have entered the age of post-intelligence.

It would mean a lot, but it’s weird, because what’s the title? It’s an extra line on your Wikipedia page and a medal that says you won on that particular night. It obviously symbolizes more than that, but those are the things people think about.

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

I’ve consciously avoided actually reading anything about Wikipedia.

It’s things like Wikipedia that help us to advance as a society and help us to accelerate our evolution. If you’re a researcher and you need some answer to something, and in today‘s world you can find it this quickly, it allows you to develop whatever you are doing much faster.

Wikipedia flourished partly because it was a shrine to altruism.

Open-source encyclopedias such as Wikipedia and search engines such as Google and Bing, which people can tap into anytime and anywhere via computers and smart phones, put a world of knowledge at our fingertips at a lower cost than ever before.

Wikipedia gets a lot of things wrong.

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

We always talk about how the first several seasons were faithful to the books, and anybody who wanted to could go onto Wikipedia and learn Ned Stark gets beheaded or about The Red Wedding, and most people don’t want to know – because why ruin a story?

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

There are loads of fan sites for the ‘Edge,’ including deviant art, song lyrics using ‘Edge’ language, multiple entries on Wikipedia, there are even some ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?’ games all about the ‘Edge.’

The Internet has become a remarkable fount of economic and social innovation largely because it’s been an archetypal level playing field, on which even sites with little or no money behind them – blogs, say, or Wikipedia – can become influential.

Real history is far more complex and interesting than the simplistic summaries presented in Wikipedia articles. Knowing this allows you to question received wisdom, to challenge ‘facts’ ‘everybody’ knows to be true, and to imagine worlds and characters worthy of our rich historical heritage and our complex selves.

Wikipedia’s a collaborative experiment akin to Simon Winchester’s account of the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary in ‘The Professor and the Madman,’ which outlines James Murray’s mission to produce the tome in the 19th century.

To continue down the path of comprehensiveness, Wikipedia will need to sustain the astonishing mass fervor of its birth years. Will that be possible? No one knows.

I think I am done with Wikipedia for the time being. But I have a secret hope. Someone recently proposed a Wikimorgue – a bin of broken dreams where all rejects could still be read, as long as they weren’t libelous or otherwise illegal.

Everything‘s wrong on Wikipedia.

I looked up affirmative action once in Wikipedia, and it said, ‘A measure by which white men are discriminated against,’ and I got so mad.

Wikipedia is wrong! I was born in Los Angeles, not New York, but my parents and I would come here a lot, so I feel like a New Yorker.

The Internet gives you access to a lot of material, and it’s fun to sit and read. I go to something like Wikipedia and look at different topics… I find the subject fascinating. I like to read about concepts and mathematicians.

Because everyone in the world has the power to edit, Wikipedia has long been plagued by the so-called edit war. This is like a house where the husband wants it warm and the wife wants it cool and they sneak back and forth adjusting the thermostat at cross purposes.

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