Wikipedia:Introduction (historical)/2
 | Welcome to this sandbox page, a space to experiment with editing.
You can either edit the source code ("Edit source" tab above) or use VisualEditor ("Edit" tab above). Click the "Publish changes" button when finished. You can click "Show preview" to see a preview of your edits, or "Show changes" to see what you have changed. Anyone can edit this page and it is automatically cleared regularly (anything you write will not remain indefinitely). Click here to reset the sandbox. You can access your personal sandbox by clicking here, or using the "Sandbox" link in the top right.Creating an account gives you access to a personal sandbox, among other benefits. Do NOT, under any circumstances, place promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in sandbox pages. Doing so WILL get you blocked from editing. For more info about sandboxes, see Wikipedia:About the sandbox and Help:My sandbox. New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page or our tutorial. Questions? Try the Teahouse! |
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
Encyclopedia Wikipedica-the finest example of what internet was meant to be-a free, unbounded sharing of information.
Alas, poor Sandbox, I knew it well. Shall we now create Wikipedia:Introduction 2 Insanity to complement Wikipedia:Sandbox In-sand-ity?
Weni, widi, wici.......Wiki! Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge... it's here! Wikipedia! Viva Wiki!
And there's a version in Romanian too... with more than 10,000 articles!!
I want to write about everything under and over the sun
This is an important site so we can leave our own mark on the world, even if only for a very short time period.
Don't you think Wikipedia is the ultimate apostle of free knowledge - without bounds, restrictions or limits ?? Probably an ultimate expression of freedom and a poignant, philosophical, albeit slightly utopian, objective.
- But it is not without bounds or restrictions. Especially the political parts of Wikipedia are subject to restrictions. Main restriction being: Stick to the facts.
This is quite an extraordinary concept, phenomenon and community.
Ahh, but is it not also possible to write facts about opinions? For example, it would be an opinion if I were to write that George bush was a moron to try to finish daddy's fight in Iraq. It would, however, be a fact If I were to write that many people think George Bush was a moron and started the war simply to finish daddy's fight. Perhaps it would be better to say stick to things that add value to an article, not just facts.
WIKIPEDIA IS THE BEST !!
Who are the very smart people who sit around writing amazing but very long articles?
I desperately wish I had the time to research and write at that length. Hell, I wish I had the time to read at that length. I wish I had more time for wanking.
Opinions are good, as long as they are represented as such. Facts are good too - you can use them to form opinions.
Go wiki go!
Those persons who paid attention in English class will immediately recognize that an encyclopedia should be written in the third person where possible, thus eliminating "you" and "I" (and "me"). A skilled writer can, nevertheless, hide his opinions within the third person and fool the reader into believing that they are facts.