Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

> Wikipedia is the largest compendium of human knowledge ever assembled, with more than 7 million articles in its English version, the largest and most developed of 343 language projects.

but:

> The collections of the Library of Congress include more than 32 million catalogued books and other print materials in 470 languages; more than 61 million manuscripts; the largest rare book collection in North America ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress#Holdings

To me, "compendium" means a single organized reference, not a collection of many different individual works. More encyclopedia than library.

[citation needed]

Honestly it's the first place I look when I must implement some network protocol.

yup. the amount of times I have looked up how to send an email over raw SMTP for troubleshooting...

Network protocol stuff on Wikipedia has been top notch and my go-to since at least 2010. It really is highly underrated for that. I had to implement a layer 7 protocol on top of UDP back in the day, and it required a lot of understanding/fiddling with UDP and IP packet details to get it working right, and even required some router config (IP fragmentation became a huge problem, gotta love protocols designed by committee D-:)

Leaving out that your comment is opinionated and objectively wrong, pop culture is also knowledge.

> Much of Wikipedia is pop culture, I wouldn’t call that knowledge.

Why?

...And on the contrary, I got deliria from an LLM in a similar area just hours ago.

This probably highlights how human contribution or automated referencing both have a root in the sources, that should be recovered as a focus. Part of the future of the presentation of information should be hyperlinking "to the book pages".

All culture was once pop

It's handy to have a neutral place I can look up books or passages of the Christian Bible so that I have a reference point when talking to people about it

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ exists.

From Merriam Webster:

COMPENDIUM Brief summary of a larger work or of a field of knowledge : abstract

The library is more extensive, but they don't have the same goals. I'd even argue that part of Wikipedia's quality is it's ability to remain small relative to the knowledge it summarises.

Isn't the issue with this is that you would first have to know which bible to use ?

The differences between the translations are generally very minor. There are very few places where there is any significant difference in meaning.

Different things though; "catalogued books and other print materials" is not the same as "compendium of human knowledge". The former is an archive, the latter is an encyclopedia.

You won't find a 1920's copy of a newspaper in Wikipedia, but you will find articles about events from then that link to said newspaper.

Both are super important though, Wikipedia can't exist as it does now without archives (digitized or at the very least referentiable).

Those who object to this comparison might also consider that Stack Overflow hosts about 24 million publicly visible questions. And that's just (in theory) about programming!

Yeah, lots of the weaker parts of Wikipedia relate either to political controversy or things that the editor base doesn't care as much about.